count_dongulus@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The article, at least, doesn’t seem to try to define or measure “productivity”. Well no shit people are going to be happier not being forced to go somewhere for some period of time five days a week.
Am I happier working from home, or having the choice to do so? Sure. Their data strongly backs that. Do I actually get my work done equally well? For me personally yes but anecdotally group decision-making in remote contexts is much slower.
The research here is ultimately pointless, because it drives zero action to the people who would be deciding WFH policy who are making that choice based on business goals, not personal goals. It might inform politicians if they’re driving policy to promote remote work, but without data about productivity tradeoff or lack thereof, there’s no informed decision to make.
Right?! I agree with the vibe, but I was hoping for more detail, a link to the study, etc… But the article just ends with this incredibly vague statement and no sources:
“This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.”
🤷♂️
When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to “the editorial team” but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they’re putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site.
I appreciate this as a balanced take.
I've done a little work from home, and it's nice being home, but it's still work. If you're doing your job right, it's still your job.
Unfortunately, I've also seen that while some people are great at WFH and even do better, a lot of people either don't get anything done, or look very "productive" because they're harassing people still at work with meaningless busywork like sending emails that don't do anything or asking other people to do parts of their job they'd be able to do if they were at work.
I think that partially goes to the point of "what is productivity?" since someone can look busy but not be doing anything that actually does anything positive for either boots on the ground micro views or mile high macro views. "Oh, look at how many emails got sent" great, did that actually help the business run? And sometimes the answer is "yes, and we should let this WFH worker continue at all costs", and in others the answer is "No, and we need to get this person into the office or eliminate the position because either would be better than the status quo"
It's a bit managerial in the way to look at it, but in order to justify WFH, the people working from home must be providing enough value to justify their employment, because too much overhead waste and the business ends, maybe every business embracing WFH ends, and then all that's left is the ones that didn't. To be clear, that's not a moral stance, but a purely pragmatic evolutionary stance: Those things which survive continue and those that die do not.
snooggums@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
Those studies have already been done, this is yet another study with the same outcomes. People are happier and more productive working hybrid and WFH.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2022/02/04/3-new-studies-end-debate-over-effectiveness-of-hybrid-and-remote-work/
Now the actual results will vary from person to person and some jobs require some level of in person interaction for a variety of reasons including personal preferences for communication.