I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but HBR seems to push agenda-laden ideologies under the veneer of "science" or "business experience", which really do not map onto what most people experience. As a general source, I almost never trust HBR.
Any sort of business publication or book will be the same way. That's just the nature of something as difficult or nearly impossible to quantify as business "success" - it's hard to tell what's luck, what's skill, what's skill disguised as luck, and what's luck disguised as skill. Best to take everything with a grain of salt, be on the lookout for those all too common fun "counterintuitive" findings (procrastination is good!) That make for good titles, etc.
I always thought it was not so much that it's incredibly difficult or impossible to quantify, but more "Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know".
The main issue with productivity, at least how we measure it for ourselves, is that we underestimate our long-term productivity, and overestimate short-term, which is often a reason for disappointment.
I like the exercise the author lays out, but the rest is the worst of pop psychology. Even if it’s true you are only truly focused for 6 hours a week on average, that doesn’t mean you are only productive for 6 hours a week.
I understand the dissent in these comments but I also have prospered by ensuring slack is mostly always present. It is effective self care but also forces you to really prioritize and make hard calls rather than letting circumstance make them for you. To do that you have to identify what you really care about and let go of the rest and that really changes everything.
Consider the feelings around: oh sh*t, I have to accomplish more while doing less? It really forces cutting the noise, being effective, and appreciating what you really love.
The main issue with "productivity" is that the term is often misunderstood and misused. Productivity is a measure of output. If you are working in a factory making widgets you want high productivity. If you are doing creative/knowledge work you don't want people writing more lines of code or creating more screens in an App, you want less! If I can achieve the same result with fewer user interactions and fewer lines of code that's better UX! So measuring a creative worker's output as "productivity" is actually misleading, instead we should be measuring the effectiveness of the person. i.e. are they achieving their OKRs with focus? A software engineer should not be measured on lines of code or number of functions created this is a perverse incentive. Instead they should be measured on how well their code meets the needs of the user. This can still be a quantitative measure because we still have engagement/conversion rates in our apps. Lose the word "productivity" when describing what you do as a creative/tech worker it's a red herring.
I am a native speaker and don’t really know what Thought Leadership is meant to be, but any time I see something under that banner it seems to be management consultants talking about solutions they’ve never actually implemented.
