Most organizations think they have a productivity problem. They don’t. They have a work design problem.
I’ve spent decades studying how people solve problems and take action, and the same pattern keeps showing up. Productivity dips, so leadership responds the way they always do: new tools, redesigned workflows, and an engagement initiative with a catchy name.
And it works, but only for a while. Teams rally around the new process. Leaders feel good about the momentum.
Then, a few months later, the same questions come back.
Why does the work still feel harder than it should? Why are capable, committed people running on fumes?
And typically, motivation isn’t the issue. But the actual work itself is in conflict with how people naturally approach problem-solving.
What leaders miss when they evaluate employees
Leaders typically evaluate performance in two ways. Does the person have the skills? And are they motivated enough to use them?
Both matter. But there’s a third factor that quietly determines whether individuals and teams sustain high performance over time. It’s the one most leaders skip right past (even though the concept has existed since Plato). It’s how people instinctively approach getting work done.
Some people gather a great deal of information before moving forward. Others cut straight to the bottom line. Some naturally build systems and structures. Others adapt on the fly.
You’ve seen this in meetings. The moment you brainstorm an idea, one person starts testing it out loud and adjusting as the conversation unfolds. Another might be outlining the steps, organizing details, and making sure there’s a clear sequence.
Neither approach is wrong. But they’re fundamentally different, and those differences shape how companies make decisions and how projects move. It can also determine whether or not people are aligned with their roles.
Why productivity systems create more friction than they solve
There’s a flawed assumption that underpins most productivity systems, which is that everyone approaches work roughly the same way. That a single planning method can work for all, and that people process information and problem-solve in the same ways.
In practice, teams almost never operate like that. I worked with a leadership team that spent months building out a detailed project planning process. It was thorough, well-documented, genuinely thoughtful work. But within weeks, half the team had quietly abandoned it.
It wasn’t resistance. The structure just clashed with how several of them naturally approached their work.
Someone who instinctively moves to the bottom line is going to slow down in an environment that demands constant deep analysis and 20-page reports. The same way that someone who naturally creates structure will struggle when processes and priorities shift every day.
Pushing against your natural way of taking action takes far more energy than most people realize. Over time, that friction compounds. A recent workplace survey found that 42 percent of employees lose roughly a full workday each week working against their natural strengths. Think about that. One day a week, gone. Not to poor skills or lack of effort. To friction.
No engagement initiative is going to fix that.
Why productivity is an energy problem
Most productivity conversations obsess over time. But energy is almost always the real constraint. People have a finite amount of mental energy each day for decisions, problem-solving, and moving work forward. Where that energy goes makes a huge difference.
I worked with a team leader who had two employees with similar experience and a strong work ethic. One was the person she called when a project was still messy, when the team needed to test ideas, make quick calls, and figure things out in real time. The other was most effective once the direction was clear. He’d organize the steps, build the process, and keep the work moving in a steady sequence.
When each person worked in those conditions, they were great. But when the leader reversed their roles, the difference was immediate. The fast mover slowed to a crawl when asked to document detailed processes. The systems builder struggled when the project demanded constant improvisation.
They had the same skill level and the same motivation—but a completely different experience of the work, because one version aligned with how they naturally take action and the other didn’t.
When work fits someone’s instincts, they can make decisions faster. Their efforts also go further. But when it doesn’t, even routine tasks start consuming far more energy than they should.
What leaders can do instead
Fixing productivity and creating productive teams rarely starts with another tool or training program. It starts with understanding how people actually work.
Leaders who get this right tend to focus on three things:
1. Clarity
Get a real picture of how people on your team naturally approach problems. When employees understand their own strengths and the strengths of their colleagues, dividing roles and responsibilities becomes a lot easier.
2. Commitment
Teams perform best when people can invest most of their energy in work that fits how they naturally take action. Sometimes that means adjusting responsibilities, redesigning workflows, or shifting task ownership so people spend more time where they’re actually effective.
3. Collaboration
The strongest teams aren’t made up of people who all approach work the same way. Progress comes from combining different strengths. One person digs into the details. Another simplifies the path forward. Someone else builds the structure that carries the idea through execution.
When teams work this way, you no longer need to force productivity improvements. They happen because individuals can naturally leverage their strengths to get things done.
Rethinking productivity
Organizations love to solve productivity problems by turning up the pressure. More tools, more processes, and creating additional expectations piled on top of existing expectations.
But productivity doesn’t improve when everyone’s pushed to work the same way.
It improves when leaders recognize that people approach problems differently and design work around those differences instead of against them. After all, when work fits how people naturally take action, high performance stops being something you have to force. It becomes something you can sustain.