• realcaseyrollins
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Hot take: they might be right that going back to the office makes folks more productive, but the quiet quitting phenomenon could be counteracting that effect

    • rockerface 🇺🇦
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      It’s a net loss in productivity of the company, then. Unless having less people to pay to offsets that the other way, which I sincerely doubt

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    19
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    When I come to office (one day per week), I come to have a great time with colleagues. No one forces me, I can work fully remote, it’s just nice to have colleagues around. We go for a vape, for a lunch, for a walk. Good times. Ohh, and also few meetings that day, since I live ~150km away from office lol.

    I openly say in office that I can’t work from office. Basically socializing and that’s it. Productivity almost zero.

    While on the other hand, working from home is where I shine. I can fully focus on my scripting/coding/automation stuff.

  • kamen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 years ago

    Do these folks factor in people who have to waste 1 hour in commuting to and from the office? Or do they pay for that as well?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    582 years ago

    “Please send the planet further into its end with global warming by heating it with transportation needs just so I can talk to your face in real”

    These people should be fired. Also they should be penalized by never being permitted to have a warm shower ever again. Reused water all the way down. They can do double time when it comes to mending the planet.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      just so I can talk to your face in real

      Just so we can keep the value of our office buildings high

  • ShaunaTheDead
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    The whole “working from home reduces productivity” is non-sense simply because companies can simply put poor performers on a performance improvement plan and if they don’t improve then fire them. But they’re not doing that in droves, so therefore, it’s just not true.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    72 years ago

    Funny that I’ve seen tons of research saying the opposite. Enough to say, at a minimum, that the verdict is still very much out on the link between productivity and remote work. But I only see the negative ones being published now, whereas during COVID I only saw the positive ones.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    It seems like you’re discussing various studies and opinions on remote work productivity, highlighting both positive and critical perspectives. If you’re looking for tools or strategies that can support increased productivity in a remote or hybrid work environment, one effective solution is time tracking and management software.

    Tools like https://timechamp.io/ can help employees and teams:

    1. Track Time Effectively: By monitoring how time is spent throughout the workday, employees can better understand their productivity patterns and optimize their workflows.

    2. Set Goals and Priorities: Establishing clear goals and priorities helps employees stay focused and ensures they are working on tasks that contribute directly to their objectives.

    3. Manage Breaks and Work-Life Balance: Encouraging regular breaks and managing work-life balance is crucial for sustaining productivity over the long term. TimeChamp can help by scheduling breaks and ensuring employees are not overworking.

    4. Enhance Communication: While remote work can pose challenges in communication, tools integrated with collaboration features can facilitate effective team communication, reducing misunderstandings and enhancing productivity.

    5. Analyze Productivity Trends: By analyzing data and trends over time, managers can identify bottlenecks, inefficiencies, and areas for improvement, ultimately boosting overall productivity.

    These tools support remote and hybrid work models by providing insights into time management, goal setting, and communication, fostering a productive work environment regardless of location.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
    link
    fedilink
    175
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Here is a link to the actual study (PDF via GDrive)

    One of the authors of this paper is from the Chicago School and the Hoover Institution. Both are pro-business, anti-worker think-tanks that have been this way for decades. They also don’t do any research of their own, but cite other papers that show the 5-20% reduction.

    However, the methodology mentioned in the papers is suspect. First, they show that remote workers have the same productivity, but work longer hours. So the net output doesn’t go down, they just spend more time working. Which raises the question: How many more breaks were they taking throughout the day? Being remote means a much more flexible schedule, so it’s not uncommon to take longer breaks if you’re a salaried worker.

    Another study was IT professionals shifting to remote work at one company at the start of the pandemic. This one showed an 18% reduction in productivity. But considering the timing of this and that company culture and procedures can contribute to this, it doesn’t seem to be a valid data point.

    Then they bring up some common criticisms of WFH, which I’ve seen and refuted since I started working from home 2009: People can’t communicate, working in groups is harder, and people can’t control themselves. Yawn.

    Honestly, the fact that they cherry picked hybrid work as being equally productive shows me this isn’t about productivity, it’s about keeping offices open. Which makes sense considering one of the authors is affiliated with groups that want to prop up the commercial rental business.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      This really isn’t a study, so much as a lit review. Sort of. Anyway, in the fully remote section they cite three studies that argue show a fall in productivity. The first (Emmanuel and Harrington (2023)) found an 8% drop in call volume as a call center shifted to fully remote work at the onset of the pandemic. But their comparison group was a group of call center employees who were always remote. So even if you buy the argument that the change call volume is solely attributable to a drop in productivity, you cannot conclude that the productivity shift was caused by working from home, the group that shifted from on-location to remote work did 8% worse than the group than the always remote work!

      The second study (Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth (2022)) is, again, an analysis of call-center employees (this time in India) who shifted to remote work at the onset of the pandemic. They find no change in productivity, but that employees are working longer hours at home, which they argue means a real 8-19% drop in productivity.

      The final study (Atkin, Schoar, and Shinde (2023)) is another firm from India which involved a randomized controlled study which finds an 18% drop in productivity for data entry work.

      So, just taking their lit review at face value, one of their studies directly contradicts their argument, yet they somehow present it as if it is evidence of a causal relationship between working from home and productivity. Another study shows no effect, so they break out some razamataz math to try to turn no effect into a negative effect. Only one of the three studies shows a plausible effect.

      Since these are the only three papers they cite to support their argument that fully remote work causes a drop in firm productivity, let’s look at them in more depth.

      If you go to their references section, you find that there is not a Emmanuel and Harrington (2023) cited. Hey, that a bad sign. There is an Emmanuel and Harrington 2021, but its an unpublished paper. Maybe it got published and they just forgot to update the cite? I plugged the title into google scholar, and find one result, with no copy of the working paper, and no evidence of any sort of publication record from any journal. Plugging the title into regular google returns a “Staff Report” of the federal reserve bank of NY. So not a peer reviewed article. They employ whats known as a difference-in-difference design to compare employees who shifted from fully in person to fully remote. They report a 4% reduction in productivity for these workers, not the 8% reported in the original article. I just skimmed the article, so maybe they get their 8% figure someplace else. What is interesting to me though is that their DID models seem to show there is not any difference between the different groups for most of the periods of observation. IDK. I’d have to read more in-depth to make up my mind.

      It seems like these conclusions, whatever you make of them should really only be applied to call-center work during the pandemic.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      182 years ago

      Thank you for the summary! This is the investigation I was looking for.

      Disallowing remote with when it’s possible is anti-worker.

    • HobbitFoot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 years ago

      If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?

      Also, with both studies cited, the best argument is that workers are happy to work more than 8 hours a day. Does that mean you should expect workers to be on call for longer than an 8 hour day because they are working remote?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        82 years ago

        Science. Is not about winning. Fuckface.

        You and people like you are literally inhibiting the progress of the human race for personal gain. Congratulations.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          So there is no scientific evidence that remote work leads to more productivity?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            82 years ago

            Ignores salient points made, what-about-isms to reassert bad point, doubles down on the science is a competition thing while illustrating complete lack of knowledge of scientific process

            At least you are consistent.

            • HobbitFoot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              Ignores salient points made

              I’ve responded to them, not ignored them.

              what-about-isms to reassert bad point

              I’ve said that, if you want to argue the studies presented, present other studies. The only one presented I had comments on and quoted the text.

              doubles down on the science is a competition thing while illustrating complete lack of knowledge of scientific process

              Science is about presenting data in a way that can be reviewed and verified. I’ve asked for studies that back up the assertions made while providing references to my assertions. Where is the data to back up the claim that remote work is more productive?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        The source of the article is an economist at one of the most highly regarded economics programs in the world. Im less sure that the source is “suspect” and more that people do not like the conclusions they make.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          Yeah. And it isn’t like there aren’t other reasons to maintain full remote work. It just happens to be that one of the reasons may not be accurate anymore based on further study.

          I know in my line of work, employee retention is the main reason why full remote or hybrid is being maintained.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Exactly, Im not saying the conclusions are correct only that the program is one of the best and trying to portray it as biased because of that is inappropriate.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          82 years ago

          Yawn… even if it’s true, who give a shit. Even before the pandemic, when people had a lot to do, they stayed at home so they could focus undisturbed to meet deadlines.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        62 years ago

        If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?

        Probably swimming in their Scrooge McDuck piles of cash since WFH became more widespread?

        It’s the landlords losing money and the owner/C-suites not being able to see their minions in one place that are pumping out these articles.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          So I go back to my original question, is there a study that says remote work is more productive? Where is the science to back it up? The science should be out there if it is true.

          And are you honestly telling me that major companies wouldn’t love to sell all their real estate and go full virtual? Why not cut that business expense to save money? Major companies have cut everything else, why not cut this too? Why wouldn’t an activist investor start pushing to release this capital as a dividend?

          Hell, you can start depressing wages, since you can source your staff from lower QoL places and use those places as your bench mark for pay.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 years ago

          Pick one. Otherwise you aren’t better than alt-right people on Facebook that say to “do your own research”.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
            link
            fedilink
            172 years ago

            Right, but you’re no better than alt-right people on Facebook ignoring the research that’s literally one click away because you’re afraid it will disagree with you

            • HobbitFoot
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              I’ve provided sources from reputable sources of journalism, you haven’t.

              • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
                link
                fedilink
                142 years ago

                FYI, none of your posts in this thread have any links

                And because jfc you’re lazy: Here is a study by the Harvard Business Review showing increased productivity.

                It took three clicks from Google so I can see why you’d have trouble getting to it.

                • HobbitFoot
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  This source just states that there is a disagreement over whether work from home is more or less productive and provides survey information to show the difference in opinion.

                  That isn’t making the argument that remote work is productive, just that workers view it as more productive and the study isn’t conclusive. The closest this study gets to saying if productivity increases is “In theory, both sides could be right[.]”

                • HobbitFoot
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  I’ve been posting the Economist link in several comments. I left it as presented to show where the link came from in case people argued with the source.

    • scytale
      link
      fedilink
      English
      542 years ago

      Then they bring up some common criticisms of WFH, which I’ve seen and refuted since I started working from home 2009: People can’t communicate, working in groups is harder, and people can’t control themselves. Yawn.

      Exactly. I work for a global company, so the way I communicate with the people I work with everyday is via zoom. What’s the point of commuting to an office just to get on zoom anyway to talk to people?

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        382 years ago

        Don’t forget that Forbes and The Economist were all in favor of outsourcing jobs, which leads to me having meetings with people all over the world even when I’m in an office.

        So if working remotely hurts group work, a lot of it is their fault for sending jobs overseas. Unless they also want those jobs to eventually move back here so we can have happy group work fun time.

        • R0cket_M00se
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 years ago

          They want whatever keeps their property value highest and overhead lowest, they’ll claim they want onsite workers and then turn around and hire remote people in India because it saves money.

          Everything that falls out of their mouths is a piece of shit intended to save some 7 figure earner enough money to buy another vacation home.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            Promoting hybrid is actually a smart move for them. Lower usage means less maintenance with the same rent.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      You can criticize the study without engaging in ad hominem attacks. The University of Chicago’s economics department is one of the best schools for economics in the world. You might not like the fact that they are not advocating your political bias but that does not change the overall quality of that program.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        21
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Saying that a conservative economic school is pro-business and anti-labor is not what I’d call an ad hominem, but a statement of fact. Saying they want to prop up the commercial real estate business isn’t ad hominem either.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          It is not a conservative school. The clearest sign someone has never studied or understood academic economics is when they attempt to assign a partisan bias to the institution.

          It is an ad hominem attack

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
            link
            fedilink
            11
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            The Chicago School itself says:

            Conservative politicians like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher championed Friedman’s ideas

            So maybe the school itself holds to some kind of political neutrality, but conservatives love their theories.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              That doesn’t state that the school holds an ideological bent. Did you read what you posted?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              52 years ago

              This. Economics is a social science where every theory or opinion aims to achieve different varying desired outcomes for different people and in achieved in different ways, with spectrums for every step along the process. The entire field is on a spectrum, that also generally aligns with the political spectrum because politics, like economics, strives to achieve a certain outcome for a certain group of people, in a certain way. Trying to disentangle the field of economics from people. and the politics that people create, is a red flag for not actually knowing what economics is.

              • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
                link
                fedilink
                62 years ago

                Ah, so it’s not that they’re conservative, it’s that they desire the same things conservatives want. But they’re totally apolitical, and it’s just a happy coincidence.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  The overwhelming majority are liberals. There aren’t many progressives but that’s different than there being a conservative bent.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    44
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Look I work from home, I think everyone who can (and wants to) work from home should work from home most of the time. But people are definitely less productive working from home, and I think the people who say that most people are more productive are delusional.

    There are more important things than just raw productivity numbers, western workers have been working far too hard and far too long for the last half century, and I think we should return to a more humane approach to working.

    Also froma purely selfish capitalist perspective I don’t neccesarily think the productivity boost of being in person is worth all the costs of a bigger office, cleaning staff etc.

    • Jaysyn
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      But people are definitely less productive working from home, and I think the people who say that most people are more productive are delusional.

      Our productivity went up across the board according to my managers. We are letting our office go & finding a smaller space for our equipment.

    • Drunemeton
      link
      fedilink
      English
      482 years ago

      But how do you define “productive”?

      I work from home and I get the same amount of work done. However if you define it as, “Doing X amount of work in Y amount of time,” then yeah I’m less productive because nowadays instead of getting that work done in an 8-hour shift I take about 10–12 hours to do it.

      Same work, same day, so my productivity hasn’t changed. I just take longer to do it by taking breaks, going out to long lunches with friends, and my stress level is almost non-existent!

      I find that to be a very equitable trade-off: Almost no job-related stress for a slightly longer working day.

      • HobbitFoot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 years ago

        But how do you define “productive”?

        Studies that I’ve seen have seen both an increase in time to perform work and a decrease in quality of work.

        You are noting that you take more time, but you work that additional time. Not everyone does that.

        Increased employee happiness/retention and reduced office rent may be good reasons why to pick full remote over the increased productivity of the office, but the idea that people are more productive at home isn’t proving itself to be true.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
        link
        fedilink
        142 years ago

        I think people leave out the fact that their commute should also be considered time working. If you’ve got an hour commute and an eight hour shift, you really have a ten hour shift.

        So you are taking ten hours to do eight hours of work, because part of it means dragging your brain through meatspace to be there. Since you don’t have to do that, you can take longer doing the actual job.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        nowadays instead of getting that work done in an 8-hour shift I take about 10–12 hours to do it.

        “For disappearing acts, it’s hard to beat what happens to the 8 hours supposedly left after 8 hour of work and 8 hours of sleep” – Doug Larson.

        An 8-hour shift quickly turns into 10-12 clock-hours when you factor in all the extraneous crap that goes along with it. I mean, just lunch and a commute easily adds 60-90 unpaid minutes per day. Add the time spent getting ready for work and settling down after work, and you’re easily up to 10 hours a day.

      • Pisodeuorrior
        link
        fedilink
        13
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        There’s also to take into consideration the fact that people experience dips of productivity throughout the day. Like, I’d never be able to start something that requires most of my brain power after 3.

        For others it’s early morning.

        So, when I was in the office I would just kill time, go on coffee breaks or just do fucking nothing until it was time to go home, and I know for a fact that it was like that for most of my colleagues.

        No one works 8 hours straight out of an 8 hours work day. Working from home just removes the torture of sticking around looking busy.

        I actually complete from home the same amount of tasks I used to at the office, really, because my productivity (and that of others) wasn’t constant there either.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Had a summer job as a customer service agent for a big company, and pretty much did work 8 hours non stop, the phones were ringing constantly. I had two 5 minute breaks that I could take whenever and one 20 minute break that I had to take at a set time. The break time wasn’t payed, so you ended up having to be there for 8.5 hours. It was very stressful, but it kinda helped that every customer had a new problem, so it wasn’t very repetitive.

          Now I some days take longer and other days shorter, to accomplish from home what I could’ve gotten done working from the office.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      312 years ago

      But people are definitely less productive working from home, and I think the people who say that most people are more productive are delusional

      Except pretty much every study done on this has said the exact opposite. I am much more productive when I’m home. My team is much more productive when working from home and hard data backs it up. I literally cannot think of one thing about the office that I miss or made me more productive.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            72 years ago

            My last office job involved my desk being 7 feet from the entry door to the building. We had codes to get in so anyone not employed there had to knock and it was on me to get up and figure out who they are and decide if I could let them in. Half the time this also involved me tracking down someone else in the building to see if they were expecting said individual OR I had to have the back and forth discussion with said individual that no we don’t want your services and point to the No Soliciting sticker right on front of them on the door. This definitely took away from my productivity.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            You are laughing. But with these hot summers I actually miss some of that artic wind. But more importantly I have a heavy hayfever and being in the closed office durning the summer was a relief. It all went considerably worse when I started working from home.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        142 years ago

        My ability to close a door and sit, focus, and develop in silence makes me not only more productive, but also happier. I’ve done some of the best work of my career over these past 3+ years. I used to wear headphones 50+ hours a week, now it’s only when i go for a walk every morning.

        • rockerface 🇺🇦
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          Being happier directly leads to better productivity. I’m not going to try hard to do what I don’t like or what doesn’t help me to do what I like

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          There’s really nothing like sitting in a darkened room with music blasting, code pouring out of your fingers while you have an out of body experience from caffeine overdose and lack of sleep. I’ve spent my entire career chasing that high.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      That needs to be backed up by data and not just what people think. And reliable data needs scientific study, with proper time and people for the answer to be minimally reliable. Working from home is different from the office, we can establish that - all the rest are just thoughts or delusions from both sides.

      Having said that, I agree 100% with the conclusion. We don’t need more productivity to make more money for profit only. We need investment for our personal lives too.

    • BoofStroke
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      Because showering, eating, driving are productive vs get up and get started?

    • Random_Character_A
      link
      fedilink
      222 years ago

      The few people I know who are against remote working are the type of persons that don’t have any non-family social life outside workplace and are freeking out, because their coffee break chit-chats disappeared.

      They still base their view on the idea that people are spineless and sooner or later start slacking off.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 years ago

        Yep. Either that or they’re just older and used to the way things were. Go to the office if you want but leave me out of it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        The ones I see who are against WFH the hardest have pretty awful family lives and don’t want to admit it to themselves. They need the break from the shitty family they can’t face or deal with more than is absolutely necessary.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          Or men that do have a happy life at home, but don’t want to be home w/o the wife because children are women’s work (I worked with a guy pre COVID that didn’t take WFH days because he might have to watch kids on his own)

    • Talaraine
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      As a work from homer who gets twice as much done in half the time, I’m eyeballing your own delusion xD

      And this isn’t a self assessment, it comes from my boss, who is fighting tooth and nail to keep us from having to go back into the office with numbers and spreadsheets proving it.

      These decisions are top down and have very little to do with what’s actually happening on the front line.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      All the studies show literally the opposite. Maybe you’re less productive, but that makes you the outlier.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      My team was more productive at home, no open space telephoning, discussing, interruptions etc etc etc. no hours on a car or public transport, etc etc and it seems it’s the norm (or about the same productivity).

      What are you smoking :-D

    • tables
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      But people are definitely less productive working from home

      How so? I personally think it’s a somewhat personal matter, but people who are less productive are home seem to be people who can’t focus in general. I am far more productive working from home, mostly because I don’t get distracted by others. I have colleagues who spend hours bantering only to then stay in the company until later to compensate for the banter - I’d rather get my work done so I can end my day on time and go home do the fun stuff. But I do have colleagues who say they get distracted easily when working at home and they’d rather work at the office.

      Overall though, my company used to be very against working from home, but after the period of mandatory work from home, management admitted overall productivity had increased. They still insist people should come to the office every now and then to maintain the “friendly” environment the company is supposed to have, though, which is fair I guess.

    • Ragdoll X
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Edit: As u/Semi-Hemi-Demigod pointed out, one of the authors of this paper has his own connections to pro-business/anti-worker groups, which may have biased the conclusions of this review.


      I’m definitely no specialist on this topic, but to me it seems questionable to generalize the conclusions of that review to all remote workers. From section 3.a, where they analyze the productivity of fully remote workers:

      […] Emmanuel and Harrington (2023) use data from a Fortune 500 firm which had both in-person and remote call centers pre-pandemic. […] Using the always remote call-centers as the control group they find an 8% reduction in call volumes among employees who shifted from fully in-person to fully remote work.

      Extending the results of one call-center to all other companies would be very shortsighted, and the fact that this shift to remote work happened quickly during the COVID pandemic is very likely to affect the results. Still, it could be evidence that for this type of industry specifically fully-remote work may have a negative effect. Nonetheless, the authors of the paper offer a more nuanced analysis, finding that remote work actually increased the productivity of workers who were already in the company:

      […] We find that working remotely increased call-center workers’ productivity. When previously on-site workers took up opportunities to go remote in 2018, their hourly calls rose by 7.5%. Similarly, when COVID-19 closed on-site call centers, a difference-in-difference suggests that the productivity of workers who switched to remote work rose by 7.6% relative to their already remote peers.

      What their results suggest instead is that people who are overall less productive are more likely to seek remote work:

      Despite these positive productivity effects, remote workers were 12pp less likely to be promoted. If better workers are more concerned about being overlooked in remote jobs, remote workers will be adversely selected. Consistent with this theory, we find evidence that remote work attracted latently less productive workers. When all workers were remote due to COVID-19, those who were hired into remote jobs were 18% less productive than those who were hired into on-site jobs.

      Going back to the main review, the next study they cite didn’t actually find a decrease in productivity, only finding that workers spent more hours working to do the same job:

      Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth (2022) examine IT professionals in a large Indian technology company who shifted to fully remote work at the onset of the pandemic. Measured performance among these workers remained constant while remote but they worked longer hours, implying a drop in employee productivity of 8% to 19%.

      Indeed, working more hours doesn’t mean productivity will increase, but to frame this as a drop in productivity because workers can simply do their jobs at a more calm pace seems rather disingenuous to me.

      Atkin, Schoar, and Shinde (2023) run a randomized control trial of data-entry workers in India, randomizing between working fully in the office and fully at home. They find home-workers are 18% less productive.

      Similar to the first study they found that the workers who prefer to work from home are less productive when doing so, which partially explained the lower productivity:

      […] We find negative selection effects for office-based work: workers who prefer home-based work are 12% faster and more accurate at baseline. We also find a negative selection on treatment: workers who prefer home work are much less productive at home than at the office (27% less compared to 13% less for workers who prefer the office).

      Still, because this study focused specifically on one data-entry company and only included 234 workers in their final sample, we should be careful with generalizing their findings.

      Ultimately even if we take the conclusions of the review at face value, the authors themselves point out that mixing remote and in-person work doesn’t seem to lower productivity, and remote work can still be an attractive option for companies because it reduces on-site costs:

      […] Fully remote work is associated with about 10% lower productivity than fully in-person work. Challenges with communicating remotely, barriers to mentoring, building culture and issues with self-motivation appear to be factors. But fully remote work can generate even larger cost reductions from space savings and global hiring, making it a popular option for firms. Hybrid working appears to have no impact on productivity but is also popular with firms because it improves employee recruitment and retention. Looking ahead we predict working from home will continue to grow because of the expansion in research and development into new technologies to improve remote working. Hence, the pandemic generated both a one-off jump and a longer-run growth acceleration in working from home.

      There are a lot of other studies on remote working with conflicting results, with some finding an increase in worker productivity while others suggest the opposite, and as the section dedicated to COVID-19 on the Wiki states the effects of remote work can vary depending on the earnings and position of the worker.

      As some of the previous studies point out the drop in productivity is in part due to less productive workers self-selecting into remote positions, and due to remote training at the start of the job being less adequate. Hence what seems like the most reasonable solution to me is in-person training for the first few weeks, then a mix of in-person and remote work for employees who want it - and even if there is some drop in productivity, I ultimately agree with you that the improved life-work balance and worker satisfaction that remote work gives to some people is worth the cost.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152 years ago

    Nothing like trying to tell your workers

    Hey! We spent millions on this office space so you can work for pennies on the dollar! Come back so we can make more money you’ll never see a cent of or you are fired!