Modern Productivity Management: Why Work Systems Fail to Produce High Performance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/gijtm.v4i1.756Keywords:
Cognitive Load, Productivity Management, Sustainable Performance, Work Psychology, Work SystemsAbstract
The development of digital technology and modern work systems is often assumed to increase organizational productivity and performance. However, in practice, many organizations experience increased workloads without corresponding improvements in performance quality. This article aims to analyze why modern work systems often fail to produce high performance, despite being supported by increasingly sophisticated management practices and technology. Using a narrative-critical literature review approach to scientific publications in the fields of management, cognitive psychology, and organizational behavior from 2015 to 2025, this article examines the relationship between work system design, cognitive limitations, planning biases, emotional regulation, and performance sustainability. The analysis shows that modern work systems are built on assumptions that are at odds with human cognitive and emotional capacities, such as demands for multitasking, constant responsiveness, and overly optimistic performance targets. These conditions foster the illusion of activity-based productivity, increase cognitive load and emotional stress, and hinder deep focus and quality decision-making. This article contributes to the productivity management literature by asserting that productivity is a systemic phenomenon that depends on the alignment between work system design and human psychological capacities. The article's practical implications emphasize the importance of shifting work systems toward sustainable, high-quality performance.
References
Bakker, A. B., & Woerkom, M. Van. (2017). Flow at Work : a Self-Determination Perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(23), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-017-0003-3
Barnes, C. M., & Drake, C. L. (2015). Prioritizing sleep health : Public health policy recommendations. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 24(6), 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598509
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Gardner, D. (2023). How Big Things Get Done: The surprising factors that determine the fate of every project from home renovations to space exploration, and everything in between. Oxford University Press.
Hulsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Depenbrock, F., Ferhmann, C., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Alberts, H. J. B. M. (2015). The power of emotion regulation: An experience sampling study at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038372
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2019). Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 51–60.
Leroy, S., Schmidt, A. M., & Madjar, N. (2021). Interruption and task transitions: Understanding their effects on employees’ attention and performance. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 661–689. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0350
Mark, G. J., Iqbal, S. T., Czerwinski, M., Johns, P., & Sano, A. (2016). Neurotics Can’t Focus : An in situ Study of Online Multitasking in the Workplace. Proceedings of 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2016, 1739–1744. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858202
Mazzetti, G., Robledo, E., Vignoli, M., Topa, G., Guglielmi, D., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2023). Work engagement: A meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model. Psychological Reports, 126(6), 2669–2706.
Newport, C. (2021). Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world. Grand Central Publisheng.
Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2016). Procrastination, emotion regulation, and well-being. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 34(4), 226–244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802862-9.00008-6
Snyder, H. (2019). Litertature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.business.2019.07.039
Sonnentag, S., Venz, L., & Caspar, A. (2017). Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 365–380. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog/202 4
Sugiyono, S. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D (2nd ed.). Alfabeta.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving : Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202 4
Zed, M. (2014). Metode penelitian kepustakaan (3rd ed.). Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jonner Simarmata, Evi Adriani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright :
Authors who publish their manuscripts in this journal agree to the following conditions:
- Copyright in each article belongs to the author.
- The author acknowledges that the Greenation International Journal of Tourism and Management (GIJTM) has the right to be the first to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0).
- Authors can submit articles separately, arrange the non-exclusive distribution of manuscripts that have been published in this journal to other versions (for example, sent to the author's institutional repository, publication in a book, etc.), by acknowledging that the manuscript has been published for the first time at GIJTM.
