Professor Clark argues that work rules truly differentiated the factory. People working at home could start and finish when they wanted, a very appealing sort of flexibility, but it had a major drawback, he said. People ended up doing less work that way.

Factories imposed discipline. They enforced strict work hours. There were rules for when you could go home and for when you had to show up at the beginning of your shift. If you arrived late you could be locked out for the day. For workers being paid piece rates, this certainly got them up and at work on time. You can even see something similar with the assembly line. Those operations dictate a certain pace of work. Like a running partner, an assembly line enforces a certain speed.

As Professor Clark provocatively puts it: “Workers effectively hired capitalists to make them work harder. They lacked the self-control to achieve higher earnings on their own.”

The data entry workers in our study, centuries later, might have agreed with that statement. In fact, 73 percent of them did agree to this statement: “It would be good if there were rules against being absent because it would help me come to work more often.”

Of course with newer forms of technology, showing up for work on time need not mean being physically at a given workplace. A study by the economists Nicholas Bloom, John Roberts and Zhichun Ying of Stanford and James Liang of Peking University looked at call center workers in China. In their experiment, some workers were randomly assigned to work at home, others worked in group call centers. The work habits of both groups were carefully monitored electronically, and the workers knew it. The researchers found that those working at home were 13 percent more productive than those in call centers. With modern technology, we now have so many ways to quantify, track and motivate productivity. We do not need to lock factory doors or even have a factory. Yet we have not yet begun to scratch the surface of motivating production in this way.

Frederick Taylor, the American efficiency expert, revolutionized manufacturing at the turn of the 20th century with a simple insight. Most manufacturing work was a sequence of physical motions. You would load coal onto a shovel, carry it to a furnace, throw it into the furnace, walk back to the coal pile and repeat. In a time and motion study, he would quantify each step and how long it would take. Then he would analyze how to improve the whole process.

He noted, for example, that a typical worker could lift 21 pounds for maximum efficiency. Of course, workers varied in size and strength but on average this weight balanced the number of shovel lifts per minute against the volume per lift. In those early days, workers used the same shovel for all materials, irrespective of the density of the stuff being lifted, so less weight was being lifted for the less dense materials. His elegant and simple solution — bigger scoops for shovels used to haul the less dense materials — illustrates how careful analysis of a specific work process can increase productivity.