3 ms·
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
by andersource 5y ago
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.
- ghaff 5y ago> 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.)
- jfengel 5y agoVery 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.
- andersource 5y agoTrue. 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.