5 ms·

The mistake people and companies will inevitably make is believing that because, on net, having everyone work from home makes people more productive, it will ma

The mistake people and companies will inevitably make is believing that because, on net, having everyone work from home makes people more productive, it will make a specific person more productive. In other words, companies may misinterpret this study as "everyone working from home" is the optimal solution. But the optimal solution is some people working from home and some people not.

robotresearcher 7y ago
Agreed. I just looked at the study itself, and there's an important fact that the article does not mention. There were two test groups WFH and on-site. The WFH groups were volunteers, and their outcomes were better. It's interesting that the net productivity of the on-site workers did not go up despite the removal of the self-selected WFH-curious population. The study: https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/f/wfh.pdf https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/...
- rv-de 7y ago
  That is a really important detail I must say.
- James_Henry 7y ago
  This is great in that it shows that people who volunteer to work from home end up being more productive at home. However, knowing that you are part of a study that is measuring how effective people are at home and in the office and being someone who volunteered to work from home, there are clearly incentives for those assigned to work from home to work harder and for those assigned to work in the office to work less hard.
  - lutorm 7y ago
    Except the people who worked in the office also volunteered to stay, so why wouldn't they work harder too so they don't have to start working at home when they don't want to?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - James_Henry 7y ago
      Sorry, that is just pertaining to the first part of the study. After seeing those results they did indeed allow all who wanted to work from home and saw an increase in their productivity.

robotresearcher 7y ago

Agreed. I just looked at the study itself, and there's an important fact that the article does not mention. There were two test groups WFH and on-site. The WFH groups were volunteers, and their outcomes were better. It's interesting that the net productivity of the on-site workers did not go up despite the removal of the self-selected WFH-curious population. The study: https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/f/wfh.pdf https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/...

rv-de 7y ago
That is a really important detail I must say.
James_Henry 7y ago
This is great in that it shows that people who volunteer to work from home end up being more productive at home. However, knowing that you are part of a study that is measuring how effective people are at home and in the office and being someone who volunteered to work from home, there are clearly incentives for those assigned to work from home to work harder and for those assigned to work in the office to work less hard.
- lutorm 7y ago
  Except the people who worked in the office also volunteered to stay, so why wouldn't they work harder too so they don't have to start working at home when they don't want to?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - James_Henry 7y ago
    Sorry, that is just pertaining to the first part of the study. After seeing those results they did indeed allow all who wanted to work from home and saw an increase in their productivity.