3 ms·

In my conversations with my higher-ups, they really believe that productivity is better in office. They often doubt the measured productivity improvements of WF

In my conversations with my higher-ups, they really believe that productivity is better in office. They often doubt the measured productivity improvements of WFH, and either believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary, and as in-person connections fade then so will productivity. There isn't some kind of conspiracy or hidden beliefs around real estate. That would be a massive prisoners' dilemma, where as soon as some companies "defected" the real estate prices would fall anyways. Certainly we can debate whether they are right about whether WFH is better or worse. Certainly some of their feeling of "this is working" probably comes from their sense of having more direct control and visibility over people rather than real measure of productivity. However, I think they are being honest about their motives: They believe that in-person connections lead to better work output.

jschveibinz 4y ago
I agree
joshstrange 4y ago
> They often doubt the measured productivity improvements of WFH, and either believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary, and as in-person connections fade then so will productivity. > However, I think they are being honest about their motives: They believe that in-person connections lead to better work output. We that is how belief works, thinking something without any data to back it up. It's a little more gross in this case since the places that do have data are writing it off (funny how that works, it's almost as if they only collected the data to use it when it agreed with their gut, don't get me started on KPIs and the like). I have no doubt that some people do work better in an office environment but forcing everyone back because some subset want to go back to the office is just insanity. In the end the companies pushing people back to the office that don't want to go back will suffer as talent that doesn't want to work in the office leaves for greener pastures. They will be left with the people who can't switch jobs (for whatever reason) and the people who do like being in a office.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  > "It's a little more gross in this case since the places that do have data are writing it off..." Any examples you're willing to share? The only study I'm aware of is MSR's which news sources like https://www.zdnet.com/article/remote-work-is-making-productivity-and-innovation-harder-says-microsoft-study/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/remote-work-is-making-producti... summarize as "... the organization-wide switch to remote working in 2020 damaged communication and collaboration between different teams – while driving up working hours." They are writing it off though, as you say, since I have heard that MS has not required staff to return to the office.
  - joshstrange 4y ago
    I was responding directly to this line: > They often doubt the measured productivity improvements of WFH, and either believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary, and as in-person connections fade then so will productivity. Specifically "believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary". Though it wouldn't be the first time I saw first hand a company reject the will of the employees or what the data is telling them because it doesn't match their "gut" (speaking of pre-pandemic things at a company I used to work at).

jschveibinz 4y ago

I agree

joshstrange 4y ago

> They often doubt the measured productivity improvements of WFH, and either believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary, and as in-person connections fade then so will productivity. > However, I think they are being honest about their motives: They believe that in-person connections lead to better work output. We that is how belief works, thinking something without any data to back it up. It's a little more gross in this case since the places that do have data are writing it off (funny how that works, it's almost as if they only collected the data to use it when it agreed with their gut, don't get me started on KPIs and the like). I have no doubt that some people do work better in an office environment but forcing everyone back because some subset want to go back to the office is just insanity. In the end the companies pushing people back to the office that don't want to go back will suffer as talent that doesn't want to work in the office leaves for greener pastures. They will be left with the people who can't switch jobs (for whatever reason) and the people who do like being in a office.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago
> "It's a little more gross in this case since the places that do have data are writing it off..." Any examples you're willing to share? The only study I'm aware of is MSR's which news sources like https://www.zdnet.com/article/remote-work-is-making-productivity-and-innovation-harder-says-microsoft-study/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/remote-work-is-making-producti... summarize as "... the organization-wide switch to remote working in 2020 damaged communication and collaboration between different teams – while driving up working hours." They are writing it off though, as you say, since I have heard that MS has not required staff to return to the office.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  I was responding directly to this line: > They often doubt the measured productivity improvements of WFH, and either believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary, and as in-person connections fade then so will productivity. Specifically "believe that the metrics are inflated or that they are temporary". Though it wouldn't be the first time I saw first hand a company reject the will of the employees or what the data is telling them because it doesn't match their "gut" (speaking of pre-pandemic things at a company I used to work at).