Fauxductivity is a new buzzword that has been coined to mean fake productivity. The term has become very hotly discussed these days, especially with employees in the middle of such discussions. New research points out that managers and executives are equally, if not more, likely to produce productivity. As per a Workhuman report, 37 percent of managers claimed to fake productivity, whereas 32 percent of non-managerial employees do. The figure amongst C-suite executives goes as high as 38 percent.
This plays out against the backdrop of "the great detachment," a term coined to describe the disconnection that employees have experienced from their work in recent years. With productivity being cited as an issue in every workplace around the world, even Fortune 500 CEOs have listed low productivity as their number one organizational challenge for 2024, according to software company Atlassian. The problem, however, has not been restricted to the lowest levels of the workforce but rather cuts across all levels of management.
The concept of performative productivity—that is, showing up late in the office without getting much done or attending pointless meetings—comes from an "always-on" culture at work. Managers, who are often expected to lead by example, may fake productivity to cover themselves or avoid confronting challenges. It has a snowball effect across the organization.
Meisha-ann Martin, senior director of people analytics and research for Workhuman, speaks about leadership. Martin suggests that managers must develop an organizational culture that enables the workers to admit to the challenge or the area of weakness so that help can be provided. Leadership must not be a player in fauxductivity. The best leaders are role models to the workers by being comfortable taking meaningful breaks and coming out with the desired outcomes rather than just looking good.
The problem of pseudo-productivity, therefore, is not how one practices productivity but rather manifests a much broader issue in management of time and expectation. For instance, sales entrepreneur Ryan Serhant introduces a different version of productivity—the "1,000 Minute," where Serhant divides the day into productive minutes by very carefully allocating time and not wasting hours in long meetings. It makes everyone realize time as if it were a resource one exhausts on earth; one has to create value with a feeling of freedom.
The above discussion is a bit more profound in the larger labor market context. In August 2024, U.S. employers reported fewer-than-expected job additions, increasing nonfarm payroll jobs just by 142,000. Unemployment did dip down to 4.2%, though, and the labor market remains volatile. In such a context, organizations would compete on how they would achieve the balance between keeping the employees and productivity. In the Federal Reserve reports, the employment levels had been flat in companies seeking to achieve stability within their workforces.
But in the midst of all this, some industries are taking steps. Boeing recently agreed to a deal with one union representing 33,000 workers, receiving a 25 percent increase over four years and reduced health care costs. The White House has launched a huge initiative to fill 500,000 open cybersecurity and AI positions, hiring people without traditional qualifications.
The deeper culture questions in relation to the workplace as to how the time management dynamics change from an employer-employee perspective eventually relate to the fauxductivity problem. Like the problems above that require the focus of the organization and individuals separately, this question for transparency, efficiency, and attention on the actual fruits of work requires attention always. As this is done, real productivity blooms in all strata.
