Are Improvements to Productivity Always Good? The Case Against It, and a Lesson for Company Culture

When I was a young adult I often pondered what activities I, or any person, could engage in that were clearly and objectively good.  I asked myself what I should do with my life?  How should I live?  How could I know if my actions were good for the world in which I lived?  I reached one conclusion.  I concluded that if my actions increased the productivity of myself and others, then my actions must be good.  If I built a bridge that shortened the time required for people to complete the chores in their lives, or if I created a website that helped people find information more quickly, or if I wrote a software application that enabled people to more quickly and accurately complete chores, then I was doing good.  Anything that improved productivity, especially if it improved the productivity of others and continued to do so when I was not around, was inherently good.

For myself, as a software developer, I saw the code I was writing as helping to improve the productivity of others.  I undertook many projects on my own with that singular goal in mind.  I still do today.  I also volunteered much of my time helping others and helping them become more productive.

But my philosophy, my conclusion about productivity, changed over the years.  I no longer believe that improving the productivity of others is always inherently good.  Usually it is, but there are times when it is not.  Some examples from history include the workers in plants building weapons for the Nazi Germans.  Some workers intentionally made their products defective and slowed down processes because they wanted those they worked for, the Nazis, to fail.  I can similarly imagine that there may be people in North Korea today that are not motivated to improve the productivity and hence the success of the regime they live within.

Closer to home, I find it very reasonable to believe that many workers are not willing to improve the productivity of work at their companies.  In the western world, I doubt that many workers currently seek to sabotage the productivity of the companies they work for, but there are many that are not motivated to recommend productivity improvements or to work to make their coworkers more productive. 

This is a cultural problem for many companies.  An accountant at a company may see a potential to save millions of dollars by making some accounting changes, but if the accountant knows the cost savings are going to simply go to the pockets of the millionaire owners of the company, the accountant is not motivated to make the company aware of the option.  Software developers may have little interest in improving their software development processes to improve quality and reduce cost when the sole beneficiaries of these improvements are the wealthy owners of the corporation.  And I must say I support that deduction.  As a laborer, I don't want to see my extra efforts solely benefit those who already profit more than I do from my work.

Personally, I try to avoid working for companies solely focused on increasing profits.  I prefer to work for companies that will use the productivity improvements I identify and create to reduce costs for customers and increase salaries of myself and other employees.  A lot of companies exist that follow each philosophy, but I believe companies that focus more on sharing the wealth of the company with the employees and customers do better than those that give the rewards of productivity improvements to the business owners because the culture of those companies rewards the employees for increasing their productivity.

In conclusion, improving productivity is not a desirable good when you are working for the bad guys.