Advertising
Advertising

Don’t Buy a Gadget, Change a Habit (or Putting the “P” in PDA Productivity)

Don’t Buy a Gadget, Change a Habit (or Putting the “P” in PDA Productivity)

istock_000000868020xsmall

    A few months ago as I was travelling through LaGuardia airport, I caught site of a fellow traveller with his two hands clicking away on his Blackberry. What looked a bit different was the fact that both his hands were above his head, clicking away on the keyboard as he stared upwards at the device. What was truly bizarre was the fact that he was using the urinal in the men’s room at the same time… “multi-tasking.”

    Apart from the health and hygiene considerations that make most of us cringe (I figure that his hands had to touch his PDA and some other “P’s” before leaving the men’s room,) he probably was not a surgeon saving a life or a spy planning his escape to Paris, one step ahead of the mysterious guys in black coats.

    Instead, he was probably trying to save his skin because Morrison in Finance was trying to weasel his way in with the guys in corporate, taking advantage of an absence from the office. Only a well- timed email would thwart that devious strategy.

    Advertising

    In other words, there was probably no life-threatening emergency at hand, and instead, our PDA-wielding professional was doing what lots of us do — use new technology to ruin our productivity.

    In the case of multi-tasking, it’s well known that higher productivity comes at the moments when professionals are able to accomplish that elusive state of complete focus described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his book Flow. According to the author, these are the times when professionals find themselves at their highest points of creativity.

    He also has found that it takes some 20 minutes to enter this focused mode, and another 20 or so minutes to re-enter it once it’s broken. The professional who checks email every 15 minutes throughout the day is never able to function at anything other than a low state. Neither is the guy who answers his cell phone whenever it rings, and continually checks it for text and voicemail messages.

    The one who spends an entire meeting checking email also does some damage, as does the person who reads their email and Tweets his buddies while you are talking with them on the phone.

    Advertising

    In other words, their bad habits ruin their chances of being productive, and the latest technology only makes it easier for them to include others in the destruction.

    I worked with a telecom company once in the late 1990’s in which everyone had a cell-phone. That was not a problem by itself.

    Unfortunately, their executives developed a bad habit of answering the device whenever it rang, regardless of what else was happening around them.

    This meant that in any meeting, anyone could disappear into their cell-phones, even if they happened to be speaking. They’d simply stop in mid-sentence and answer their phone… without knowing who was calling.

    Advertising

    The effect when they returned was predictable — “What was I saying again?” As a result, meetings would drag, taking twice as long as they required.

    When it comes to personal productivity, new technology is useful when it’s complemented by sound individual habits. In their absence, technology does create a few things that masquerade as higher productivity. The fact is, you’re not more productive because you can: 1. Listen to music on your iPhone instead of your iPod. 2. Take pictures of your friends with your smartphone instead of your camera 3. Read junk mail on the beach during your vacation in the Bahamas, instead of at work 4. Send email at odd moments in airport rest-rooms, under the guise of “multi-tasking”

    You might be happier in some strange way (I guess it depends on who is on the receiving end of the email sent at that odd moment) but poor habits are only made worse with the best, well- intentioned technology.

    I have a feeling that the creators of the Blackberry weren’t thinking to themselves “Let’s distract people so much, that they end up in fatal crashes that provide the punch-line for feature films.” (My apologies to you if you haven’t seen a very popular, recent flick starring Will Smith.)

    Advertising

    What’s strange to me is that after spending a few hours searching, the only smartphone training I can find on the internet has to do with learning how to use advanced features such as Bluetooth.

    There is very little to help professionals to develop the habits that can take advantage of these new tools, and actually improve their productivity, rather than destroy it. They are on their own to find ways to invent time management systems that use the right blend of habits and technology that fit their individual circumstances. Checking Blackberry messages at 11pm each night might be a habit that works for you, while all it does for me is earn me the silent treatment of my spouse.

    Instead, I need to be savvy about the habit-technology blend I employ, and to understand how to craft solutions that meet my daily needs. For most of us, these include being more productive, staying out of trouble and un-learning strange habits we are starting to employ at odd moments.

    More by this author

    Francis Wade

    Author, Management Consultant

    How To Manage A Post-College Productivity Dip Why You Need to Understand and Accept Your Productive Type A Tendencies The New Lifehacking #7 – Why You Should Be Open to New Stuff, But Wary About Using It The New LifeHacking #6 – Staying Away from Harmful Gadgets The New Lifehacking #5 – Tricking Yourself into Making the Changes You Need

    Trending in Productivity

    1The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It? 210 Best Time Management Books Recommended By Entrepreneurs 3What Is Procrastination (And the Complete Guide to Stop Procrastinating) 46 Simple Steps to Make Progress Towards Achieving Goals 5Secrets to Organizing Thoughts and Ideas (So You’ll Never Lose Ideas!)

    Read Next

    Advertising
    Advertising

    The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

    The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

    It’s a depressing adage we’ve all heard time and time again: An increase in technology does not necessarily translate to an increase in productivity.

    Put another way by Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics,

    “You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

    In other words, just because our computers are getting faster, that doesn’t mean that that we will have an equivalent leap in productivity. In fact, the opposite may be true!

    New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008 that stated, “Statistical and anecdotal evidence mounts that the same technology tools that have led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.”

    There’s a strange paradox when it comes to productivity. Rather than an exponential curve, our productivity will eventually reach a plateau, even with advances in technology.

    Advertising

    So what does that mean for our personal levels of productivity? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here’s what you should know about the productivity paradox, its causes, and what possible solutions we may have to combat it.

    What is the productivity paradox?

    There is a discrepancy between the investment in IT growth and the national level of productivity and productive output. The term “productivity paradox” became popularized after being used in the title of a 1993 paper by MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business.

    In his paper, Brynjolfsson argued that while there doesn’t seem to be a direct, measurable correlation between improvements in IT and improvements in output, this might be more of a reflection on how productive output is measured and tracked.[1]

    He wrote in his conclusion:

    “Intangibles such as better responsiveness to customers and increased coordination with suppliers do not always increase the amount or even intrinsic quality of output, but they do help make sure it arrives at the right time, at the right place, with the right attributes for each customer.

    Just as managers look beyond “productivity” for some of the benefits of IT, so must researchers be prepared to look beyond conventional productivity measurement techniques.”

    How do we measure productivity anyway?

    And this brings up a good point. How exactly is productivity measured?

    In the case of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gain is measured as the percentage change in gross domestic product per hour of labor.

    But other publications such as US Today, argue that this is not the best way to track productivity, and instead use something called Total Factor Productivity (TFP). According to US Today, TFP “examines revenue per employee after subtracting productivity improvements that result from increases in capital assets, under the assumption that an investment in modern plants, equipment and technology automatically improves productivity.”[2]

    In other words, this method weighs productivity changes by how much improvement there is since the last time productivity stats were gathered.

    But if we can’t even agree on the best way to track productivity, then how can we know for certain if we’ve entered the productivity paradox?

    Possible causes of the productivity paradox

    Brynjolfsson argued that there are four probable causes for the paradox:

    Advertising

    • Mis-measurement – The gains are real but our current measures miss them.
    • Redistribution – There are private gains, but they come at the expense of other firms and individuals, leaving little net gain.
    • Time lags – The gains take a long time to show up.
    • Mismanagement – There are no gains because of the unusual difficulties in managing IT or information itself.

    There seems to be some evidence to support the mis-measurement theory as shown above. Another promising candidate is the time lag, which is supported by the work of Paul David, an economist at Oxford University.

    According to an article in The Economist, his research has shown that productivity growth did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s.[3] This was partly because it took until 1920 for at least half of American industrial machinery to be powered by electricity.”

    Therefore, he argues, we won’t see major leaps in productivity until both the US and major global powers have all reached at least a 50% penetration rate for computer use. The US only hit that mark a decade ago, and many other countries are far behind that level of growth.

    The paradox and the recession

    The productivity paradox has another effect on the recession economy. According to Neil Irwin,[4]

    “Sky-high productivity has meant that business output has barely declined, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers…businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.”

    This means that more and more companies are trying to do less with more, and that means squeezing two or three people’s worth of work from a single employee in some cases.

    Advertising

    According to Irwin, “workers, frightened for their job security, squeezed more productivity out of every hour [in 2010].”

    Looking forward

    A recent article on Slate puts it all into perspective with one succinct observation:

    “Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve people’s quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were.”

    Still, Brynjolfsson argues that mismeasurement of productivity can really skew the results of people studying the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.

    “Because you and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we’re not listening to less music. There’s more music consumed than before.

    On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it’s not disappearing. It is disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music.”

    Perhaps the paradox isn’t a death sentence for our productivity after all. Only time (and perhaps improved measuring techniques) will tell.

    Featured photo credit: Pexels via pexels.com

    Reference

    Read Next