Five Pitfalls of Measuring Workplace Productivity

Originally published on HRZone

‘I had such an unproductive day at work today’ is always equated with a bad day.

It’s also become ammunition in the fiery debate about whether people are more productive at home or in the office. Most people have an opinion on where they work best, and where everyone else should be working, too. 

With the objective of measuring productivity, 80% of companies are monitoring employees. But are the parameters of this debate all wrong? How can we quantify productivity, and should organisations measure it? 

In this article, we’ll cover five pitfalls of measuring workplace productivity, the science behind it and what to do instead. 

Pitfall 1: Productivity metrics are outdated, and measuring them damages performance 

A quick Google of the definition of productivity reveals that it’s mostly focused on outputs. For example, the number of calls completed or the number of items built. 

That hasn’t kept pace with what good performance actually means for an organisation in 2025. This tends to be innovative ideas, or doing the same thing as competitors in a far more sustainable way. In today’s reality of knowledge work, productivity metrics just haven’t kept pace. 

Making productivity metrics the target also damages organisational performance. This has been an observed phenomenon for hundreds of years. Goodhart’s Law states that ‘when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure’. That’s because when employees are rewarded for hitting a number, they’ll find ways to manipulate hitting that number. 

Enter behaviours that we’d describe as malicious compliance. 

The result is the antithesis of what most organisations want. Numbers go up, but quality and job fulfilment go down. 

What to do instead

Work with each team to map out:

• What success looks like
• Which metrics work best as diagnostic tools to understand progress

Pitfall 2: Measuring productivity might boost performance in the short term, but it’s damaging in the long term. 

Consider employees who know their productivity is being monitored and are concerned about the repercussions of falling short. They will likely put in a huge amount of effort that’s unsustainable in the longer term. 

People behave differently when they’re aware of being monitored. This is why you’re more likely to give the answer you think the asker wants to hear on a survey, not what you actually think. 

This is known as the Hawthorne Effect or Observer Bias. When applied to measuring workplace productivity, it means that employees might do an exceptional job of appearing productive over the first few days, weeks or months. But this level of inauthenticity isn’t sustainable and leads to burnout. It also provides inaccurate numbers for future planning. 

For example, a company issues a five day per week in-office mandate because ‘people are more productive in the office.’ People reluctantly come in full-time for the first few months because they know they’ll get a stern talking to if they don’t. But longer term, they find ways to game the system, like coffee badging.

Believing that everyone’s in the office full-time, the company spends millions on a new building, but then discovers six months later that most of the space is empty. 

What to do instead

Recognise that real productivity comes from autonomy and engagement, not monitoring. Build a workplace culture based on trust. 

Pitfall 3: Measuring productivity runs contrary to human motivation and damages wellbeing. 

Ask five people what motivates them and you’ll get five different answers. But it’s pretty likely that ‘hitting my productivity numbers’ isn’t going to be one of them. 

Self-determination theory stipulates that optimal performance and wellbeing relies on the fulfilment of three psychological needs: competence, autonomy and connection with others. 

The levels of monitoring needed to measure productivity give people the impression that they’re not competent enough on their own, and the leadership team does not trust them. This isn’t a conducive environment for wanting to connect with others and leads to increased anxiety and stress. 

What to do instead

Help employees feel better, perform better and feel more productive by providing:

• Self-development opportunities
• Autonomy to make decisions
• Physical spaces for genuine connection

Pitfall 4: Over-prioritising productivity upsets the balance of social and technical systems that enhance performance

How do the best organisations function and manage change? 

Socio-technical theory is one possible explanation. It posits that effective and lasting change requires attention to the social and technical systems of an organisation simultaneously. Professor Steven H. Appelbaum states this is because “the social and technical elements must work together to accomplish tasks, work systems produce both physical products and social/psychological outcomes.”

Measuring productivity is far too focused on the technical parts of an organisation (e.g. monitoring metrics and employee tasks), and not enough attention is given to the social systems. This approach will ultimately fail, while also damaging organisational performance and workplace culture. 

What to do instead

Articulate what you’re actually trying to achieve by improving productivity (e.g. cost reduction, innovation). Next, map out the social systems (culture, workplace collaboration) and technical tools (AI, communication platforms) that support that 

Pitfall 5: Measuring productivity damages psychological safety

Psychologically safe workplaces encourage healthy disagreements, sharing ideas and speaking up when you feel something is off. Organisations that have fostered a psychologically safe environment are usually the ones that differentiate themselves from competitors. 

But measuring productivity can make people less willing to take risks, experiment or share new ideas, because doing so would mean shifting focus away from achieving productivity numbers and targets. 

What to do instead

Recognise that better organisational performance comes from ideas, knowledge sharing and willingness to take risks. This means prioritising psychological safety over productivity metrics that punish experimentation and innovation. 

What should your workplace focus on if it’s not improving productivity? 

It turns out that managers have a far greater impact on productivity levels than work location.

We dive into why this is and how workplaces can harness it to their advantage with organisational psychologist Craig Knight in the Workplace Visionaries podcast. Watch and listen to the full episode on YouTube, Spotify and Apple Podcasts.