These days wherever you move you hear a lot of buzz words. People manager, are you? There’s one for you. Oh, you are more into leading projects, I understand. Try with hyper-productivity. You will definitely hear it here and there. Well, maybe it is a way to go?
For the sake of this discussion let’s consider there are no well-grounded doubts about figures standing behind the idea. Let’s consider hyper-productivity was never called bullshit. Let’s consider you can make your team hyper-productive, whatever this might mean. But before we come to this I have a question.
Why, the hell, won’t you make your team just productive in the first place?
The problem I see over and over again isn’t with teams which are performing very well and struggle to improve even more. The problem is an average team can hardly be called productive. Just productive.
We keep wasting our time because we organize our work poorly. We face way more interruptions than it is necessary. We don’t really care about making our estimates a bit better to avoid panic (and counterproductive) rescue actions at the end of the project. We hire, and then keep, people who don’t give a damn about learning. We promote wrong people who are living proofs of Peter’s principle. We keep making stupid lists of examples just to prove the point which everyone agrees with from the very beginning (well, that might have been wrong example).
No, hyper-productivity isn’t an issue. If we were able to make average team just productive we’d see hyper-productivity paradise. If you want to optimize system performance you don’t make champions even better – you work to get average majority to another level.
So don’t tell me how to make my distributed team hyper-productive. Give me an advice how to make a bit more fun out of our mundane tasks or help me improve my recruitment skills instead.
Hyper-productivity shouldn’t really bother us, even if it isn’t just a buzz word.