They can all fuck right off. Here’s the article if anyone’s interested: https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2023/08/02/working-from-home-leads-to-decreased-productivity-research-reveals/
It’s both decreasing productivity AND saving the economy!!!
https://fortune.com/2023/08/01/remote-work-preventing-economy-from-recession/
Such an incredible paradox 🤯
good thing it reduces productivity! we produce too much shit anyway.
Let’s be honest, Forbes has been a trashhole for a while.
I dunno giving people more freedom tends to improve their productivity and they get more work done in less time than some micro manging wanker
Cries in real estate value
Totally bullshit. When I’m in the office I’m constantly approached by coworkers wanting to chit chat. Sometimes even when I’m in a Teams meeting with headphones on.
I probably do the same if not more work at home as I did in the office, but only “work” about 2/3 of the time.
I don’t have a boss lecture me on blockchain for an hour because they were near my desk, I don’t need to listen to Carla’s story about her flat tyre, I don’t need to get constantly distracted when I’m deep in an analysis hole because someone on maternity leave has walked in with their new baby.
The time spent caught up in boring distractions is used to put on some washing, set the roomba going, or put a pot roast in the oven freeing up more time to just chill out later on and I still get everything done.
Never mind the 2 hours a day of commuting time I get back.
Same. We go into the office whenever the big bosses go in… so once every couple months. We get almost no work done on those days.
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.
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?
Science. Is not about winning. Fuckface.
You and people like you are literally inhibiting the progress of the human race for personal gain. Congratulations.
So there is no scientific evidence that remote work leads to more productivity?
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.
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?
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?
Pick one. Otherwise you aren’t better than alt-right people on Facebook that say to “do your own research”.
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
I’ve provided sources from reputable sources of journalism, you haven’t.
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.
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[.]”
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.
There are tons of other studies that show massive increases in productivity. These bullshit studies are probably sponsored by commercial real estate landlords. They’re losing $850B per year since 2020.
I’m okay with decreased productivity. I don’t own stock in the company.
You also most likely don’t get paid more for being more productive.
Forbes is such a joke…
Not just Forbes. I don’t read Bloomberg but I’d assume this was there as well.
Mike Bloomberg had a similar op-ed in WaPo the other day in regard to forcing federal workers back into the office, quoting similarly questionable sources and literally calling reasons to work from home “excuses” (it’s in the headline as well).
It, too, reeked of desperation and rapidly souring real estate investment returns.
Lmaooooooo Forbes runs a story on a report that’s still in draft (the references section header reads very incomplete), just to spread propaganda that “working from home doesn’t work!!!”
I like going into the office sometimes and the one I’m in is real nice, but I know some are awful, and commutes can be way longer than mine! (one-way 40 minutes by bus).
The same study says hybrid work (1-4 of 5 days remote work) provided on average a small positive change in productivity.
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.
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.
Sure, some people work better when surrounded by colleagues. Those people usually know that and will seek out on-site work, because it probably also makes them happier.
People who are more efficient at home probably also feel better at home and will seek out remote work.
If you want a much smaller hiring pool, more office upkeep costs and more transport emissions, sure make everyone come into the office… it’s so dumb to do this.
IMO if your sector lends itself to remote work and it’s not working for your company, you’re doing something else wrong.
A lot of my colleagues want for everyone to be in office. Their justification is “well, when everyone is in office, I can just walk to a person and ask them for help”. Which is why it’s a bit annoying to work there as a knowledgeable person, everyone always asking you to help them, constantly.
Guess where are all the knowledgeable people going.
If only there was an objective way to measure the productivity of a commercial enterprise… like with money… oh wait, they have been making MORE money? With LESS productive workers? Curious
That’s obviously all due to the hard work and visionary leadership of upper management
It’s funny how these kinds of articles always read exactly the same. I honestly want to know what offices they are using for these supposed metrics because it seems like people are doing everything they can to just endure and waste time while in actual offices.
They looked at the stats of two companies. That’s the extent of their “research”.
It’s a garbage article from the type of people that are responsible for 85% of what is wrong with the planet.