Measuring Workforce Productivity | Deloitte US has been saved
Authored by John Brownridge, Andrea Wilp, Sam Furlong, and Chaydaa Beckett
Welcome to the Productivity+ series
Welcome to our four-part Productivity+ series! In this series, we share insights from our recent productivity research where we surveyed 800 participants across 27 industry sectors to explore how digital tools and advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and Generative AI (GenAI) can drive productivity. Coming out of this research, we propose the concept of Productivity+ and explore the mutually amplifying relationship between workplace productivity and employee experience.
This is Part 2, where we challenge traditional productivity measures and offer potential alternatives for measuring productivity in the workplace.
To continue following along with the series, be sure to check out:
- Part 3, where we’ll explore the nuances of the frontline worker experience in the context of workplace productivity and employee experience.
- Part 4, where we’ll explore industry-specific insights related to workplace productivity.
To revisit earlier sections in the series, be sure to check out:
- Part 1, where we defined Productivity+ and highlighted four key trends that are affecting productivity in the workplace.
Measuring workforce productivity
In recent years, the workplace has evolved significantly beyond just the physical location. With the rise of hybrid and remote work, modern knowledge workers increasingly operating across time zones, and the introduction of technologies such as GenAI, the nature of work has transformed. Workers are inundated with different technologies and ways of working to try and bridge the gap between traditional practices and the modern work environment. For knowledge workers, the result is that work has fundamentally shifted and is no longer static. It continues to evolve rapidly and will likely keep adapting at an accelerated pace.
Today’s workplace manifests in several ways:
- Organizations have greater expectations for the speed at which workers communicate: The average email response time before the COVID-19 pandemic was 4 hours versus 2 minutes today.1
- More emphasis is placed on collaboration time than ever before: Knowledge workers spend 288% more time in meetings than before the pandemic.2
- The proliferation of digital tools to enable work has increased time wasted at work: 32 days are lost per year from toggling between workplace applications to find necessary information.3
The culmination of these behaviors has woven context switching—the act of switching between two unrelated tasks—into our DNA. Imagine a typical workday in our modern work environment: toggling between apps, jumping in and out of meetings, and managing multiple conversations on multiple platforms. These norms are challenging for employees: context switching is exhausting, stressful, and makes it difficult to focus. Context switching is also negative for employers: It takes a worker 23 minutes on average to regain focus after a distraction, and organizations where frequent context switching is required experience a 40% loss of productivity.4
This has caused some leaders to look for assurances that their employees are working by enforcing in-office mandates. However, relying on measures like time spent in person or online may overlook the long-term value of job satisfaction in favor of short-term traditional productivity measures focused on output rather than outcomes. Traditional metrics fail to address the experiential impact of new working norms, which can affect workers’ well-being, happiness, sense of purpose, and overall workplace satisfaction.
Instead of measuring knowledge workers’ productivity based on historical metrics such as hours worked, consider a more modern positioning of workforce productivity. Productivity+ measures the ability for workers to balance their time to focus on business outcomes, as well as people, culture, and well-being initiatives that support overall productivity. This metric can be assessed using passive data rather than relying on traditional self-reported surveys.
Measuring time spent
When assessing workers’ ability to balance their time effectively, we recommend focusing on dimensions that significantly influence productivity:
- Focus/deep think: Productivity increases 6% while people are working from home due to fewer distractions.5
- Collaboration: Employees spend 31 hours in unproductive meetings a month.6
- People and culture: Treating employees well leads to 3.2X higher stock prices.7
- Well-being: Happy people are 12% more productive on tasks at hand.8
- Work about work: On average, employees spend 28% of their day reading and responding to email,9 which is often reactionary and unplanned work.
Organizations can leverage passive data, such as trends in collaboration and communication styles, to gain insights into how employees allocate their time. By comparing this data within different workforce segments and against high performers, organizations can identify productive habits and patterns. This approach helps pinpoint opportunities to enhance productivity across the organization over time.
To gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of this framework, we conducted a research study across various workforce segments to examine the intersections of experience, technology (including AI and GenAI), time-spent dimensions, and desired Productivity+ outcomes. The data-driven findings from the study validate the framework and illustrate how each component contributes to the broader Productivity+ picture.
Other key considerations for modern work
Passive data is one of several elements that can be used to measure workforce productivity. There are many other dimensions that can be layered in based on how productivity is defined at different levels within an organization, depending on individual roles, functions, and overall vision. Organizations should consider other traditional key performance indicators along with broader strategic considerations, including:
- What is the future-state vision for the organization?
- What are workforce sentiments about their work style and environment?
- What organizational norms are shaping these patterns and work style behaviors?
- What technology opportunities (including automation, AI, and GenAI) exist that can enhance productivity?
Through this lens, organizations can better understand why workers have adopted certain workstyle behaviors, identify opportunities to reduce friction from a typical workday, and align those opportunities to long-term business outcomes. This can help define a clear, human-centered path forward to optimize productivity, build trust, and create shared value for workers and the enterprise.
Authors:
1 Laura Vanderkam, “What is an appropriate response time to email?,” Fast Company, March 29, 2016.
2 Aki Ito, “It’s not just you—meetings really have spiraled out of control in the pandemic,” Business Insider, March 29, 2021.
3The Economic Times, “Employees spend more than 25% of their time searching for the information they need to do their jobs: Survey,” June 18, 2019.
4Karina Parikh, “The cost of context switching (and how to avoid it),” The Replay, July 12, 2022.
5Indeed, “Focused work hours: How productive are your employees?,” last updated November 4, 2024.
6 Work Life by Atlassian, “Workplace Woes: Meetings Edition,” accessed November 2024.
7 Marcus Erb, “Treating employees well led to higher stock prices during the pandemic,” Great Place To Work, August 5, 2021.
8Andrew J. Oswald, Eugenio Proto, and Daniel Sgroi, “Happiness and productivity,” Journal of Labor Economics 1 (December 2009): 4645.
9 Jena McGregor, “How much time you really spend emailing at work,” The Washington Post, July 31, 2012.
