The Best Productivity Systems Work Because Teams Own Them
Why even the best frameworks crumble without buy-in, trust, and adaptation—and what great leaders do differently.
Ever wondered why the same productivity system that works brilliantly for one team completely flops for another? It’s not about the system, but rather about the people using it. No methodology succeeds without buy-in.
In this article, I’ll share how leaders can introduce productivity frameworks effectively—without undermining team dynamics or motivation.
How teams actually adopt productivity systems (Hint: not by the book)
Throughout my career, I’ve never been fully satisfied with how productivity systems were implemented.
As an individual contributor, I felt that processes were prioritized over people. As a manager, I observed that teams rarely followed the textbook implementation of these systems. Too often, choosing a productivity system came down to opinion rather than fact:
- “Look, Agile is all about keeping things flexible: short cycles, constant feedback, and adapting on the fly so we don’t waste months building the wrong thing!”
- “Nah, man, Lean is where it’s at—cut the crap, focus on what actually delivers value, and stop wasting time on pointless meetings and fluff!”
Let me be clear: I actively support teams in choosing processes that work for them, and there are many well-documented success stories of various approaches. However, I’ve learned that every team is unique. Just because a system worked elsewhere, does that mean it will work for your team?
A framework without buy-in is just bureaucracy
Adopting a new productivity system is just like adopting a new culture—everyone needs to be on board.
In my experience, no team was ever fully invested in implementing Scrum according to the official guide. Moreover, I've often observed Agile practices overshadowing open-mindedness and the discovery of better development methods. Instead, they tend to deteriorate into ego-driven ceremonies or become overly focused on following processes and tools.
After fifteen years working in industries from air logistic, through real estate analytics to augmented reality, I’ve realized one thing: success isn’t about process. Success is about people—what drives them, how they collaborate, and whether they truly believe in the system they’re asked to follow.
Why is this important? Because every team consists of individuals who think differently, use different tools, and have unique experiences. The dynamism and unpredictability of the real world shapes each person's distinct viewpoint. Leaders must recognize this when introducing any new process—after all, they're asking team members to embrace a methodology that will govern a third of their daily lives. It's akin to adopting a new belief system overnight. Success is impossible without first considering whether team members are invested in the change, believe in the system, or have been offered the chance to explore alternative frameworks.
Why do teams struggle with productivity systems?
Not identifying the desired outcome
Many teams adopt a process without clearly defining what success looks like. Is there focus on faster execution, better collaboration, or increased innovation? The right system depends on the goal.
All businesses strive for results, and high-performing teams are essential to achieving these goals. This principle should extend to defining the how of a team's daily work. Too often, I've seen processes implemented simply because they're trendy or because other companies are using them. While adopting new approaches shows leadership's commitment to industry best practices, implementation delivers little value unless the expected results are clearly defined and monitored.
I recall an experience when being the most senior engineer on a team, I wasn't entirely clear why I was introducing Scrum. Was it to get organized? To create a platform for regular deliverable inspections? I wasn't sure. It’s not difficult to envision that that attempt to adopt textbook Scrum didn’t go well.
💡Learning #1: always start by sharing the business challenge you're trying to solve. This clarity will help team members better understand both the current situation and your desired outcomes. It will greatly increase the chance for a positive change in the team system.
Overlooking the human in the team
A great system on paper can destroy motivation if it clashes with how people work best. Engineers and researchers resist top-down mandates but thrive under autonomy-driven structures.
The best managers create conditions where teams shape their own systems. Leadership is about fostering ownership, not about enforcing compliance. Establishing open communication isn't a sign of weakness—it's an opportunity to build trust, enhance everyone's problem-solving abilities, and foster a culture that welcomes diverse opinions and viewpoints. In none of the heated team debates that I’ve participated in, have I heard others say “I liked being proven wrong by the boss” yet I’ve heard the appreciation “I liked being heard by the boss”.
I once witnessed a senior executive attempt to impose cultural values on the engineering team without any prior consultation. When presented with these new values, the team unanimously resisted. No one appreciated how these expectations were communicated and the town-hall on which this was presented imploded spectacularly. This approach failed to build trust or demonstrate effective leadership. As a result, the engineering team never adopted these values and became less aligned with the executive's vision.
I’ve felt the effects of such mistake on my skin, too. As a manager, I once failed to gauge the team’s collective sentiment before introducing a change. To improve my team's goal-setting and execution capabilities, I decided to implement individual-level OKRs. This backfired tremendously because I failed to articulate why increasing team efficiency mattered. Most team members rejected the approach, and it became a failure—the change never achieved its desired outcome, and I wasted enormous energy trying to convince people to adopt an idea that never gained traction. Even today I believe implementing individual-level OKRs was the right decision, but my failure to effectively know my team doomed the initiative.
💡Learning #2: don’t make an executive decision, but make a proposal for the change subject to discussion. There is always a better way to solve a particular problem—going back to the distinct viewpoints that there are in a team, you can harness it as a force multiplier for finding ways of addressing a problem that may very well be much more efficient than your idea.
Failing to inspect for performance
A process is a hypothesis—it must be tested and adapted. Research and maintenance teams require continuous evaluation to ensure the system serves them rather than constrains them.
Introducing a change to a productivity system without planning for later inspection is a red flag. Every process change must be revisited and evaluated against underlying metrics. How else can we determine if the change has been beneficial? As mentioned earlier, adopting a new productivity system mirrors adopting a new culture—but unlike culture, it can be measured. Having concrete data points proves especially persuasive when convincing technically minded individuals in tech teams.
One of my previous bosses openly shared the metrics he used to evaluate productivity, which I found great. This gave me a clear understanding of how my work quality was reflected in the statistics. With this insight, I realized I could make his job easier by submitting smaller code changes that were easier to review. Truly a win-win situation. I could submit changes more frequently, and his other direct reports became more agile since they had smaller chunks of code to review!
💡Learning #3: What gets measured gets managed. Before introducing an organizational change:
Ask yourself "What is the purpose of this change?";
Choose one key metric to track the impact of the process change;
Schedule a specific date to review the results with your team.
This metric will provide concrete evidence for your team to either maintain or reverse the process change.
The manager as navigator of individualism
High-performing teams thrive not because of the process, but because of their ability to adapt, challenge, and improve it.
And that’s what great leadership is all about: not enforcing a system, but helping a team build their own.