Work from Home and Productivity(bfi.uchicago.edu)
bfi.uchicago.edu
Work from Home and Productivity
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2021-56/
138 comments
"Total hours worked increased by roughly 30%, including a rise of 18% in working after normal business hours. Average output did not significantly change. Therefore, productivity fell by about 20%. "
Excludes commute time from work-from-office hours, which makes the comparison moot. I'd rather be unproductive at home, than unproductive in traffic.
Also, this surveyed a single "large Asian IT services company". Its an anecdote with significant cultural work biases that may make this inapplicable to eg. American firms.
Also, this surveyed a single "large Asian IT services company". Its an anecdote with significant cultural work biases that may make this inapplicable to eg. American firms.
Understandable, in my case I commuted by bike in 20 min, I have changed 40 min of healthy biking for 2+ hours of extra work.
And these are not cold numbers from an study, it is my reality and it can explain my bad mood of the last times.
And these are not cold numbers from an study, it is my reality and it can explain my bad mood of the last times.
Why are you working an extra two hours? Can't you bike 20 minutes around your neighbourhood finish two hours earlier and do a quick 20 minutes after work?
That’s what I do. Now I can allow myself a 20-min ride in the middle of the day. Does incredibly things for clearing your thoughts.
[deleted]
Important to note that:
> Using personnel and analytics data from over 10,000 skilled professionals at a large Asian IT services company
I suspect companies that already had strong WFH and remote friendly practices in place probably had very different outcomes. Western companies probably also have very different communication styles that would lead to different outcomes as well.
> Using personnel and analytics data from over 10,000 skilled professionals at a large Asian IT services company
I suspect companies that already had strong WFH and remote friendly practices in place probably had very different outcomes. Western companies probably also have very different communication styles that would lead to different outcomes as well.
They used tracking software on employee's computers. That alone was enough for me to close the link without reading further. My company uses Microsoft's inane version of this, and the only real thing it measures is the amount of money going into Microsoft's account.
"the analytics software takes into account whether an employee actually engages in a relevant task (which counts as work time) or merely procrastinates at their desk (not counted), by
monitoring which software tools the employee uses"
That's genuinely awful. I wonder to what extent employees are aware of the analytics, and how many people just set up macros look busy.
That's genuinely awful. I wonder to what extent employees are aware of the analytics, and how many people just set up macros look busy.
These tools are definitely awful. Last week I spent hours reading a programming book because I was unsure about certain part of my code and needed a refresher.
Also, a lot times I just need to think without typing anything. There are days where I only type few lines of code but getting the knowledge to write it takes hours of looking at the business and making sure there is no ill effects somewhere.
I still deliver and my boss doesn't need to hold my hand.
Also, a lot times I just need to think without typing anything. There are days where I only type few lines of code but getting the knowledge to write it takes hours of looking at the business and making sure there is no ill effects somewhere.
I still deliver and my boss doesn't need to hold my hand.
I agree it's awful, not to mention the fact that employees weren't informed of the Microsoft tracking software being used in the firstplace, but what's funny is that according to their analytics having yr IDE open & wiggling the mouse cursor counts as "engaged in a relevant task". whereas going on Twitter to get answers about a programming question would be counted as unproductive social media use
Keep in mind the study was made using : "personnel and analytics data from over 10,000 skilled professionals at a large Asian IT services company"
In this industry we all know what this really means. Some of us have dealt with these "skilled professionals". I don't think spending more time in their IDE is going to make them any more productive than they already are...
In this industry we all know what this really means. Some of us have dealt with these "skilled professionals". I don't think spending more time in their IDE is going to make them any more productive than they already are...
This is... impressively racist.
These sort of analytics are endemic in some industries; most people will have seen some generic notification, e.g. "system usage may be monitored on company equipment" but have no idea this means "your laptop is logging everything you do, all the time".
>your laptop is logging everything you do, all the time
It seems like a lot of people don't understand that's the default behavior of lots of computer systems (the standard logs in Windows, Linux, macOS desktop operating systems will provide a decent indication of how the computer is being used regardless of installing any special tracking software).
The same thing happens without technology--managers still lurk around watching employees unless there's a high level of trust between the employer and employee (which seems to be rare)
The nuance is how it's used.
It seems like a lot of people don't understand that's the default behavior of lots of computer systems (the standard logs in Windows, Linux, macOS desktop operating systems will provide a decent indication of how the computer is being used regardless of installing any special tracking software).
The same thing happens without technology--managers still lurk around watching employees unless there's a high level of trust between the employer and employee (which seems to be rare)
The nuance is how it's used.
One of the measures/trackers is the various spreadsheets that get opened. This certainly hurts the employees that have automated those aspects of their jobs. One of my initial roles had me inherit 15 different spreadsheet reports and over time I pushed all the report logic upstream so that I never had to open them. This made me much more productive whereas the tracking would show me as contributing very little.
Is that the thing called Insight that showed up in my corporate outlook?
It’s a shame the WFH experiment is blended with the pandemic. It’s hard to decouple the “effectiveness of WFH” from the “pervasive impact of a global pandemic on all aspects of daily life”. I think a lot of people got a negative taste for WFH for reasons that are less WFH and more pandemic.
Having three kids at home doing remote schooling is such a huge confounding factor. Anecdotally, my WFH productivity (or at least my uninterrupted work time tracked via RescueTime) seems to have improved since my older two went back to in-person school this quarter.
Not only that, but even if one had someone else to watch the kids during that time, one couldn't go work from a coffee shop or whatever like one normally might, for a change of scenery or to avoid at-home distractions.
Yeah, that's tough, and the younger ones can't do very much of it by themselves without help.
Read the instructions here to learn how to read >
Read the instructions here to learn how to read >
Your comment reminded me of "The Maker" short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDXOioU_OKM
"A strange creature races against time to make the most important and beautiful creation of his life."
Yeah: I have always worked from home and nothing about my job has changed, but omg has life gotten harder even for me recently; it is also worth noting that the pandemic affects not only work life but also social life, which means that suddenly work almost automatically takes up a lot more time as there has often literally been nowhere else for me to go or people to see than "maybe my work colleagues would be willing to talk about our product... in the middle of the evening... oh, yep, they are, as they are just as bored and lonely as I am right now".
Lockdowns specifically, not just the pandemic.
For sure. I feel like I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about work (in general, but especially remote work) if I, and my coworkers, had a normal social and family life along the way. It'd be a lot less exhausting and monotonous.
JP morgan is forcing me to come into office, i am still waiting for my second dose.
Jamie is forcing ppl to come into work and making up stupid anecdotes about how ppl are unproductive at home. Him being "fed up" means i have to risk my life. [1]
I don't understand how he is getting away with this.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/jamie-dimon-fed-up-with-zoom...
Jamie is forcing ppl to come into work and making up stupid anecdotes about how ppl are unproductive at home. Him being "fed up" means i have to risk my life. [1]
I don't understand how he is getting away with this.
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/04/jamie-dimon-fed-up-with-zoom...
> (They) would fully expect that by early July, all U.S.-based employees will be in the office on a consistent rotational schedule.
> Employee rotations at JPMorgan will be subject to a 50% occupancy cap until U.S. authorities revise their social-distancing guidelines, according to Tuesday’s memo. The bank advised workers that “with this time frame in mind you should start making any needed arrangements to help with your successful return.”
Why are you trying to make it seem like they told you to come in every day starting this week, whether you're vaccinated or not?
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-27/jpmorgan-...
> Employee rotations at JPMorgan will be subject to a 50% occupancy cap until U.S. authorities revise their social-distancing guidelines, according to Tuesday’s memo. The bank advised workers that “with this time frame in mind you should start making any needed arrangements to help with your successful return.”
Why are you trying to make it seem like they told you to come in every day starting this week, whether you're vaccinated or not?
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-27/jpmorgan-...
If I had to guess, it's overzealous middle management layers wanting to show Jamie that their teams are proactive and doing more than the minimum. You know, because of their exceptional leadership qualities.
Besides what you said which is very likely true. These type of things are always verbal communication all the way to top. So it would not be surprise either if management made very measured release and written communication but internally/verbally it is hustling to get everyone back asap.
We have roughly about same announcement. It is confounding to hear "You all did great working from home. Now be back asap to work and meet face to face." Apparently working via slack/webex from office is vastly more productive than doing same from home.
We have roughly about same announcement. It is confounding to hear "You all did great working from home. Now be back asap to work and meet face to face." Apparently working via slack/webex from office is vastly more productive than doing same from home.
If workers were suddenly doing their jobs with simple emails and independence instead of micromanaging, why, what need of stratified layers of middle management would their be? You could cut down two or three useless layers of corporate administration altogether and have people that actually did work. What kind of a world would that be?!
If I had to guess, it's overzealous middle management layers trying to keep up the appearance they're still providing value after months of diminished ability to micromanage over Zoom
> Why are you trying to make it seem like they told you to come in every day starting this week, whether you're vaccinated or not?
where did you get "every day starting this week" , pulled it out of your ass?
I'll send you my managers email address you can ask him personally if you are so curious. Maybe you'd have better luck finding out than me.
where did you get "every day starting this week" , pulled it out of your ass?
I'll send you my managers email address you can ask him personally if you are so curious. Maybe you'd have better luck finding out than me.
Kroger's CEO getting paid bonuses [1] to avoid giving front-line workers hazard pay while continuing to put their lives literally on the line over the past year gives me little hope that anyone will ever be held accountable for this sort of behavior.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/kroger-blasted-for-endi....
https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/kroger-blasted-for-endi....
Probably because studies like this and others show that WFH is less productive.
I highly doubt he is making his decisions based on academic studies. He is quoting dubious personal anecdotes to justify his decisions.
COVID does not constitute a natural experiment!
A useful natural experiment is when something changes in a way that can only (or at least almost entirely) affect your outcome by way of the cause you're interested in. In the cause and effect chain of A -> B -> C, if A affects B, but not C, then you can exploit wild things in A to learn about how B affects C. But if A affects C outside of B, you can't tell the effects apart.
COVID does not constitute a natural experiment!
It's a mantra that apparently needs repeating. The pandemic changed work from home. Work from home presumable changes productivity. The pandemic also changes productivity, so you can't tell where the pandemic-driven productivity changes are from more granularly. Learning anything that generalizes requires tremendous care.
A useful natural experiment is when something changes in a way that can only (or at least almost entirely) affect your outcome by way of the cause you're interested in. In the cause and effect chain of A -> B -> C, if A affects B, but not C, then you can exploit wild things in A to learn about how B affects C. But if A affects C outside of B, you can't tell the effects apart.
COVID does not constitute a natural experiment!
It's a mantra that apparently needs repeating. The pandemic changed work from home. Work from home presumable changes productivity. The pandemic also changes productivity, so you can't tell where the pandemic-driven productivity changes are from more granularly. Learning anything that generalizes requires tremendous care.
That seems like a good point. I've worked from home for 15 years, and my productivity (and billable hours) took a big hit last spring, just from the distraction of trying to learn what I could and be prepared. Subjectively I'd say my focus suffered as well. I imagine businesses have lost productivity in all kinds of ways the last ~15 months.
I need to read the article but your comment speaks to exactly the analysis I'd like to see: what was the productivity change among those with a stable WFH situation prior to COVID vs. during COVID, and how does that correlate with family status.
Personally, the biggest change for me in COVID WFH was not the remote meetings -- I already had plenty of those -- but it was the introduction of a second job: part-time Kindergarten teacher.
Personally, the biggest change for me in COVID WFH was not the remote meetings -- I already had plenty of those -- but it was the introduction of a second job: part-time Kindergarten teacher.
Just curious, who said it is a natural experiment? Certainly not the authors
Agreed! The elephants in the room for me are the self-reported hours (Did "hours worked" really increase, or was that time spent changing laundry and running errands that got classified as work time) and the obvious confounder of children being at home rather than in school.
I think that doing household chores and errands for supplies SHOULD count a work time if you are working from home.
If you are WFH, then you are not only doing your main job, but you are also working in the facilities department. If you go to the office, there are people who clean the office, take out the garbage, maintain equipment, clean the bathroom, etc.
At home you have to do all of that.
If you are WFH, then you are not only doing your main job, but you are also working in the facilities department. If you go to the office, there are people who clean the office, take out the garbage, maintain equipment, clean the bathroom, etc.
At home you have to do all of that.
You make a decent argument but... society doesn't judge that commute times or medical appointments should necessarily be reimbursed, so I think that there isn't really a "sane baseline" to compare against in non-covid times.
There's also the very real question of division of usage - most of us are likely working in spaces that intersect heavily with our private spaces (since we didn't move to our current residences with having a dedicated home office in mind) and that creates a pretty complex process to actually assign responsibility - it shouldn't be 100% in either direction, but it's hard to figure out how much of that time was legitimately caused by you working from home.
There's also the very real question of division of usage - most of us are likely working in spaces that intersect heavily with our private spaces (since we didn't move to our current residences with having a dedicated home office in mind) and that creates a pretty complex process to actually assign responsibility - it shouldn't be 100% in either direction, but it's hard to figure out how much of that time was legitimately caused by you working from home.
Keep in mind also that this is a consulting company, where people are always encouraged to report more hours in order to bill the client.
That's kind of bizarre - I've worked in a couple of consulting gigs now and the hours have always been tightly reigned in - the company wanted all the hours for sure, but they wanted you producing things constantly, just throwing more hours at something and going over estimates was a way to get yourself in trouble quick.
You're talking about the interface between the worker and the employer, the GP is talking about the interface between employer and client. The employer doesn't want the worker slacking off but that doesn't mean that they won't create situations that result in more billable work, such as by taking an inefficient path under the cover of intangible factors.
The irony is optimizing for productivity in one while optimizing for billing in the other.
The irony is optimizing for productivity in one while optimizing for billing in the other.
> (Did "hours worked" really increase, or was that time spent changing laundry and running errands that got classified as work time)
Let's keep in mind here too that "hours between commute to/from office" != "hours working." Coffee shop runs, lunches, snack breaks, chatting, walking around...
Let's keep in mind here too that "hours between commute to/from office" != "hours working." Coffee shop runs, lunches, snack breaks, chatting, walking around...
It's really unfortunate that modern productivity metrics try and maximize things like butt-in-chair hours and time spent actively typing. I work in a rather creative part of CS and those coffee runs and walks are pretty productively spent time for me.
One of my issues early on into the pandemic is that I was fearful of taking walks and my productivity actually dropped as my physical exercise decreased. When I realized this and started emphasizing active movement while working (dancing to techno) and taking walks to get in bursts of fresh air I found that things more than reversed.
I would note that I have to deal with ADD and physical activity has a long history of positive impacts on folks with such - so that advice might not go for everyone.
One of my issues early on into the pandemic is that I was fearful of taking walks and my productivity actually dropped as my physical exercise decreased. When I realized this and started emphasizing active movement while working (dancing to techno) and taking walks to get in bursts of fresh air I found that things more than reversed.
I would note that I have to deal with ADD and physical activity has a long history of positive impacts on folks with such - so that advice might not go for everyone.
That's true, but it's a pretty common interpretation of the term "natural experiment".
Few, if any, "natural experiments" are actually experiments in a rigorous sense. But they are a thing that happens: you have an uncontrolled happenstance that allows you to infer, but not prove, something you want to learn more about.
When the surface meaning of a term has no referents, it will often be co-opted to refer to something people need a term for (assuming it's compact and convenient). Another example that comes to mind is "homophobia", which doesn't refer to actual "fear of homosexuals" but rather to a dislike for them -- a thing which is very common but doesn't have a convenient, short expression. (The term actually comes from being the opposite of "homophilia", a reasonably straightforward but outdated term for homosexuality.)
So it's true that we don't really have a good control and will have difficulty separating out real causes and effects. But a thing definitely happened and we can definitely try to learn something from it -- a notion that happens often enough to merit a name. If you've got a better one we can try to make it catch on.
Few, if any, "natural experiments" are actually experiments in a rigorous sense. But they are a thing that happens: you have an uncontrolled happenstance that allows you to infer, but not prove, something you want to learn more about.
When the surface meaning of a term has no referents, it will often be co-opted to refer to something people need a term for (assuming it's compact and convenient). Another example that comes to mind is "homophobia", which doesn't refer to actual "fear of homosexuals" but rather to a dislike for them -- a thing which is very common but doesn't have a convenient, short expression. (The term actually comes from being the opposite of "homophilia", a reasonably straightforward but outdated term for homosexuality.)
So it's true that we don't really have a good control and will have difficulty separating out real causes and effects. But a thing definitely happened and we can definitely try to learn something from it -- a notion that happens often enough to merit a name. If you've got a better one we can try to make it catch on.
You're right, but then giving the title "Work from Home & Productivity" is misleading, giving the (IMO false) impression that results are generalizable for WFH beyond COVID. And there are some pretty strong claims:
> Therefore, productivity fell by about 20%
> Employees also spent less time networking, and received less coaching and 1:1 meetings with supervisors
> Employees with children living at home increased hours worked more than those without children at home, and suffered a bigger decline in productivity than those without children
I would say these results have more to do with COVID effects and forced, sudden WFH than inherent characteristics of WFH.
> Therefore, productivity fell by about 20%
> Employees also spent less time networking, and received less coaching and 1:1 meetings with supervisors
> Employees with children living at home increased hours worked more than those without children at home, and suffered a bigger decline in productivity than those without children
I would say these results have more to do with COVID effects and forced, sudden WFH than inherent characteristics of WFH.
> Employees also spent less time networking, and received less coaching and 1:1 meetings with supervisors
And, in normal times, remote workers often have/should have off-sites/on-sites, in-person team meetings, etc. And I haven't actually had fewer 1:1's. Probably more because I haven't canceled as many due to travel. (Which isn't necessarily a positive thing but still.)
And, in normal times, remote workers often have/should have off-sites/on-sites, in-person team meetings, etc. And I haven't actually had fewer 1:1's. Probably more because I haven't canceled as many due to travel. (Which isn't necessarily a positive thing but still.)
Very true. It does help that the full title has a colon followed by "Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data on IT Professionals". That word "evidence" does help limit the expectations for how much we can generalize.
True. But then why not explicitly state that this evidence is from COVID? That would immediately allow people to calibrate their expectations. In relation to GP, COVID is the "natural experiment" here, not WFH.
That’s not what is meant by a natural experiment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
"Employees with children living at home ... suffered a bigger decline in productivity than those without children"
Surprising No One.
Surprising No One.
I'd be curious to hear about the effects of pets, especially since so many people added them at some point during the pandemic so you could get some interesting before and after stats.
That’s part of the point. Sometimes you’ll be surprised. If you test lots of hypotheses getting results that surprise you along with lots that don’t increases your confidence that the surprising results are probably real. If you don’t test obvious things you’ll never be surprised by disconfirmation.
I'd question how conclusions are being drawn here. I think the key takeaway is that output did not change.
The authors then go on to say that since hours worked increased, productivity decreased. But how do we define what an "hour worked" really means? I know that I definitely spend more time "working" during WFH in the sense that I am either being responsive to colleagues or actively working on my own work. However during that time I am also doing way more household tasks than I would be working in an office.
You may call that a loss of productivity, but I'd call it an increase in flexibility, freedom, and job satisfaction. And to reiterate, output stayed the same, so what's the problem?
The authors then go on to say that since hours worked increased, productivity decreased. But how do we define what an "hour worked" really means? I know that I definitely spend more time "working" during WFH in the sense that I am either being responsive to colleagues or actively working on my own work. However during that time I am also doing way more household tasks than I would be working in an office.
You may call that a loss of productivity, but I'd call it an increase in flexibility, freedom, and job satisfaction. And to reiterate, output stayed the same, so what's the problem?
Honestly, I think the study sort of damns itself with this line:
> Time spent on coordination activities and meetings increased, but uninterrupted work hours shrank considerably.
You can easily translate this as:
> Without workers in the office, middle management was left to spend additional time on pointless meetings, inhibiting their workers from spending their time on work tasks.
If that is true, let's consider the facts:
1. Workers worked longer hours. 2. Workers spent more time in meetings than before. 3. Workers achieved roughly the same output.
Now, if we stare at these three things really hard, I think the conclusion is that additional meetings do not play the supplemental role that many managers seem to believe it does, and in fact minimizing meetings will increase productivity.
> Time spent on coordination activities and meetings increased, but uninterrupted work hours shrank considerably.
You can easily translate this as:
> Without workers in the office, middle management was left to spend additional time on pointless meetings, inhibiting their workers from spending their time on work tasks.
If that is true, let's consider the facts:
1. Workers worked longer hours. 2. Workers spent more time in meetings than before. 3. Workers achieved roughly the same output.
Now, if we stare at these three things really hard, I think the conclusion is that additional meetings do not play the supplemental role that many managers seem to believe it does, and in fact minimizing meetings will increase productivity.
> Without workers in the office, middle management was left to spend additional time on pointless meetings, inhibiting their workers from spending their time on work tasks.
You're just drawing meaningless conclusions based on nothing but your hatred of management lol.
>I think the conclusion is that additional meetings do not play the supplemental role that many managers seem to believe it does, and in fact minimizing meetings will increase productivity.
I think the actualy conclusion is that people are less productive at home because many people can't work properly due to an unfavorable working environment. Meanwhile since there's no office hour anymore (no commute to divide personal time from working time) people work from breakfast until dinner. In the end you get the same amount of work done but the timeslot that was dedicated to work during the day was 2-3 hours longer than when working from the office.
You're just drawing meaningless conclusions based on nothing but your hatred of management lol.
>I think the conclusion is that additional meetings do not play the supplemental role that many managers seem to believe it does, and in fact minimizing meetings will increase productivity.
I think the actualy conclusion is that people are less productive at home because many people can't work properly due to an unfavorable working environment. Meanwhile since there's no office hour anymore (no commute to divide personal time from working time) people work from breakfast until dinner. In the end you get the same amount of work done but the timeslot that was dedicated to work during the day was 2-3 hours longer than when working from the office.
Or maybe people need to have more formal meetings because they can’t have informal conversations like they would in the office.
The study also damns itself because they chose the absolute worst possible timing for their “research” and measuring wfh productivity. It’s like they don’t understand how much the pandemic changes everything.
Sort of? The largest outlier is child care time. Under non-pandemic conditions, where the children are not in the house, WFH is a decidedly different beast. As a WFH employee, even pre-pandemic, I firmly believe it is not the same style of social interaction; it has a much stronger "contractor" feel. If you are comfortable and familiar with a standard work environment, the transition can be difficult. That said, the numbers here are very bad: it looks like most things just devolved into meetings.
Big if there, Dan. You sound a bit bitter about meetings, that's not the case everywhere.
What are you even getting at? Are you saying that people misreported "uninterrupted work time" while in the office? Because I know if a coworker asks me a question in the middle of the day, it definitely isn't uninterrupted work time.
I’d put money on it being the case everywhere.
I mean not really. I have 2 one hour meetings per week. One is a 1on1 with my boss and one is with my team. That is about perfect
That just means you already managed to not have those meetings that the average company is apparently wasting time on, not that those meetings you already don't have are beneficial.
I have meetings with my research group and I look forward to them!
They go into this in the paper; it sounds like they have a quite granular level of detail here:
> The data also include information on hours worked, our primary input measure. This is measured in a sophisticated way, as the analytics software takes into account whether an employee actually engages in a relevant task (which counts as work time) or merely procrastinates at their desk (not counted), by monitoring which software tools the employee uses. Our key outcome measure is Productivity, output divided by hours worked. Thus, in contrast to studies of productivity during WFH based on surveys, our outcome variables are based on relatively objective analytics and monitoring data.
> Moreover, our data include (for a subset of employees) how time was allocated to various activities. That includes meetings, collaboration, and time focused on performing work without distractions. It also includes information on networking activities (contacts) with colleagues inside and outside the firm. Finally, we have data on employee characteristics such as age, experience, tenure at the company, gender, whether or not there is a child in the home, and an estimate of commute time during WFO
This sounds overall quite invasive, so at least from the description, they claim to be able to tell the difference between "an hour logged into slack doing household tasks" and "an hour working with 100% focus on a task".
> The data also include information on hours worked, our primary input measure. This is measured in a sophisticated way, as the analytics software takes into account whether an employee actually engages in a relevant task (which counts as work time) or merely procrastinates at their desk (not counted), by monitoring which software tools the employee uses. Our key outcome measure is Productivity, output divided by hours worked. Thus, in contrast to studies of productivity during WFH based on surveys, our outcome variables are based on relatively objective analytics and monitoring data.
> Moreover, our data include (for a subset of employees) how time was allocated to various activities. That includes meetings, collaboration, and time focused on performing work without distractions. It also includes information on networking activities (contacts) with colleagues inside and outside the firm. Finally, we have data on employee characteristics such as age, experience, tenure at the company, gender, whether or not there is a child in the home, and an estimate of commute time during WFO
This sounds overall quite invasive, so at least from the description, they claim to be able to tell the difference between "an hour logged into slack doing household tasks" and "an hour working with 100% focus on a task".
This is unethical research, full stop.
Why? Did they not get consent? Getting that sort of information isn't terribly difficult. Even basic network monitoring and log parsing would provide a lot of insights into how someone is interacting with a computer.
Among other reasons, in any IRB-approved study people need to be able to withdraw consent with no adverse consequence. It is likewise practically forbidden to experiment on prisoners, which this has more in common with than a normal study.
That's an interesting twist. I like the positive aspect of it given I've mostly felt guilty for being able to flexibly take on more household tasks while taking breaks from work.
I do think things would trend even more positively had this not been a pandemic. Folks would have more flexibility in work location and could "pick their spots" better in the sense that they'd have more control over their environment and could tailor it to specific tasks.
I do think things would trend even more positively had this not been a pandemic. Folks would have more flexibility in work location and could "pick their spots" better in the sense that they'd have more control over their environment and could tailor it to specific tasks.
I'm with you. I mix personal tasks and work tasks throughout the day. My work output is the same or better, but the stuff I'm getting done around the house - SKYROCKET! My quality of life has improved dramatically.
"Sapience time measurement is sophisticated and designed to be resilient to simple manipulatio nattempts. Merely keeping the computer on for longer or watching videos instead of working does not increase Input. Rather, it would require having the relevant work software as the active window,and giving continuous user input (via mouse, keyboard)."
doesn't sound that sophisticated to me lol. in any case their claim that their output measure (completed tasks) is "rigorous and objective" is questionable to put it mildly: "The company uses a normalized measure of output to make different jobs and roles comparable.For example, for a programmer the output measure might be programming tasks completed divided by tasks assigned, times 100. For other roles, Output might be the number of reviews (e.g., of code) completed relative to the monthly target, or the number of reports delivered relative to the target.". no mention made of the relative effort required for each programming task, or the quality of reports delivered - not to mention no assessment of whether those targets accurately measure anything that's beneficial to the company.
doesn't sound that sophisticated to me lol. in any case their claim that their output measure (completed tasks) is "rigorous and objective" is questionable to put it mildly: "The company uses a normalized measure of output to make different jobs and roles comparable.For example, for a programmer the output measure might be programming tasks completed divided by tasks assigned, times 100. For other roles, Output might be the number of reviews (e.g., of code) completed relative to the monthly target, or the number of reports delivered relative to the target.". no mention made of the relative effort required for each programming task, or the quality of reports delivered - not to mention no assessment of whether those targets accurately measure anything that's beneficial to the company.
lol, this would result in engineering teams generating progressively smaller scoped tickets to maximize tasks and reviews completed.
Update Text For Button -- started 5/10, completed 5/11
Update Color Of Button -- started 5/11, completed 5/12
Update Margins Of Button -- started 5/12, completed 5/13
Update Border Radius Of Button -- started 5/13the curse of Taylorism
I don't see they have considered , daycares being closed, kids at home, remote schooling, no where to go, mental agony , loneliness, overworked, many new to remote work culture, non-remote friendly processes etc. Analyzing WFH when a pandemic is ongoing is not helping anyone and it is doing no good.
It could well be that CoVid19 led to a 50% productivity loss (processes had to be completely reengineered or stood up from scratch without setting foot in the office).
Then, if the actual measured loss is 20% then perhaps it actually went up by 30% (the difference).
One cannot really conclude much from this study due to a lack of control, and I hope this is discussed honestly in the paper.
One thing I could observe is that working from home required a lot of people that are not used to it to learn to communicate professionally in writing, which they weren't used to. With the option of clarifying via a quick personal chat on the corridor taken due to an "all remote" forced work mode, poor communicators really do need a lot of overhead in terms of extra Teams/Zoom/Slack... meetings to get their message across.
Another observation was there was suddenly a lot of extra work. Initially I expected to have more time due to less business. In reality, CoVid19 also presented new opportunities, so extra projects were launched that would not have been required without the pandemic. Another variable that can't really be controlled.
Working from home as a planned/rolled out thing for a percentage of people is vastly different from a pandemic improptu shutdown. I was actually surprised how quickly the whole business world adjusted. I've been arguing for years in favour of working from home but was told it can't be done, or people won't do enough work.
Then, if the actual measured loss is 20% then perhaps it actually went up by 30% (the difference).
One cannot really conclude much from this study due to a lack of control, and I hope this is discussed honestly in the paper.
One thing I could observe is that working from home required a lot of people that are not used to it to learn to communicate professionally in writing, which they weren't used to. With the option of clarifying via a quick personal chat on the corridor taken due to an "all remote" forced work mode, poor communicators really do need a lot of overhead in terms of extra Teams/Zoom/Slack... meetings to get their message across.
Another observation was there was suddenly a lot of extra work. Initially I expected to have more time due to less business. In reality, CoVid19 also presented new opportunities, so extra projects were launched that would not have been required without the pandemic. Another variable that can't really be controlled.
Working from home as a planned/rolled out thing for a percentage of people is vastly different from a pandemic improptu shutdown. I was actually surprised how quickly the whole business world adjusted. I've been arguing for years in favour of working from home but was told it can't be done, or people won't do enough work.
If there's something I've realised about the hn gestalt, it's that any anecdote in favour of wfh is taken as true by default, while any critique of wfh is assumed to be bunk unless absolutely faultness.
The arguments back and forth on this are always interesting to me.
I don't particularly care either way since I've been work from home for the last 15 years. All I can say is that working from home during the pandemic isn't the same as normal times. Even if you don't have kids at home, there's a huge difference between working from home and staying at home all day long every day, versus going out for lunches (especially with friends), dinners, doing things on weekends, etc.
I'm lucky enough to live in a suburb and have nice walking trails that I could use that were pretty much empty during this whole thing - for much lunch break I regularly eat lunch and take a small walk along a creek. Or take a quick dip in my swimming pool. I've had it a lot better than some of my friends in larger cities that felt like they could go practically nowhere and do almost nothing.
I don't particularly care either way since I've been work from home for the last 15 years. All I can say is that working from home during the pandemic isn't the same as normal times. Even if you don't have kids at home, there's a huge difference between working from home and staying at home all day long every day, versus going out for lunches (especially with friends), dinners, doing things on weekends, etc.
I'm lucky enough to live in a suburb and have nice walking trails that I could use that were pretty much empty during this whole thing - for much lunch break I regularly eat lunch and take a small walk along a creek. Or take a quick dip in my swimming pool. I've had it a lot better than some of my friends in larger cities that felt like they could go practically nowhere and do almost nothing.
A big surprise to me was the impact on having "real talk" discussions with my boss.
I joined during covid and obviously working at home I was used to everything being truly 1:1 just between us. (I'm blessed with a great boss)
The few back at office days rattled me a bit in terms of "who is listening/judging" in open plan.
I've spent years in open plan so that aspect isn't new...but somehow the covid contrast rattled me
I joined during covid and obviously working at home I was used to everything being truly 1:1 just between us. (I'm blessed with a great boss)
The few back at office days rattled me a bit in terms of "who is listening/judging" in open plan.
I've spent years in open plan so that aspect isn't new...but somehow the covid contrast rattled me
I'm not sure what you mean.
I book 1:1 with my manager and it was always in a meeting room.
Is it common for you to have 1:1 in your cubicle?
I book 1:1 with my manager and it was always in a meeting room.
Is it common for you to have 1:1 in your cubicle?
Pre-covid, I only ever had manager 1:1s in a meeting room, or much more commonly, walking around the campus. Very occasionally a 1:1 in a deserted corner of a cafeteria during non-meal hours.
A manager 1:1 in a nonprivate space sounds awful.
A manager 1:1 in a nonprivate space sounds awful.
I would argue a meeting in a non-private space isn't a 1:1 at all. That's awful.
You're right - any conversation at people's desks in an open plan office should essentially be considered open for anyone to listen and join in. Otherwise it's just plain rude or inappropriate.
I think it is, frankly, irrelevant. Companies need to understand that their employees are adults, and should be able to pick whichever way of working is comfortable for them. If that decreases productivity, they should get less in compensation.
I doubt it will change, though, unless employees start to organize in unions and demand to be treated in less patronizing way.
I doubt it will change, though, unless employees start to organize in unions and demand to be treated in less patronizing way.
What raises my eyebrows here is that the output is 100.00% in both periods, for both the 1st and 3rd quartile. This seems extremely artificial. Basically, when 1 task is assigned, 1.0000 tasks will be completed. I’ve only skimmed but didn’t see any discussion of how the tasks are assigned - is there any variation on that end?
> The jobs involve significant cognitive work, developing new software
or hardware applications or solutions, collaborating with teams of professionals, working with clients,
and engaging in innovation and continuous improvement.
> The company provided rich data for a large sample of more than 10,000 employees, for 17 months before and during WFH, from its personnel records and workforce analytics systems. It has a highly-developed process for setting goals and tracking progress towards them, culminating in a primary output measure for each employee.
I am skeptical. Why? I've never seen a half-decent way of quantifying output in all my time on the job at 7 companies. Sure, this company complies enough numbers so that clients and upper management feel the performance is quantified, but that's not the same thing. At a minimum this productivity metric needs to be interrogated more closely.
> The company provided rich data for a large sample of more than 10,000 employees, for 17 months before and during WFH, from its personnel records and workforce analytics systems. It has a highly-developed process for setting goals and tracking progress towards them, culminating in a primary output measure for each employee.
I am skeptical. Why? I've never seen a half-decent way of quantifying output in all my time on the job at 7 companies. Sure, this company complies enough numbers so that clients and upper management feel the performance is quantified, but that's not the same thing. At a minimum this productivity metric needs to be interrogated more closely.
So, about the same amount of work got done, but it took more hours of working to get it done. Seems about right; efficiency per hour went down but the company got about the same amount of work from the employees. The per-hour productivity loss would be less if commute time were to be factored in: I'm putting in more hours of work, but my commute was more than an hour a day.
Being able to use my own toilet gave me a 400% performance boost tbh.
> but uninterrupted work hours shrank considerably.
How can that happen - kids aside? The best part of WFH uninterrupted time for the more complicated tasks. We used to call with our phones and felt obliged to pick up. Now we call via Teams and you can simply tune out or be in a non-interruptible state and people are less tempted to call when I'm trying to focus.
How can that happen - kids aside? The best part of WFH uninterrupted time for the more complicated tasks. We used to call with our phones and felt obliged to pick up. Now we call via Teams and you can simply tune out or be in a non-interruptible state and people are less tempted to call when I'm trying to focus.
A lot of comments here saying that this is a flawed study because we don't know how the pandemic may have impacted a statistical decline in productivity. I must ask, why is this not a concern when someone anecdotally or statistically shows an increase in productivity from Covid WFH? The response is instead something like "we've known it all along! WFH is better!".
>WFH is better!
Honestly, I think if that's the general consensus, then who gives a shit about productivity?
Employees, especially in America already have almost no bargaining power, literally no statute mandated vacation, terrible worker protections like "exempt (from overtime pay) employees" which I'm sure almost everyone on this board falls under. So literally the more hours they make you work, the less per hour you earn. How that one got passed congress without a revolt I'm not sure I'll ever understand.
But I digress....if employees like WFH a lot better then they should have it.
Honestly, I think if that's the general consensus, then who gives a shit about productivity?
Employees, especially in America already have almost no bargaining power, literally no statute mandated vacation, terrible worker protections like "exempt (from overtime pay) employees" which I'm sure almost everyone on this board falls under. So literally the more hours they make you work, the less per hour you earn. How that one got passed congress without a revolt I'm not sure I'll ever understand.
But I digress....if employees like WFH a lot better then they should have it.
For me personally, the reason is that I fully expect the pandemic to negatively impact productivity in ways completely unrelated to WFH (children in home instead of school, stress, lack of preparedness to proper WFH, etc.). In contrast, I find it difficult to think of pandemic-related but not WFH-related aspects that I expect to improve productivity. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise.
I think the biggest one is that most people's social lives also dried up during the pandemic. You weren't finishing up WFH and then rushing out to get dinner and see a movie with friends. You weren't traveling or taking vacation. I've had a lot of conversations with people on my team over the last year that were some version of:
Them: "I finished this over the weekend."
Me: "That's great, but you're to be clear you're not expected to do that. You should feel free to take weekends off to recharge!"
Them: "Yeah but what else am I going to do right now?"
If there hadn't been a pandemic, they would've been doing all of these other things and then more likely to cut back on work when the end of work hours roll around.
Them: "I finished this over the weekend."
Me: "That's great, but you're to be clear you're not expected to do that. You should feel free to take weekends off to recharge!"
Them: "Yeah but what else am I going to do right now?"
If there hadn't been a pandemic, they would've been doing all of these other things and then more likely to cut back on work when the end of work hours roll around.
I think thats still a negative, becauss it's a recepie for depression and low morale
And this is where I am right now after a year of this s**. Let's get reopened for those who are struggling.
That's a good point, thanks!
Probably just intuition, wfh was more productive despite a global pandemic. Intuitively covid is a disruption that would decrease in productivity like other distractions
Confirmation bias.
Honestly, IMO most of economics "research" is just a random assortment of bullshit viewed through a lens of confirmation bias. Results don't match your priors? Make adjustments to your model assumptions until it does. Disagree with a result? Point out at all the ways in which those assumptions are imperfect. Results match your priors? LGTM.
Honestly, IMO most of economics "research" is just a random assortment of bullshit viewed through a lens of confirmation bias. Results don't match your priors? Make adjustments to your model assumptions until it does. Disagree with a result? Point out at all the ways in which those assumptions are imperfect. Results match your priors? LGTM.
The research papers go through reviewers who can very easily spot these things. In fact in most research articles you have to explicitly show that relaxing certain assumptions don't completely invalidate your results.
Ironically, your comment can be interpreted as confirmation bias. Predisposed to not trusting economic research -> see an article about economic research -> confirms previous beliefs.
It might be because a global pandemic is assumed to depress people's spirits, which isn't what we'd expect to increase productivity. So we rely on our intuition for directionality?
Should be studied more, but wouldn't you be surprised to know that the pandemic itself (stress, isolation, deferred medical care, etc.) caused an increase?
Should be studied more, but wouldn't you be surprised to know that the pandemic itself (stress, isolation, deferred medical care, etc.) caused an increase?
This is an associative study and thus can't really tell us anything about the causal impact of working from home.
A recent properly-conducted randomized controlled trial found that WFH improves productivity: https://www.nber.org/papers/w18871
A recent properly-conducted randomized controlled trial found that WFH improves productivity: https://www.nber.org/papers/w18871
It never seemed surprising to me to think that the disaster that has been high school and college from home might also be a problem for working from home. After all, one major difference between working from home and learning from home is that working relies on human interaction much more heavily than studying.
But no one seems to even bother disputing that college-from-home is an inefficient way to learn compared to in-person. It is practically a universally accepted fact. Meanwhile, the entire internet seems to rush to find flaws, no matter how minute, in any study that casts the faintest negative light on working-from-home.
But no one seems to even bother disputing that college-from-home is an inefficient way to learn compared to in-person. It is practically a universally accepted fact. Meanwhile, the entire internet seems to rush to find flaws, no matter how minute, in any study that casts the faintest negative light on working-from-home.
i learned my entire curriculum from youtube 2014-2018 so i dispute that remote college is inefficient. however i would not dispute that universities would have any motivation to make the remote learning process work well for fear of future consequences.
Perhaps 'inefficient' was a poor choice of terms on my part. What I mean to say is that getting your education at an institution yields superior results compared to watching youtube videos.
When learning in-person, cheating is less easily facilitated, student engagement is more naturally promoted, discussion and interaction is inherently encouraged, distractions are much fewer, and the general atmosphere is fully conducive to the retainment of information and study material.
When learning in-person, cheating is less easily facilitated, student engagement is more naturally promoted, discussion and interaction is inherently encouraged, distractions are much fewer, and the general atmosphere is fully conducive to the retainment of information and study material.
actually i highly dispute that. as good youtube videos have highly skilled tutors or highly skilled professors conveying the content. not random adjuncts, graduate students, assistant professors, and sometimes the occasional skilled lecturer. if i didn’t watch youtube vidoes i would have never have passed. my experience in class was abysmal and going to class to figure out the exam content and then watching videos afterwards resulted in way better grades.
Youtube videos can be watched whether or not you attend a class with professional faculty and a group of like-minded colleagues in-person. It's not as if attending an institution precludes you from consuming other material. Students have been doing that for years.
True. but that’s similar to the common practice of going to meetings at work and then doing the actual hard concentration work at home after hours. I don’t want to work 12 hours a day. I want to get my work done and be done. I’m looking for efficiency. Not a social club.
Cheating only matters from the credentialing side of college, not from the learning component. I'm not arguing there is no room for credentialing, just that cheating isn't really important when it comes to learning.
Ofcourse my productivity dived.. I have to spend 3h per day on meetings to align with ppl on various thing because ppl force me to have f2f meetings over zoom. Things that could have been an email.
On top of that are kids and wife who drive me crazy and constantly interrupt when you have to focus.
This is not a correct way to measure WFH, during normal WFH situation my kids would be in school and my wife at work..
And coworkers wouldnt be so desperate for interactions with others.
On top of that are kids and wife who drive me crazy and constantly interrupt when you have to focus.
This is not a correct way to measure WFH, during normal WFH situation my kids would be in school and my wife at work..
And coworkers wouldnt be so desperate for interactions with others.
I've had a similar experience. Many more meetings now than when I was in the office. Middle managers not knowing what to do with themselves, so calling useless Zoom meetings.
However, I've been super productive when I've been able to get some quiet time outside of meetings.
However, I've been super productive when I've been able to get some quiet time outside of meetings.
Impossible to decouple the pandemic from whatever happened with work from home productivity.
Our management “COVID-paused” lots of projects because of uncertainty.
Our management “COVID-paused” lots of projects because of uncertainty.
[deleted]
It seems like the overwhelming majority of people here are positive to WFH. I can't stand it. To me, a "remote first" workplace sounds abysmal. I like to have a physical workplace where our company can gather and focus on our goals together, in person. Picking up business related discussions, small talking, sharing music, joking around. Attempting this through video meetings or voice chats feels like a bad simulacrum. I just hope there's a place for people like me in your visions of the future distributed workplace.
It's possible to have that remotely! It takes effort and requires intentionality, but you can make it happen.
We do daily 30 minute standups - which we intentionally run inefficiently at this point. It's a great time for watercooler talk, catching up, and generally building rapport that's hard to build at remote companies.
We also do twice weekly hang-out sessions. It takes some time to develop the habit. It's probably not for everyone but it's been incredibly positive for our team.
We do daily 30 minute standups - which we intentionally run inefficiently at this point. It's a great time for watercooler talk, catching up, and generally building rapport that's hard to build at remote companies.
We also do twice weekly hang-out sessions. It takes some time to develop the habit. It's probably not for everyone but it's been incredibly positive for our team.
Seconding this. WFH is more conscious effort in this regard, but you don't _have_ to lose those things. The biggest difference is organic conversations will not happen in big meetings. When only one person can talk at a time, you lose all those side chats, etc. So you need to book a lot of smaller meetings with people.
I have daily stand-ups with my team. I've never made it explicitly clear but kind of driven it towards a routine of "get the work out of the way, then we have until X time to chat and bullshit".
I have a weekly planning meeting with a few members of the team. Same deal. Get the planning out of the way, then the remainder is for general chit-chat, talking about personal projects, etc.
Every week I have three hours blocked off where I do a "check-in" with a bunch of other team leads. It's dual-purpose: There's a lot of things they might be dealing with that they'd never feel rose to the level of scheduling a meeting to discuss (whether problems or just wanting input, etc; this was previously a lot of the water cooler talk), but when the time's already there then they'll find all sorts of productive ways to fill it. And chit-chat once that's all out of the way.
I do an hour once a week with my boss one on one.
The entire office does a monthly-ish hour to play some silly online games and hang out as well.
We've been hiring like crazy so at this point a lot of these people are people I've never met in person but I've built a pretty good rapport and relationship purely over video chat and Slack.
All-in, I spend like 6 hours a week on this. And most of it's scheduled around the beginning/very end of the day where most people aren't as interrupted or super productive to begin with. Truth be told, this is barely more (if any) than the amount of time that we were spending previously on socialization at work. If we account for the _lost_ productivity of being distracted in the office, then I've definitely gained time.
The hardest part was just accepting that I was going to have to let some relationships go. As much as I really enjoyed talking to that one frontend engineer and it _occasionally_ resulted in some sort of productive action, the trade-off just isn't there so I need to rely more on the team leads to solve and communicate those issues.
I have daily stand-ups with my team. I've never made it explicitly clear but kind of driven it towards a routine of "get the work out of the way, then we have until X time to chat and bullshit".
I have a weekly planning meeting with a few members of the team. Same deal. Get the planning out of the way, then the remainder is for general chit-chat, talking about personal projects, etc.
Every week I have three hours blocked off where I do a "check-in" with a bunch of other team leads. It's dual-purpose: There's a lot of things they might be dealing with that they'd never feel rose to the level of scheduling a meeting to discuss (whether problems or just wanting input, etc; this was previously a lot of the water cooler talk), but when the time's already there then they'll find all sorts of productive ways to fill it. And chit-chat once that's all out of the way.
I do an hour once a week with my boss one on one.
The entire office does a monthly-ish hour to play some silly online games and hang out as well.
We've been hiring like crazy so at this point a lot of these people are people I've never met in person but I've built a pretty good rapport and relationship purely over video chat and Slack.
All-in, I spend like 6 hours a week on this. And most of it's scheduled around the beginning/very end of the day where most people aren't as interrupted or super productive to begin with. Truth be told, this is barely more (if any) than the amount of time that we were spending previously on socialization at work. If we account for the _lost_ productivity of being distracted in the office, then I've definitely gained time.
The hardest part was just accepting that I was going to have to let some relationships go. As much as I really enjoyed talking to that one frontend engineer and it _occasionally_ resulted in some sort of productive action, the trade-off just isn't there so I need to rely more on the team leads to solve and communicate those issues.
I think there will always be a place for people like you, and you have nothing to worry about. I also think that working from home can be good in some situations but not others even for the same person. I can see myself getting sick of it, and the option of a good office would be nice.
The problem is that "office" in today's world generally means an open office layout designed to waste your time and distract you. If "office" meant an actual office with a door you can close so that you can do focused work, the situation would be different.
The problem is that "office" in today's world generally means an open office layout designed to waste your time and distract you. If "office" meant an actual office with a door you can close so that you can do focused work, the situation would be different.
There will a place for folks like yourself be as long as it’s needed. Don’t take it the wrong way but once people who have preferences like yours are gone this notion of needing a office in the traditional sense, will pass. The need for working space will remain. The need for a “office” will go away. It’s a natural progression. It’s like Horses gave way to cars but peoples need for mobility remained. Our needs as humans have remained how we fulfill them changes as decades roll. Best to enjoy life and adapt. The other way is possible too....
> I like to have a physical workplace where our company can gather and focus on our goals together, in person
I dont want to sound rude, but most people here seem to focus more on actual work output.
> discussions, small talking, sharing music, joking around.
This doesnt sound like work at all, only busywork; what negatively affects those around.
Most people prefer to do get shit done and go home (when you work from home, you remove the commute part) and then spend time with real friends, since people at work very often are not your real friends.
I dont want to sound rude, but most people here seem to focus more on actual work output.
> discussions, small talking, sharing music, joking around.
This doesnt sound like work at all, only busywork; what negatively affects those around.
Most people prefer to do get shit done and go home (when you work from home, you remove the commute part) and then spend time with real friends, since people at work very often are not your real friends.
I understand your point of view, and I respect it. I can't find the motivation to ruthlessly min/max my efficiency like that though. Most people are bound to X hours of work in a day, regardless of raw output. I just think it's worth sacrificing some amount of efficiency to be able to enjoy those hours. I also think that sacrifice is less than it first appears, since you gain a lot of intangible benefits like mindshare, motivation and team cohesion. I don't want to "power through" my work, I want to look forward to it.
Then don’t join a remote first company? It’s not like that’s going away anytime soon.
Of course not. I doubt it ever will. I'm referring to the seemingly common sentiment that working in an office is objectively worse and should be abolished. I just wanted to add some nuance to that.
"You are not working from home; you are at your home during a crisis trying to work."
> Using personnel and analytics data from over 10,000 skilled professionals at a large Asian IT services company
So, which one? TCS, Wipro, Infosys, IBM, Capgemini?
I want to know so that I can avoid it, not because of the study results, but because they install this "Sapience" tool to spy on their employees.
So, which one? TCS, Wipro, Infosys, IBM, Capgemini?
I want to know so that I can avoid it, not because of the study results, but because they install this "Sapience" tool to spy on their employees.
This seems like they accidentally just proved that parents had a really hard time working and taking care of their kids at the same time during a global pandemic lockdown.
I see the point of employees’ well being is always missing from these conversations as the main topic.
Across companies I’m seeing it’s getting increasingly difficult for people who liked a simple 9-5 or 10-6 in the pre-pandemic days. On most days they could just switch-off from work in the early evening by leaving the work place.
That boundary is now constantly stretching. Someone has a kid so they want a different time, someone has daily house chores so they’d rather take that 3-5pm off and then extend to 5-8pm and they’d expect others to adjust around it.
It’s especially bad in my country, India. This place already had a chronic national work-life balance issue and it’s limitless in many ways now. US companies anyway treat this place as offshore software worker colony no matter how you’d want to dress this in words. I recently switched from an Indian startup (quite bad work-life balance) to a US firm and I could never imagine it would have changed for the worse. Anyway I’ve resigned and I’m interviewing only for very large MNCs where I know multiple people personally who can vouch for this part of work culture.
Now of course you can be strict about your time and slowly become “that uncooperative person” in the team. Or you can just bleat about how that’s just company failing to streamline things.
Problem is majority seems fine with not having a work boundary in their lives that used be a hard stop early in the evening and then everybody else is automatically expected be okay with this.
There is no fix of this other than very clearly separating work and home.
Across companies I’m seeing it’s getting increasingly difficult for people who liked a simple 9-5 or 10-6 in the pre-pandemic days. On most days they could just switch-off from work in the early evening by leaving the work place.
That boundary is now constantly stretching. Someone has a kid so they want a different time, someone has daily house chores so they’d rather take that 3-5pm off and then extend to 5-8pm and they’d expect others to adjust around it.
It’s especially bad in my country, India. This place already had a chronic national work-life balance issue and it’s limitless in many ways now. US companies anyway treat this place as offshore software worker colony no matter how you’d want to dress this in words. I recently switched from an Indian startup (quite bad work-life balance) to a US firm and I could never imagine it would have changed for the worse. Anyway I’ve resigned and I’m interviewing only for very large MNCs where I know multiple people personally who can vouch for this part of work culture.
Now of course you can be strict about your time and slowly become “that uncooperative person” in the team. Or you can just bleat about how that’s just company failing to streamline things.
Problem is majority seems fine with not having a work boundary in their lives that used be a hard stop early in the evening and then everybody else is automatically expected be okay with this.
There is no fix of this other than very clearly separating work and home.
Being able to work in my shorts on my giant monitor while listening to my favourite music without the discomfort of headphones itself probably has done double-digit contribution.
Given the stories I've heard about the rigor of UChicago's econometrics program, I'm somewhat surprised they would put out a working paper extrapolating what is effectively a single data point to make broader inferences about the efficacy of WFH practices. To be fair they qualify their findings in terms of the firm's employees, but given the tone of the title and conclusion focusing on WFH as a general trend it still seems to me that they are drawing from a sample size of n=1 instead of n=10000. The paper doesn't specify which Asian country is being studied but anecdotally I have several relatives/friends working in East Asian corporations who can attest to the pervasiveness of "managerial piety" culture even when working remotely, so I would also think they'd want to replicate the study across similar companies in other parts of the world to account for potentially confounding cultural factors in assessing WFH productivity