6 ms·

I'm usually a little suspicious of articles that use the phrase "the evidence is clear" as a rhetorical device because evidence is rarely clear, especially when

I'm usually a little suspicious of articles that use the phrase "the evidence is clear" as a rhetorical device because evidence is rarely clear, especially when it comes to to things that have a human and social aspect. Their argument is mostly based on a single study. And then they just call out the biases of the CEOs pushing for back-to-office, but they don't acknowledge their own bias as someone who appears to run a consultancy that makes money off of exactly the thing they are arguing is the right approach.

autoexec 3y ago
The article might be poor, the author self-serving, and their views poorly sourced, but we don't have to rely on this one article to know that offices are terrible for productivity. Countless studies on the open floor plans and cube farms companies want to pull workers back to have shown that they are terrible for productivity, so you can take your pick from any of them. Many people here have experienced that for themselves. Offices are good for forced socialization, collaboration, networking, and micromanaging, but not for productivity, flexibility, employee's health and comfort, and especially not for work that requires long periods of intense focus.
- billfor 3y ago
  Generally it wasn't technically possible to work fully remote until the last ten years so not sure how you can say that everyone that was working onsite or in an office from 1945-2010 had a bad time, since there wasn't any substantial alternative to compare it to. I do note that the world kept turning during this period and we were productive.
  - tharkun__ 3y ago
    One does not preclude the other. Working in an office can have been having a bad time regardless of whether there were viable alternatives (for most people). As an introvert my entire in-office existence was bad. I did not have an alternative. But now I do and I will cling to it as long as I can. Productivity is also a relative measure in that sense. Sure you were productive. A farmer a few hundred years ago can have been productive for the times he was living in. Compare it with a modern farm and he's outclassed and not "productive" at all.
- kcplate 3y ago
  >Offices are terrible for productivity Well that statement is difficult to back up because you have 3 short years of data with 1/2 of it polluted by a pandemic and 1/2 polluted by economic downturn because of the pandemic against more than a century of data where offices managed to get along and make money creating products and services just fine with employees showing up at the office. I love my WFH situation and I don’t want it to change, but I cannot prove with hard facts to my employer why it’s better for them for me to work from home. I would bet solid money here on HN that almost every WFH advocate who claims it’s better and more productive can really only point to their own overall personal productivity with anecdotes and can provide no hard data on how that translates into real improved productivity to the organization.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed, but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate. The problem we have now is that companies want to return to "business as usual" when we know that "business as usual" was stupid. We knew it was stupid before the pandemic, but before an alternative wasn't tested at any real scale. Remote work isn't perfect, but it's worked very well for many companies and employees and solves a lot of problems. Now that we have an available alternative that works, even if we can't quantify how much it improves things using more than a couple years of research, if companies want to force their workers back into offices it's reasonable for employees to demand changes that solve the many known problems offices have. For now, I suspect that many employees will simply look for employment where they can get what works best for them and that means companies who refuse to solve the problems of the office will lose talent to companies who are more accommodating.
    - 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago

The article might be poor, the author self-serving, and their views poorly sourced, but we don't have to rely on this one article to know that offices are terrible for productivity. Countless studies on the open floor plans and cube farms companies want to pull workers back to have shown that they are terrible for productivity, so you can take your pick from any of them. Many people here have experienced that for themselves. Offices are good for forced socialization, collaboration, networking, and micromanaging, but not for productivity, flexibility, employee's health and comfort, and especially not for work that requires long periods of intense focus.

billfor 3y ago
Generally it wasn't technically possible to work fully remote until the last ten years so not sure how you can say that everyone that was working onsite or in an office from 1945-2010 had a bad time, since there wasn't any substantial alternative to compare it to. I do note that the world kept turning during this period and we were productive.
- tharkun__ 3y ago
  One does not preclude the other. Working in an office can have been having a bad time regardless of whether there were viable alternatives (for most people). As an introvert my entire in-office existence was bad. I did not have an alternative. But now I do and I will cling to it as long as I can. Productivity is also a relative measure in that sense. Sure you were productive. A farmer a few hundred years ago can have been productive for the times he was living in. Compare it with a modern farm and he's outclassed and not "productive" at all.
kcplate 3y ago
>Offices are terrible for productivity Well that statement is difficult to back up because you have 3 short years of data with 1/2 of it polluted by a pandemic and 1/2 polluted by economic downturn because of the pandemic against more than a century of data where offices managed to get along and make money creating products and services just fine with employees showing up at the office. I love my WFH situation and I don’t want it to change, but I cannot prove with hard facts to my employer why it’s better for them for me to work from home. I would bet solid money here on HN that almost every WFH advocate who claims it’s better and more productive can really only point to their own overall personal productivity with anecdotes and can provide no hard data on how that translates into real improved productivity to the organization.
- autoexec 3y ago
  It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed, but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate. The problem we have now is that companies want to return to "business as usual" when we know that "business as usual" was stupid. We knew it was stupid before the pandemic, but before an alternative wasn't tested at any real scale. Remote work isn't perfect, but it's worked very well for many companies and employees and solves a lot of problems. Now that we have an available alternative that works, even if we can't quantify how much it improves things using more than a couple years of research, if companies want to force their workers back into offices it's reasonable for employees to demand changes that solve the many known problems offices have. For now, I suspect that many employees will simply look for employment where they can get what works best for them and that means companies who refuse to solve the problems of the office will lose talent to companies who are more accommodating.
  - 3y ago