Productivity constitutes the difference between a world in which life is nasty, brutish, and short and one in which it is pleasant, civilized, and ever-increasing in length. Every single accomplishment that separates modern man from his primeval ancestors was wrought from the raw materials of nature by human productive work. Yet what does productivity consist of? And why do some people display far more of it than others?

            Productivity requires some ethical standard by which to evaluate it. After all, most sensible individuals will recognize that not all physically or mentally taxing work is productive. While digging a hole to put in a steel beam that supports a skyscraper is a fine example of productivity, digging the same hole with the intention to fill it in again is not – it could even properly be called counterproductive because of the opportunity cost it carries.

            The standard in relation to which productivity is judged is one of human flourishing. Whenever an action undertaken by an individual contributes to his flourishing – or contributes to somebody else’s flourishing without detracting from him own – that action may be termed productive. Whenever an action positively impedes an individual’s flourishing or that of others, it can be termed a destructive deed – the opposite of a productive one.  

            It is essential to note that the productivity of an endeavor need have no relation to the human actor’s opinions, feelings, or sensations regarding that endeavor. A task of little productivity could nonetheless leave a person physically exhausted, emotionally fatigued, and intellectually numb. On the other hand, it is possible for certain jobs of monumental importance to be accomplished by exerting only a small fraction of the effort of which an individual is capable.

            Furthermore, it is possible for an individual engaged in productive work to hate what he is doing and wish that he were engaged in something far less productive or even counterproductive instead. Yet, simply by means of the objective physical changes that the work imparts on the world, the actor will be benefited by it in the long run and will likely recognize such benefits ex post. To illustrate this, we need only to consider that most young children would greatly prefer running in circles in the backyard to learning their times tables. Yet, with time, virtually all of them recognize that the latter made a far more significant positive contribution to their lives than the former. 

            Whether a man likes the work he does and whether it tires him are questions separate from the inherent productivity of the work itself. They are not insignificant questions and are quite relevant to discussions of productivity maximization. But the distinction between one’s subjective evaluation of one’s work and its objective consequences needs to be made nonetheless.

2. Two Components of Productivity

            The productivity of a person is simply a matter of how much productive work he can accomplish. We can, however, separate this attribute into two components: the decisional and the quantitative. The decisional component of productivity entails properly resolving what is to be produced, whereas the quantitative component describes how much of it is produced. In order for productivity on a large scale to be possible, both the decisional and quantitative components need to be satisfactorily addressed. Otherwise, one might have a brilliant, insightful idea about what ought to be done but lack the means to carry it out – or, on the flip side, one might be equipped with all the skills and tools needed to achieve immense productivity but lack an understanding of the ends to which these assets can be effectively put.

3.1.  Reason and the Decisional Component of Productivity

            In order to properly decide what ought to be produced, man can ultimately consult only one guide: his rational faculty. No matter how much external data or advice he seeks, it is ultimately his reason which must analyze this information and produce a conclusion regarding the most prudent course of action to be followed. Even if an individual relies greatly on the pronouncements of some other human authority, this reliance cannot result in sustained productivity unless he has reached an individual, rational conclusion regarding why this authority ought to be believed. Trusting a man’s technical judgment because he is superbly knowledgeable in the given field can be a rational decision; trusting him because he claims divine inspiration, a gut feeling, or the sanction of the general will can only lead to a series of endeavors that are doomed to failure from the onset –  perhaps punctuated by a scarce few accidental successes.

            Perhaps the most useful principle for adequately addressing the decisional component of productivity is the simple but profound Law of Identity: “A=A.” To accurately understand what must be produced and how it can be produced, it is necessary to recognize that each thing is what it is, not necessarily what one wants it to be, wishes it could have been, or hopes it will become. So many decisional errors which impede productivity result from individuals attempting to fit a given object into a role to which it is ill-suited. This is not to say that the object is a deficient one; in some other role, it might have done a marvelous job. Clear examples of such violations of the Law of Identity include cases of non-professional gambling. The layman gambler sees attendance at the casino as what it is not: a systematic strategy for earning him money. On the other hand, the house recognizes the Law of Identity quite well and uses the casino with great success as a systematic strategy for earning it money.

            Tautological or not, the Law of Identity serves its most significant role as a reminder to individuals that, in order to achieve any lasting success in the real world, it is necessary to fathom a thing’s actual properties and to recognize that there is nothing more about that thing besides its actual properties. Following it consistently implies purging one’s mind of wishful thinking and replacing it with realistic thinking. To a thoroughgoing realist, the decisional component of productivity becomes far easier to satisfy.

            The decisional component of productivity requires a recognition of the objective constraints facing a given individual. Before embarking on any endeavor, it is necessary to ask oneself: “What is the best I can realistically hope to achieve by doing this? On the flip side, what is the worst-case scenario that could occur with this endeavor?” Furthermore, one should not hold the best-case scenario as one’s expectation. More realistically, the outcome will be somewhere in-between the best and worst possible results. But because the worst-case scenario is always possible, one should set that as one’s expectation and provide safeguards accordingly. If something better occurs, one will only be pleasantly surprised at the result. Of course, whenever it is possible to substitute a more preferable result for a less preferable one through one’s own efforts, this should always be done.

            But the worst possible manner in which to make a decision to produce is to do so based on hyper-inflated expectations of what is possible. For in this case, even if one has achieved the best-possible realistic outcome, one is still doomed to disappointment. Having done something genuinely productive, one will still bemoan the futility of it all and will likely be deterred from undertaking further productive activities. The talented young artist who throws away his magnificent paintings because he feels they do not match the great masters in quality is an example of this stultifying tendency.

3.2. The Number One Enemy of Productivity

            The case of the hypothetical young artist brings us to the human tendency which is the single greatest impediment to productivity – namely, perfectionism.

            Perfection is entirely a human construct – and, like God, infinity, or the Platonic forms – is not to be found in the world. Every entity in existence has finite magnitudes of every quality, and it is feasible and conceivable for any of these magnitudes to be greater than they are. Thus, while it is possible to have more or less of anything and to experience outcomes that are better or worse, the perfect is wholly a figment of human imagination. The wealthiest man in the world is extremely rich, but he is not perfectly rich – because he can always have more wealth and be even better off. The most productive man in the world can never be perfectly productive – because there is always more he can produce. Such facts pose no problem to anyone except the perfectionist, who attempts to superimpose his fictitious constructs on reality instead of enabling reality to guide the formation of his mental models.

            For the perfectionist, nothing less than some vaguely imagined ideal can suffice. Anything else is for him an indication of absolute and inexcusable failure. Yet, examining the matter realistically, we are certain to conclude that the perfectionist is bound to fail from the onset by his own criterion. Perfectionism thus engenders a pervasive sense of futility in its practitioner and mentally inhibits him from pursuing further productive work.

            The alternative vision of work from that of the perfectionist is a far brighter one. It recognizes that all men are limited in what they can achieve, but that these limits are not fixed or static. Quite the contrary, it is possible to expand such limits indefinitely, though not infinitely. Nothing in nature caps a person’s productivity at any level – no matter how high his current level of output might be; it is always possible to go higher. But the transition will necessarily require an investment in time, creative thinking, and productive capital; it cannot be wished into existence by simply conceiving some perfect state of affairs.  

            A corollary of the realistic approach to productivity is the ability to concede some states of affairs as being good enough – for the time being at least. While most people wish to increase the rates at which they earn money, for instance, their acceptance of the highest current rates realistically available to them is an absolute necessity in order for them to gradually raise their earning power. Though their current earnings may fall short of some ideal expectation they might have, it is far better to embrace the imperfect state of affairs and gradually improve it than it is to reject any available opportunities and thus to prevent the eventual accomplishment of one’s very goals.

4.1. Enhancing the Quantitative Component of Productivity

            With an accurate, rational analysis of the existing state of affairs and the possibilities it entails, along with a realistic setting of expectations and a willingness to be satisfied with a sufficiently good result, the decisional component of productivity can be adequately addressed. The next challenge is to actually achieve what one desires, in the quantity in which one desires it. The following insights have been developed as a result of combining extensive deliberation with the author’s practical experience; not only have they visibly worked, but it is possible to explain why they have. 

4.2. Quantification and Productivity Targets

            Human minds tend to have a peculiar limitation; they are immensely well-suited to observing and accurately interpreting absolute states, but they are – when unaided – far less adept at adequately judging matters of degree. The presence or absence of something can be easily observed, but its quantity is a far more difficult matter. If Ayn Rand’s “crow epistemology” might be taken as a guide, the human mind can only focus a finite, extremely small number of discrete pieces of information at once. Thus, while we might visibly distinguish between three things and five things, differentiating between 25,456 things and 11,233 things by simply looking at a collection of them is far harder. Rather, the latter case, most people would only be able to say that they see a lot of things – many more than they could count without undue expenditure of effort. But while the increase from 3 to 5 is about a 66.67% increase, that from 11,233 to 25,456 is an increase of 126.18%. While this increase might be missed by raw human observation, the presence of mathematics as a tool enables us to quickly grasp the significance of these relative differences in magnitude.

            What mathematics accomplishes is truly monumental: it takes tens of thousands of discrete pieces of data – namely, observations of entities – and condenses them into just a few – namely, numbers which can be manipulated using simple and accessible rules. The significance of mathematics as a tool for not only measuring but actually achieving the quantitative component of productivity cannot be underestimated.

            Most human productive endeavors involve accomplishment on a far larger numerical scale than six or seven units of output – which is as much as the human mind can simultaneously analyze if unaided by higher-level concepts. Thus, quantifying productivity becomes absolutely essential – even if the quantifiers used are not entirely reliable.

            Quantification enables an individual to set productivity targets for himself and to escape underachievement on one hand and perfectionism on the other. The productivity target – set reasonably – enables him to conclude how much work per given unit of time is sufficient. Furthermore, it enables him to gauge improvement relative to past work. On days when the individual feels motivated to raise his productivity, quantification gives him far more than his subjective estimate in guiding him toward raising his output. Using numbers, ratios, and percent increases, an individual can easily say whether he has exceeded his prior levels of output and, if so, by how much. So quantification of productivity serves a multiplicity of roles: it facilitates record-keeping, systematic improvement, accountability, and motivation.  Numbers are far more reliable guides to sustained productivity than subjective impressions of how much one has worked. After all, objective productivity has no necessary relationship with an individual’s mental or physical fatigue. An exhausted individual might yet have performed insufficiently, whereas a still energetic worker might already have exceeded all of his expectations.

            Quantification of productivity in the world of business by means of money explains why most people are far more successful in their careers than they are in other aspects of their lives. Money furnishes an excellent, versatile measuring rod for how much work one has accomplished and the value of this work to others with whom one trades. Money is not a perfect measure of objective productivity; it is only as good as the judgment of those who spend or invest it in rewarding the productive. Nonetheless, we cannot expect it to be a perfect measure – for perfection is a fiction and money is what it is; we cannot force it into an ideal role to which it, by nature, is not suited. Rather, we ought to appreciate the tremendous coordination of individual endeavors and rewards for productive work that money can and does facilitate.

            Furthermore, money is not the only possible quantifier available to measure productivity. With manufacturing physical things or even intellectual products, units of output can be another reliable measure. A factory that sets productivity targets in terms of units of output will, on the whole, generate a far greater monetary return than one that does not. Furthermore, a writer who sets daily targets for number of words or number of essays written will, over the long term, accomplish far more than an individual who simply writes when he feels like it – or, as he would prefer to put it, when he “finds his muse.”

            What is less commonly recognized is that virtually any human endeavor to which productivity is relevant can be quantified. Grades serve this role in an educational setting, in part explaining why every academic institution that has abandoned grades as a measure of student performance has suffered significant declines in student accomplishment.

            As a further example, anybody embarking on an exercise program can devise some underlying quantifier that can relate various types of exercises to one another. The quantifier – again – need not be fully accurate in order to fulfill its role as a motivator and accountability device, so long as it reflects reality to some significant extent. Calories expended per unit of exercise might be an excellent measure which encompasses all conceivable exercise types. But in the absence of the ability to measure calories by means of an electronic heart rate monitor, an individual can simply produce a rough estimate: a minute of running might for instance be deemed equivalent to four minutes of walking – and each could be assigned “exercise point” values according to this proportion. Every day, by meeting a given exercise point target, one is certain to obtain a sustained increase in fitness. Depending on the accuracy of the quantifier, the actual fitness improvement might vary from day to day, but on the whole it will be sufficient to increase one’s health over time.

4.3. Habit and the Elimination of the Quality-Quantity Tradeoff

            A common fallacy presumes that there is a necessary tradeoff between the quantity of work produced and the quality of that work. By this notion, one can either produce a lot of mediocre units of output or a scant few exceptional ones. While this might be true in some cases, it overlooks several important factors.

            Over time, by engaging in certain activities, individuals form habits regarding to these activities. A habit is a default pattern of functioning with regard to an activity; people follow their habits in the absence of explicit internal or external stimuli to the contrary. Habits do not require undue discomfort to sustain once established; the individual perceives them to be the natural, “easy” course of action. Thus, habits provide a baseline for productivity: a person cannot, on the whole, be less productive than his habits make possible. He can be more productive, however, by deliberately exerting additional effort and perhaps stretching the limits of his comfort – in order to gradually raise his habits to a new level and make it comfortable for him to produce higher amounts of output.

            Habits can be formed with regard to quantity of output produced, but they can also be formed with regard to quality. After all, with sufficient practice, one can improve the quality of any given output – be it a written work, a painting, a musical composition, a scientific procedure, a production process, or a marketing approach. Initially, developing quality might be a time-consuming, painstaking endeavor that does involve a tradeoff with quantity. However, as a habit of quality develops, the tradeoff disappears! To provide a personal example, I do not – unlike most writers – produce multiple drafts of my work. I simply write an essay once, in sequence, from beginning to end and then scan it for typographical errors. This was not the case initially and has only become possible by means of a decade of systematic and steady efforts at writing. Yet it has managed to greatly enhance the rate of my writing output without diminishing its quality.

            With a habit of quality work as one’s baseline, one can produce such work in a high quantity while exerting moderate effort in the direction of enhancing both the quantitative and the qualitative dimensions of one’s accomplishment. This mode of progress in productivity is challenging but not exhausting; it is, more importantly, sustainable over long periods of time.

4.4. The Importance of Framework

"Civilization advances by extending the number of important observations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle--they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments."

~ A. N. Whitehead

            Because of the human mind’s limited ability to hold and process multiple pieces of information simultaneously, a high level of productivity requires reducing the amount of information to be analyzed to only the most essential data. The primitive man must think about every single aspect of his survival: where he is to get his food, how he is to construct his shelter, how he is to ward off hungry predators and malicious fellow men. None of his life is automated; no external mechanisms or institutions exist to render the procurement of his needs any easier or more efficient. As a result, he has little time or energy to spend on fulfilling any but his most basic needs – and he is frequently unable to meet even those.

            Such human accomplishments as the division of labor, productive capital in the form of machines, investment and compound interest, the written communication of information, and the development of rules and patterns for human behavior greatly reduce the mental effort required to accomplish any given task – enabling any given individual to move to a higher level of function by thinking only about endeavors which the current institutional framework has not already been able to address or about improving the institutional framework so as to enhance existing time-saving devices.

            But time-saving, productivity-enhancing institutions can be applied on a smaller level as well; they need not necessarily extend to an entire society. Developing a regular work routine in advance and adhering to it consistently removes the difficulty of thinking at length about what needs to be done and in what sequence. Mass production in factories functions in this manner: each worker is assigned an extremely detailed, specific set of operations to perform on every product – sparing him the effort of thinking anew every time another unit of the product is created. Instead, each worker can focus on improving his skills in executing the assigned task more efficiently, thereby greatly enhancing per-worker output.

            A personal analog to mass production can be established by thinking ahead and devising parameters within which one will operate in the future. By deciding in advance what the basic structure and aims of one’s work will be, one will free one’s mental capacities for addressing the matter of efficient execution.  A simple and readily accessible example is an internet publisher’s creation of a template to fit the articles which he produces. Once the template is established, each individual webpage needs no longer be created from scratch. Rather, publishing the article becomes solely a matter of addressing its content – either writing it oneself or editing the writing of another contributor. Programs such as FTP (file-transfer protocol) make it possible to transfer the finished product onto the website in a matter of seconds, thus further reducing the mental effort required per unit of output.

            The creation of a framework or rule system that fits the endeavor to be accomplished is primarily a technical problem. There are no a priori solutions to it; rather, through experimentation, analysis of the particulars, and an inquiry into approaches that have worked in the past, one might gradually improve the framework within which one operates. At no instant is such improvement guaranteed, but it will happen over time if one keeps looking out for it. The key to accomplishing it is to be regularly alert to the improvement of existing technical possibilities. One cannot endeavor to enhance one’s framework of operation all the time – because one needs to devote a substantial part of one’s energy to the actual quantitative output itself – but bringing up the matter on occasion can result in excellent long-term productivity enhancements.

            An important question to ask when establishing any given productivity framework is how much maintenance the framework itself requires. Rules for productivity are of no use if just keeping them in mind all the time necessitates significant mental effort. Likewise, productive capital that breaks down frequently might be more of a liability than an asset. The more conceptually simple a productivity framework is, the easier it is to follow and thus the more reliably it brings about results. The more of any productive process that one can automate or reduce in complexity, the less maintenance a productivity framework will require.

4.5. The Benefits of Repetition

            One of the most reliable ways to reduce the amount of mental effort per unit of productive output is to create many extremely similar units of output in succession. The assembly line worker does this by performing an identical procedure on a multiplicity of different units of a product in sequence. Depending on the nature of one’s endeavors, it is possible to do this to a greater or lesser degree in one’s personal life as well.

            Repetition of work greatly reduces the costs of transition from one endeavor to another. Ceasing to do something and beginning to do something else necessarily entails an expenditure of time and productive resources. Not only do one’s physical assets need to be redirected, but one’s state of mind must likewise be adjusted to fit the new activity. Some such adjustments are necessary just by virtue of the fact that, in order to flourish, people need to perform a multiplicity of tasks. But by delving extensively into one task, finishing it, and then moving on to another, such costs of transition are reduced as greatly as possible.

            Furthermore, repetition of work enables one to enter into a near-automatic productive pattern which becomes a default mode of functioning for the duration of the work performed. This has been called a “state of flow” by some psychologists and is more popularly known as being in a “groove.” By reducing the amount of mental effort required and by immersing the worker fully in the procedure, such states greatly enhance productivity for their duration.

            It is possible to engage in systematic repetition for many more endeavors than one suspects. In publishing an online magazine, for instance, it is far more efficient to first read all of the outstanding submissions, then to paste all of the submissions into a page template, then to add links to all of them to the issue page, then to upload everything at once to the website. The alternative – performing each of these steps on every individual submission before moving on to the next submission – is far more time-consuming because of transition costs – even though it produces an identical result.

5. Conclusion

            What ultimately separates more productive individuals from less productive ones is the attention given to productivity enhancement and the diligence with which such enhancement is pursued. At no instant can a marked improvement be expected – though it sometimes does occur quite rapidly – but sustained efforts at any given worthwhile task, coupled with rational analysis of why it is indeed worthwhile, can result in a dramatic rise in productivity over time. More importantly, this rise in productivity – unlike a temporary increase in output due to momentary enthusiasm – can be maintained indefinitely. Making productive work a habit ultimately renders it less painstaking and more enjoyable – whereas a reliance on the emotional spur of the moment will inevitably lead to disappointment once the excitement and, correspondingly, the productivity, fade.

            Productivity per se has no relation to how an individual feels about it; that is, feeling one way or the other about a task does not alter its productive or counterproductive nature. However, one’s attitudes toward a given kind work can affect one’s likelihood to undertake that kind of work in the future and thus are an important factor to consider in boosting productivity.

            Productivity approached rationally and systematically need not be painful; on the other hand, it is not desirable that it be accompanied by euphoria, either – for any euphoria is fleeting. Only the productivity which is possible in a calm, moderate, level-headed state of mind can be sustained. Neither exceptional energy, nor piercing brilliance, nor good fortune can be relied on in accomplishing a prolonged improvement in one’s quality of life. Only the force of habit, the power of reason, and the gradual alteration of one’s natural tendencies can consistently yield fruit.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, here.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new four-act play, Implied Consent, a futuristic intellectual drama on the sanctity of human life, here.