The McKinsey Quarterly

  • Recommend (16)
  • Text Size
  • Print
  • Download PDF
  • Link to This

Five misconceptions about productivity

As the US economy begins to recover, addressing some of the myths on productivity is more important than ever.

President Obama recently used his weekly radio address to insist that the United States can outcompete any other nation on earth if only we “unlock the productivity” of American workers. But the president’s advocacy of productivity—getting more or better value for each hour worked—as the key to competitiveness may fall on deaf ears in some quarters. Longstanding misconceptions continue to undermine rational debate on productivity. Here are a few of the most pervasive.

Productivity is not a priority. The United States relies more than ever on productivity gains to drive GDP growth. Productivity generated 80 percent of total GDP growth in recent years compared with 35 percent in the 1970s. Now, due to our country’s shifting demographics, we’ll have to do even better.

In the past, productivity gains and an expanding labor force made equal contributions to economic growth. But this is changing as baby boomers retire and the number of women entering the work force levels off. If labor-force growth slows as projected and productivity increases at the average 1.7 percent annual rate posted since 1960, annual GDP growth will fall to 2.2 percent from its historic average of 3.3 percent. Americans on average would experience slower gains in living standards than did their parents and grandparents. To prevent this, productivity growth needs to increase to an annual rate of 2.3 percent—a rate not achieved since the 1960s.

Productivity is a job killer. Many Americans suspect that productivity is a job-destroying exercise. They point to the period since 2000, when the largest productivity gains in the United States came from sectors that have seen large job cuts, such as electronics and other manufacturing. But when looking across the economy overall, as opposed to the ups and downs of individual sectors, productivity and jobs nearly always increase together. More than two-thirds of the years since 1929 have seen gains in both. It is simply untrue that there is a trade-off between productivity and jobs in a dynamic economy.

Productivity is only about efficiency and is designed to bolster corporate profits. Productivity can come either from efficiency gains (such as reducing inputs for given output) or by increasing the volume and value of outputs for any given input (for which innovation is a vital driver). The United States needs to see both kinds of productivity gains to experience a virtuous growth cycle in which increases in value provide for rises in income that, in turn, fuel demand for more and better goods and services.

In the second half of the 1990s, the United States saw productivity gains come from both sources. Two sectors—large-employment retail, and semiconductors and electronics—collectively contributed 35 percent to the acceleration in productivity during this period and, at the same time, added more than two million new jobs. In contrast, the largest productivity gains since 2000 have come from sectors that experienced substantial employment reductions. The challenge for the United States is to return to the balanced productivity growth of the previous decade.

Productivity is just for laggard sectors and companies. Not so. As a critical component of competitiveness, rising productivity is essential to the overall health and wealth of the US economy and to its ability to compete globally. Even the best-performing companies and sectors still have headroom to boost productivity by emulating the best practices of others and developing new innovations of their own. Even a productive sector such as retail, for instance, can broaden its use of lean techniques from the stockroom to the storefront and continue to innovate.

It is true that the opportunity for gains may be larger in industries such as health care that today have relatively low productivity. Our hospitals, without the driver of competition, have only just begun to embrace efficient practices and lean techniques in the purchase and delivery of services. Clearly, the public sector—at all levels—also needs to become more efficient. Boosting public-sector productivity will be critical to reducing the US budget deficit without simply slashing public services.

Productivity gains have reached their limits. Some say that economic development and technological innovation in the United States have plateaued and that our productivity engine is running out of steam. We disagree. Our research suggests that the private sector can deliver three-quarters of the productivity gains that the United States needs to match historic growth rates simply by applying best practices across the economy and tapping into the next wave of innovation.

But to obtain the last one-quarter of what’s required, federal, state and local governments need to tackle economy-wide barriers that have long hampered productivity growth—including our deteriorating infrastructure and the abiding burden of red tape. Government should also see to it that companies with a strong record of innovation have access to the talent and the right incentives to expand their US-based operations. Working together, the public and private sectors can set a new global standard for productivity and competitiveness, while ensuring that future generations enjoy gains in living standards similar to those their parents experienced.

About the Authors

Vik Malhotra is a director in McKinsey’s New York office; James Manyika is director of the McKinsey Global Institute and a director in the San Francisco office. This article is reprinted from “Productivity and growth: The enduring connection,” which appeared in the February 16, 2011, edition of the Wall Street Journal. Copyright © 2011 Dow Jones & Company. All rights reserved.

Recommend (16)
  • 17 MARCH 2011
    Dominique Turcq
    President
    Boostzone Institute
    Paris, France

    I tend to agree with all the points of the article from an economic standpoint. They rely, however, on one assumption: that the economic system, and in particular the labour market, is able to reallocate human resources...

    .
    Dominique Turcq
    President
    Boostzone Institute
    Paris, France

    I tend to agree with all the points of the article from an economic standpoint. They rely, however, on one assumption: that the economic system, and in particular the labour market, is able to reallocate human resources freed by the productivity gains. But it does not always work this way, and some resources become long-term unemployed. I tend to believe that corporation’s management has a part of responsibility in that fact.

    .
  • 15 MARCH 2011
    Joris Claeys
    Managing Director
    ACCELERATE-gscs | CAPix-Asia
    Philippines

    ...Obama’s call for the USA to outcompete any other nation on Earth through unlocking the productivity of American workers, sounded quite protectionist and repulsive for non-Americans. However, it is a mandatory recommendation...

    .
    Joris Claeys
    Managing Director
    ACCELERATE-gscs | CAPix-Asia
    Philippines

    Both this article as well as the comments, give a very clear message to developed, developing, and under-developed nations.

    The past 2+ years of downturn with difficult re-establishment of the GDP’s worldwide, give sufficient proof that increasing productivity is a concern and responsibility of the mass (you and I), promoted by governments and realized through the corporate world as well as the small businesses. The latter providing probably the biggest growth potential as historically has been proven.

    Innovation and entrepreneurship have been some of the cornerstones of US economic growth since the 70s, but has slowed down tremendously because younger generations have adapted a lifestyle equal to their parents without having to bring in the same efforts (and time) the baby-boomers had to go through.

    Together with the changed demographics, this has become unsustainable and should have halted a decade ago. So promoting productivity is important and has a huge impact on reviving economical growth, whether at small or corporate scale. Obama’s call for the USA to outcompete any other nation on Earth through unlocking the productivity of American workers, sounded quite protectionist and repulsive for non-Americans. However, it is a mandatory recommendation which should have been highlighted long time ago. To realize this, it is essential that such a shift is combined with cultural changes and change in habitual behavior in the American society. It is not just an economical approach.

    .
  • 9 MARCH 2011
    Tim Barrow-Williams
    More Associates
    London, UK

    Throughout this article the authors perpetuate a very narrow definition of productivity, one based on a deadly embrace between innovation and unsustainable consumption. What about natural limits to this damaging exponential?...

    .
    Tim Barrow-Williams
    More Associates
    London, UK

    Throughout this article the authors perpetuate a very narrow definition of productivity, one based on a deadly embrace between innovation and unsustainable consumption. What about natural limits to this damaging exponential?

    If the global recovery is to ensure “that future generations enjoy gains in living standards similar to those their parents experienced” then we need to redefine both productivity and living standards.

    .
  • 8 MARCH 2011
    Konrad Stiglbrunner
    Director
    INSIGHT Geschäftsentwicklungs-GmbH
    Neumünster, Germany

    ...correcting non-economists’ misconceptions head on, which is very important in times of unemployment, despair and growing readiness to put the blame on the managerial class or capitalism at large....

    .
    Konrad Stiglbrunner
    Director
    INSIGHT Geschäftsentwicklungs-GmbH
    Neumünster, Germany

    Nice and crisp messages, correcting non-economists’ misconceptions head on, which is very important in times of unemployment, despair and growing readiness to put the blame on the managerial class or capitalism at large.

    This reminds me of a great McK-Quarterly contribution, that I read in 1982 and which I’d strongly recommend to be republished. This article titled “Nutcracker Island” or so, delivered the message metaphorically, that productivity gains always end up in the consumers’ pockets eventually. Therein the author describes how the development of the nutcracking tools and the industrialization of nutcracking creates radical shifts in the competitive conditions for and the fate of the nutcrackers while massively boosting the nut-eaters’ gains).

    Anyhow, educating the laymen’s view of the world is an increasingly important task, that must not be left to populistic revolutionists. Thank you for your contribution!

    .
  • 5 MARCH 2011
    Satish Pathak
    Chief Manager
    Indian Oil Corporation Limited
    Mumbai India

    ...All myths suggested in the article are the key points for not only developed nations like the US but also for other countries. And the private sector plays the key role on innovations to unlock any country...

    .
    Satish Pathak
    Chief Manager
    Indian Oil Corporation Limited
    Mumbai India

    Barack Obama’s insisitance on unlocking productivity is not only a messianic message for re-engaement of Americans, but also for the entire world. It is on engagement, on global tensions reduction, and on reinventing the world thru competitiveness.

    In fact, I could use such a message to Prof MS Swaminathan, father of the green revolution in India, on 26th Sept 2010 at Goa as why poor Indian villagers could not come out of poverty for last 63 years since independence, why India is still poor, and how India can come out thru productivity by a theme of India A Ragi Nation on sustainable development. The productivity tool and crafting the market was totally ingnored to engage villagers on their capability and capacities. Villages were isolated wherein a majoirty of 90% lived at independence, and which is still at 65% today. For the first time, Indian goverment has recognised productivty as basic tool for the emancipation of villagers living below $1.25 per day income in masses by allocating budget to such items as Finger Millet on appeal by Prof MS Swaminathan to National Advisiory Committee.

    All myths suggested in the article are the key points for not only developed nations like the US but also for other countries. And the private sector plays the key role on innovations to unlock any country, is the truth I believe in.

    .
Submit Your Comments

The user information you enter into this form will not update your site profile. To update your profile, please visit your profile page.

Subject Five misconceptions about productivity

*Required

We may publish your comments online and in the print edition of McKinsey Quarterly. Those chosen, which may be edited for length and clarity, will appear along with your name and details, but not your e-mail address. We will use your e-mail address only to send you a confirmation copy of your comments and to notify you if we publish them online.

We value your feedback and will consider it carefully. Nonetheless, we receive so many comments that we cannot acknowledge all of them.

See also:
Preview

Embed E-mail