The Digital Revolution Has Not Increased Our Productivity
In the first decade of the millennium, when I was the director of the Museum of the School of Architecture at UFMG, I adapted a project management software for architecture and engineering to coordinate the museum’s activities.
I remember “watching” two collaborators interact with the software and carry out the work without even needing me. Of course, they could contact me whenever they wanted; I was available. But both made decisions and moved forward competently without requiring intervention.
Witnessing their competence, I was left with more free time for other demands of the museum and academic life. It was a moment of realisation – this is the future of work, a future where digital tools empower individuals to work autonomously and efficiently.
The software I adopted at the museum seems like child’s play compared to our current solutions that are within everyone’s budget: Basecamp, Todoist, Trello, etc.
For some time now, we have had countless tools and reference systems, such as IPMA and PMBOK for project management, Spectrum for museum collection management, Scrum for IT projects, etc.
It’s a question that begs an answer-why are these powerful tools not being fully utilised? Why do we still rely on outdated modes of communication like email and WhatsApp? Why do we find institutions, like museums, not embracing the potential of management software to organise their projects and tasks?
Despite all these resources, workers’ health problems, both physical and mental, are getting worse every day. Knowledge workers are being subjected to epidemics of emails, messaging apps, and outdated work organisation processes. All of this leads many to exhaustion, the so-called burnout.
Contrary to the promises of the digital revolution, productivity has not kept up with the pace of innovation. While more cutting-edge tools and processes are being developed, few are actually implemented in the daily lives of ordinary workers.
Why does this happen? Productivity and management systems don’t work in practice? Do they only work in theory?
We are Facing a Crisis of Values and Soft Skills
The first part of this answer lies in the lack of soft skills. People, companies, and institutions may have a wealth of resources and infrastructure. Still, they work with managers who lack emotional intelligence. The environments are toxic, with distorted values. And they have little work ethics.
No productivity tool or technique can handle problematic people. And we live in an emotionally ill society.
The quote below, from Italian sociologist Domenico de Masi1, summarises the challenges faced in implementing remote work. However, these obstacles that Domenico lists also apply to the difficulties of implementing management and productivity systems:
“(Remote work is spreading slowly) due to a cultural gap. First of all, most of the population has always lived in a different psychological context, in which the separation between work and home life was considered a factor of social advancement. Until this generation, which has spent its entire life, since birth, within the industrial organisation, is overcome, it will be difficult to accept the reorganisation of the places of life and work without trauma. Another obstacle is the bosses, who are used to having their subordinates in the palm of their hand. And in addition, a factor that is never mentioned is the erotic dimension of the company. The company is a place of passion, love, connections, and attractions. There is also the resistance of the unions, the personnel manager, and the pain of many to give up overtime. The repulsion of men, but also some emancipated women, for domestic work; it is considered degrading. (…) There is the lack of habit of companies to calculate, in addition to the waste of time, also the waste of space. And there is collective masochism: people do not always want to live better and be happier.”
Domenico de Masi – book Creative Leisure (translated by the blog author)
Savage Capitalism, Individualism and Exclusion in the World of Work
The second part of the problem, which prevents management techniques from working, involves the context of savage capitalism in which the world of work is inserted, culminating in:
- Excessive tasks and long working hours.
- Unhumanised environments, without transparency or inclusion.
- “Uberisation” of work and deregulation of labour rights.
- Digital addiction and venal business models, such as the attention economy and surveillance capitalism.
- High exposure to professional and personal life, with countless social media that allow people to show off their “stage” without necessarily revealing all the difficulties of their “backstage.”
- Encouragement of competition and not collaboration, focusing on comparison with others and not on oneself or one’s own progress.
- The cult of celebrities, individualism, and personal achievements to the detriment of collective ones. These are aggravated by the fact that the parameters of success are now global, not local, due to the connectivity provided by the Web.
Behind every renowned intellectual, there are sometimes broken families because work and success have been prioritised pathologically. Or worse, no family at all, not even deep friendships. Loneliness or liquid relationships with fragile ties, driven by momentary interests, prevail.
Behind every Nobel Prize winner are hundreds, sometimes thousands, of anonymous scientists who collaborated on the research and are not properly credited.
The Perversity of The Self-Help, Management and Productivity Market
This “productivism”, competitiveness and individualism have far-reaching societal consequences, including the diminishing of discussions on what constitutes the good life.
Charles Taylor2 excellently elaborates on this issue in his book The Ethics of Authenticity.
Taylor points out that if the case of authenticity takes the form of soft relativism, then it means that the strong defence of any moral ideal is out of the question because that would imply that some forms of life are higher than others.
However, the culture of tolerance for individual self-realisation shies away from such claims. People in the “culture of authenticity,” as Charles Taylor calls it, support a particular type of liberalism that many have embraced: the liberalism of “neutrality.”
One basic principle of this thinking is that a liberal society needs to be “neutral” on questions of what constitutes a good life.The good life would be what each individual seeks in their own way.
The result is that philosophical discussions about the good life have been banished to the periphery of the debate.
We could not agree more. In an era when universal values are being questioned, relativism and individualism lead people to seek a life that is good only for themselves, even to the detriment of fundamental ethical principles and collective well-being.
In this context, self-help manuals and books today teach lessons on achieving “mastery” and “laws” on how to climb to the highest levels of power, trampling on everything and everyone in their path. Advice that would make even Machiavelli cringe but is seen in contemporary times as a socially acceptable practice.
In fact, being obsessed with one’s own success and questionable quantitative metrics is considered “praiseworthy.” The line between right and wrong seems to be getting thinner every day. Not that all of this has never existed. But now, many people are no longer embarrassed to admit their excessive ambitions and corrupt strategies to succeed.
Indeed, the levels of psychopathy and narcissism are increasing every day. Furthermore, these levels tend to be higher than the average population in extremely competitive environments, where people seek personal prominence, power, money and high performance at any cost.
But does “crime” pay? Is it worth living life for the sake of success and ambition? What drives us: the desire to conquer power or happiness?
Harvard’s Long-Term Happiness Study
According to a survey of Millennials, more than 80% of respondents said that one of their main goals in life was to become rich. And 50% said that their other goal was to become famous.
Contemporary culture encourages us to work hard and sells us the mistaken idea that success is what will bring us joy and satisfaction.
However, Robert Waldinger, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard, has a different opinion. In his famous TED talk and in his book The Good Life, Robert presents the results of a fascinating study on happiness and health conducted at Harvard University.
The project, which began in 1938 and is still ongoing, is called the Harvard Study of Adult Development. It follows a large group of men (724 participants) from their adolescence to old age. Now, the research also includes the wives and more than two thousand sons and daughters of these men.
The initial group was divided into two. The first group consisted of students from Harvard University, and the second included teenagers from the poorest neighbourhoods of Boston, USA. These young people came from dysfunctional and economically disadvantaged families.
The study investigated the lives of these men year after year: their jobs, family lives, social relationships, and health. Over more than seven decades, the researchers gave questionnaires, interviewed their family members, filmed conversations, performed medical exams, etc.
These men became bricklayers, doctors, and lawyers, among other professions. One of them became President of the USA. Some rose through the ranks. Others took the opposite path, from wealth to poverty.
The researchers wanted to answer one big question by observing the unfolding of this group along the way: “What keeps people happy and healthy throughout their lives?”
The main lesson from the world’s longest-running scientific study on happiness and health, conducted by Harvard University, is: “Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.”
Robert Waldinger – Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard
The research also showed three interesting aspects of relationships.
The first is that social connections are good for us in many ways. Feeling isolated or alone is harmful to our minds and bodies.
The second is that the quality of our relationships is much more important than the number of friends we have or whether or not we are in a romantic relationship. Living in conflictual environments is toxic to our health.
Third, good relationships are beneficial to the body and protect our brains in old age.
Our relationships do not have to be perfect. People who love each other argue, have differences, and go through ups and downs. The big question is whether we can count on others in difficult times and whether we love and are truly loved.
Since time immemorial, the importance of relationships has been celebrated in ancient philosophy, religions, literature, the arts, etc. So why do so many people dedicate so little time to the people they love? Why do people seek happiness in money, fame, and great achievements?
Because relationships demand a lot of work! But we must always remember that a good life is built on good relationships.
Aspects of a Job or Work That Benefit our Mental Health and Quality of Life
In light of everything I have explained so far, reading the book Creative Leisure in college, from which I extracted the quote about smart work at the beginning of this post, changed my life. When I learned about Harvard’s research project on happiness, I confirmed that my choices were on the right track.
I realised early on that to be fulfilled at work, given this turbulent social scenario, I should invest in a career that would grant me some essential conditions, such as:
- Autonomy to manage how to carry out the individual tasks under my responsibility.
- Freedom of expression and professional practice so I could act under my values and ethical standards.
- The power to choose my immediate partners in projects or daily activities, so that my professional relationships would be of quality and happy.
- The right to take time off due to illness or leave to deal with relevant personal issues without suffering salary interruption or retaliation.
- Vacation of at least one month per year and not working on weekends or holidays.
- Maximum working hours of 8 hours per day, without overtime. If I worked more than that, which occasionally happens to this day, it would be by my own choice and in exceptional circumstances.
Strategic Career Management to Survive in an Sick World
Although to varying degrees in some aspects, I achieved these conditions after graduating. I worked as a cultural heritage consultant freelancer, civil servant architect at my city’s Cultural Heritage Directorate, and, finally, a professor at UFMG.
Therefore, it was not an “accidental” coincidence but something planned on my part. In fact, throughout my adolescence and early youth, my main goal was to become a businesswoman. “If I own my business, I am in charge of my life,” I mistakenly thought.
This perception only changed after seeing how the world and the professional market work.
The fact is that today, incredible as it may seem, as a tenured professor, I have more autonomy, freedom of expression, and choice of professional relationships than I had when I was a freelancer. And I have more freedom than if I had my own business in many types of markets.
I think this topic deserves its own post, but I’ll give you an example that helps clarify what I mean. As a businesswoman or freelancer, I could never have this blog, write this post, or speak openly about the subjects I discuss here, including criticising the problems of the university itself, the institution that pays my salary.
I know the lives of many entrepreneurs up close. I see the price they pay in every way, regarding work overload and the constant worry about “what the client will think.” The entrepreneur is generally a servant of the client’s opinion, just as I was a servant of the opinion of my employers when I worked as a freelancer.
The problem is that these clients are only sometimes good people. Companies or freelancers that act selectively and “choose” their clients too much often go bankrupt.
Therefore, influenced by a more mature view of how the world works and by research in the sociology of work, I intentionally outlined a professional path that would allow me to be productive while maintaining my quality of life.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be through a tenured job or a public exam. Several strategies can be adopted to guarantee most of the benefits I listed above, even in the corporate market or working as a freelancer. But in this case, it is necessary to give up some “dreams,” including the ambition of becoming rich.
I strongly recommend that readers use quality of life as a guide. To do this, we need to review our goals and ambitions.
Cultivating a Happy Life with Better Ambitions
In this dark context, my career strategy allows me to avoid this “productivism” and be far from the workaholic culture. This way, I can reconcile demanding professional activities with a rich and fruitful personal and cultural life.
My expectations are high. I don’t just want to be a productive professional. Still, I also want to pay due attention to the various roles of my profession: professor, mentor, researcher, writer, manager, coworker, science communicator, etc. I want to extend these favourable results to the other fronts that make up who I am: citizen, wife, mother, daughter, friend, Christian and so on.
I don’t intend to break records; I want to live surrounded by love. It is one of the principles of my tropical productivity. The importance of anonymous people who love others and make a difference in everyday life has become even more evident in the financial and climate crises, pandemics, wars and other urgent challenges we face today. We have never needed solidarity and collective effort so much.
Therefore, my most important life project does not focus on external achievements but on internal changes. Who we are should be our best result for the world. “The goal is to be better than yesterday,” says a sign in my home office.
More important than reaching the top is being happy along the way. More impactful than being the most relevant authority in my field is being the best person possible for those who live with me every day. In this sense…
Maybe I will never be the best at anything because I am trying to be excellent at many things at the same time.
Notes
1 – Domenico de Masi
Domenico de Masi was an important sociologist of work, born in Italy in 1938.
At just 19 years old, he was already publishing essays on urban and labour sociology. At 22, he began his academic career as a professor at the University of Naples. He then became an Professor Emeritus at the prestigious La Sapienza University in Rome, where he taught from 1977.
He was one of the world’s pioneers in remote work and creative leisure research, a term he coined in 1995.
Domenico was a best-selling author, with dozens of books published and hundreds of thousands sold in Brazil alone. In fact, he was a fan of Brazil, which he visited many times, including my city, Belo Horizonte. He wrote essays and books about our country and was an honorary citizen of Rio de Janeiro.
Domenico was productive until the end of his life. His last book was Smart Work (2020). He passed away in 2023.
2 – Charles Taylor
Charles Taylor, born in Canada in 1931, is one of the most important philosophers of our time.
He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at McGill University, having also graduated and worked at the University of Oxford. Taylor has given lectures at Brazilian universities, including in Belo Horizonte, my city.
His vast intellectual production encompasses political philosophy, social sciences, history of philosophy and philosophy of religion.
Charles Taylor is also a Christian.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Alberto Nogueira Veiga and all who gave me their precious feedback.
Images: Pexels.
Please help me improve my English by sending me your suggestions through this contact form. Thanks!
Published on my blog in Portuguese on April 23, 2022: Por que técnicas de gestão e produtividade com frequência não funcionam?
