[shortcake27]

Productivity should be measured on a much larger scale (weeks/months). Day to day, productivity varies wildly. Some days your productivity is 0%, others it’s 300%.

How would you rate your productivity on a longer timescale? If you’re doing well then there’s no need to worry; it’s normal.

At standup, I’d say the truth - bashed my head against a wall to no avail. If this results in punishment, something is very wrong. You don’t get rewarded when you do a weeks worth of work in a day, so you can’t be expected to output a _minimum_ of 100% every day. This is how burnout occurs.

[paulcole]

> Some days your productivity is 0%, others it’s 300%.

Obviously this depends on the job, but the problem is that people like to believe that they have plenty of those “other” days you describe. If you ask somebody at random how productive they were that day and they answer, “not at all” isn’t it much more likely that person is generally unproductive than an exceptional performer having a slower day?

[shortcake27]

This is a difficult question to answer as I don’t even know if it’s possible to measure this objectively at all.

But in my experience, the people with enough self-awareness to admit they got nothing done yesterday are not the same people who assume they overachieve every other day. I find the least productive people to be the ones who always pretend like they’re super productive all the time.

Self-assessing on this metric may very well be biased. However, your performance is being measured externally. a good manager understands people can have very unproductive days and very productive days, and they should be looking at the broader picture. If someone gets dragged for a single bad day, something is very wrong with the management.

[ipaddr]

No because productive people ebb and flow. The productive person is too burned out to make up an answer but the unproductive spent their time coming up with material for the standup show