3 ms·
> 500 employees were divided into two groups--a control group (who continued working at HQ) and volunteer work-from-homers (who had to have a private room at h
by lawlorino 8y ago
> 500 employees were divided into two groups--a control group (who continued working at HQ) and volunteer work-from-homers (who had to have a private room at home, at least six-month tenure with Ctrip, and decent broadband access as conditions).
That's a huge selection bias - if the 'treatment' group are self-selecting volunteers from your pool of all employees then that causes a whole host of issues.
- lozenge 8y agoNot really, this increases its applicability as this is the usual case in which people are considering working from home - as an option at a non-fully-remote company, or as an option to join a fully remote company.
- js8 8y agoIt is selection bias, but the study shows more work being done. If people who self-selected for working from home would do so to try to avoid working, then why there would be positive result (and more work done)?
- gowld 8y agoThe journalist made a mistake. The paper says: > After a lottery draw, those employees with even-numbered birthdays were selected to work from home, and those with odd-numbered birthdates stayed in the office to act as the control group.