Punished

What is the point of efficiency?

WordReference.com lists it as “skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort; ‘she did the work with great efficiency'” or “the ratio of the output to the input of any system”.

Answers.com says,

1. The quality or property of being efficient.
2. The degree to which this quality is exercised: The program was implemented with great efficiency and speed.
3. The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.
4. The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation.

So basically, getting the most done for the effort.

What is the role of efficiency in the workplace, then?

Employers want to see the most output for the least input. Anyone who has ever studied Economics (micro or macro) knows that the formula is never that simple. Many machines, especially humans, have very oddly shaped production frontiers.

Humans as a class are usually very inefficient below a certain level of input, and then tend to blossom with great efficiency gain over a certain range of input. Then the law of diminishing returns kick in, as it does for all imperfect machines.

Good managers of people do two things: one, they hire good employees — people who truly want to work for the benefit of the company (which also benefits the employee), and two, they understand that if goals are spelled out for said self-motivated employees, they will adapt themselves to achieve the maximum results for the minimum effort.

Yes, good employees tend to optimize toward efficiency.

The details of this are highly individual. Some employees see their salary as part of the input. A certain level of input financially is only going to yield a certain level of output, no matter what other optimizations occur.

This is a microeconomic analysis which holds the financial aspect frozen. The result is the same if you isolate other factors, too. There is always a production maximum when one of the factors is isolated. But at run time, real time, all the factors are in play, and all of the factors make an impact on efficiency at every moment, even those factors (like salary) which are static over the short term or even long term.

My boss called me into my office to say that my CEO has observed that I am excessively chatty throughout my building. I am said to be a “leaner”. I was told to work on it. I was told it appears that I don’t have enough to do.

I accepted it kindly and constructively enough from my boss. He is a good boss, and excellent manager. But when his boss tells him to tell me something, does he have any choice but to comply? I respect that and his candor in relaying the message to me.

But once back at my desk, I find I am gradually and gradually more outraged. I am to be punished for taking on greater and greater work load each year, and optimizing it effectively so as allowing me sufficient free time to be able to leave my desk and engage in the kind of sharpening the saw activities I need … in order to maintain my efficiency!

The complaint was coming from UPWARD, not laterally or downward. The people I happen to talk to from time to time are not the one’s complaining. No one has complained that I’m not getting my work done.

I am hired as a creative talent. My role here is largely to provide creative effort. But I am not allowed to personally be creative, literally re-creative (yes, recreative) at work.

I’m going to have to seriously find somewhere else to work. If I’m not going to be allowed to be recreative, then I dang well had better be paid closer to my private sector earning level.