The focus of academic and institutional funding often skews towards productivity research over well-being studies due to several critical factors. First, the perceived economic impact of productivity research aligns with industrial and governmental priorities centered on growth and efficiency. Productivity enhancements directly contribute to improved industry performance, increased GDP, and competitive advantage, which are often viewed as immediate and measurable benefits.
Second, productivity research frequently offers more quantifiable outcomes compared to well-being studies. The metrics associated with productivity, such as return on investment (ROI), output per hour, and other efficiency indicators, provide clear, data-driven results that satisfy the demands of stakeholders looking for tangible evidence of progress. In contrast, well-being studies, despite their importance, often involve variables that are subjective and harder to quantify, such as emotional health and life satisfaction.
Furthermore, the academic and funding model itself may inherently bias towards areas that promise practical applications and technological innovations with commercial potential. There is a strong preference for funding areas of research that can be directly commercialized or translated into policy frameworks that promise direct economic benefits.
Additionally, the structure of many funding bodies includes decision-makers who may place a higher premium on productivity due to their own backgrounds in business, economics, or technology fields, thus framing their perspectives toward funding decisions.
Lastly, there is a lag in recognizing the long-term economic advantages of enhanced well-being, which can lead to productivity gains through improved mental health and reduced absenteeism. As the understanding of well-being's impact grows, there could be a shift towards balancing funding priorities. However, currently, the economic-centric lens dominates funding distribution across sectors.