Research tagged with "Productivity"

Many organizations are stuck in a vicious cycle, ping-ponging between being either too command-and-control or too hands-off. That's because there are two types of performance, and unless they are properly managed, increasing one typically destroys the other. Research, including a study by Harvard Business School professor Ethan S. Bernstein, shows that employees often improve performance when not strictly monitored, as they feel freer to innovate. Overemphasis on tactical performance can stifle adaptive performance, leading to robotic customer interactions and reduced problem-solving capabilities. To balance both types of performance, organizations should reduce pressure on strict adherence to processes, encourage experimentation, and implement metrics that promote learning rather than just meeting targets. This balanced approach can enhance overall performance, adaptability, and employee motivation, as demonstrated in a case study of a bank’s call center where operational changes led to significant performance improvements.

In the spirit of becoming more adaptive, organizations have rushed to implement Agile software development. But many have done so in a way that actually makes them less agile. These companies have become agile in name only, as the process they’ve put in place often ends up hurting engineering motivation and productivity. Common pitfalls include overemphasis on documentation, lack of strategic planning, and poor cross-functional collaboration. To truly benefit from Agile, teams should adopt a no-handoff, collaborative approach, focus on minimally viable experiments, maintain customer-centric processes, use timeboxes to guide experimentation, and constantly question and adapt their processes. This balanced approach can enhance motivation and performance, making organizations genuinely agile.