I am at the WCI this week. It is a definition of diverse viewpoints and interesting perspectives. I met a lady whose company "went remote for the pandemic" and remains so now. I engaged in a conversation about how another company will "never transition to remote." There are feelings, sentiments, and postures. Like many aspects of the comp world, each perspective is fully committed to its conclusions and perceptions.
It is fascinating. Forbes recently published an article regarding remote work: The Productivity Problem With Remote Work.
The point is a recent study, released by Stanford University, regarding remote work, hybrid, work, and perceptions of productivity. Yes, that Stanford, the one at which the president recently resigned over allegations regarding data. Yes, the one mentioned regarding Title IX. Yes, where Elizabeth Holmes went to college. The San Francisco Chronicle and the Palo Alto Post have recently been critical of the school, its recent history, and perhaps its course.
Nonetheless, it produced a recent report regarding presenteeism, and perceptions. It is intriguing to consider those perceptions.
The study comes soon after I had the opportunity to discuss virtual work with leaders from several states, and just before the annual foray to Orlando. Despite the unequivocal end of any real COVID-19 concerns, a fair few jurisdictions have not returned to full-office engagement. That posture is alien to us in Florida, having never shut down, abandon, or avoided. Here, there was no “coming back“ for the Florida OJCC to contemplate. Absent a few isolated days for cleaning, we proudly served throughout the pandemic, all offices open, fully staffed, and focused. Several at the WCI have described their journeys back to the office. Interactions reveal a great variety in response and reaction, as well as in the presenteeism debate.
The Stanford study concludes “that productivity drops with remote work.” This data is counterintuitive in light of the repeated assurances that we have heard from workforces. I have yet to encounter a single telecommuter who even suggests the possibility of lower productivity at home. They are 100% adamant that working from home is just as productive or more. They who enjoy working from home are uniformly, unanimously, and strenuously supportive of it.
There is a noted disparity in the perceptions of workers and management. Workers believe themselves to be more productive, “about 7% higher,” working from home. Managers perceive productivity to be lower at home “about 3.5% lower.” it is important that these are perceptions. This is self-reporting. There may be some degree of personal bias or at least subjectivity in those survey responses. They are math and estimates. It is also important that these are averages.
Averages can be challenging. A company might have a remote workforce of 10 fully-remote individuals. Most might be very productive, but if one of these is a “lazy“ employee who merely cuts and paste 2–3 emails, and makes a few phone calls each day, their minimal productivity might lower the overall team dynamic to 90% of what is expected. See Hip to be Square (August 2023). Imagine 10 employees each hitting a perfect "10" day making 100%, but the one slouch hitting zero means that the team achieves only 9/10.
Regardless of whether productivity is or is not actually better or worse, these results demonstrate the probability that perceptions at least will be challenging. Beyond perception, “The Stanford analysis across multiple studies found a 10% to 20% reduction in productivity.” The numbers seem to support that remote work is not as productive. Again, averages. Twenty percent? That is troubling. If true, that would mean that maintaining production would require more employees.
Imagine that we are making widgets (no, I don't know what they are either, but every professor uses them somehow, if even just as examples). If an in-office employee usually makes 20 per day, then our hypothetical team of 10 workers would make 200 each day. If, when shifted to virtual, that drops by 20%, then each produces 16 per day, and the team drops to 160. To return to the 200 level requires more than two additional "virtual" employees (200-160=40). Two more 16s only yield 32. Two more virtual employees brings us back only to 192. Three would bring us to 208. The company payroll (if only these widget makers worked there) would perhaps increase close to 30%).
The pro-virtual camp would be quick to point out that (1) they are just as productive at home and Stanford's statistics cannot be trusted, and (2) even if the stats are trustworthy, the company could save many dollars with decreasing office space and other expenditures and thus easily afford the additional staff to make widgets. Real estate is expensive, but whether that math would work is an intriguing question. There are undoubtedly cost savings (commute, wardrobe), but those are personal not company savings. Perhaps pay could be diminished to account for cost?
Despite the body of evidence regarding productivity, the Stanford report concludes unequivocally that telecommuting rates are increasing, the “rates of working remotely have doubled every 15 years.” The patient appears to be quickening.
How is work being performed? The report concludes that “60% of workers are at the workplace full time, . . . Hybrid workers make up about 30%,” and 10% are “fully remote.” as we might imagine, the chances of working fully remote increase markedly with education. That “71% of knowledge workers were remote at least once a week, and 82% worked for companies who expected them to be in the office at least some of their time.” Thus, there seems support for the representation that hybrid workers are three times the population of fully remote. With the hybrid is an ongoing need for real estate that represents a cost.
Interestingly, there is no demonstrated difference between men and women, in terms of the hybrid and remote populations. However, the report notes. Significant differences in the desire for the non-traditional work environment. Women are more likely to chic such. Accommodations. It is also interesting that the older generation is not the driving force in this pursuit. “Employees in their 30s and 40s are also most likely to work from home.” One might question whether this has any relationship to child-rearing and the panoply of family commitments that accompany it.
There are thoughts beyond the "that" productivity is decreased. In analyzing the "why," the study makes no singular culprit known. It suggests some potential causes, depending on the nature of the work and its conditions. Suggested causes include:
- challenges in communicating and coordinating work;
- degradation of communication networks and
- reduction of new connections;
- reduced creativity partly because of multi-tasking, rather than being fully focused in person together; and
- a reduction in learning, mentoring and feedback.
These are not the only drivers but are worthy of consideration. There are also distractions that factor into the productivity equation. There is data out there that supports remote workers are spending a fair amount of their work time on other tasks. These include:
- scrolling social media (75% of people),
- shopping online (70%),
- watching shows or movies (53%) and
- planning trips (32%).
Away from their computers, workers purportedly spend part of their workday on tasks such as:
- household chores (72%),
- errands (37%),
- napping (22%),
- going to the doctor (23%) or
- drinking (12%).
These numbers also support that some remote workers (13%) "report they work only three or four hours per day when they are remote." If they can make 80% of the widgets they normally could in the office and can do so in 3 hours, that is pretty impressive. But, perhaps that begs some other questions.
For example: are people surfing the internet when they are in the office? I see a great many smartphones in the workplace. Often they are on a desk, but more often they are in someone's hands. I struggle with what work function they might be fulfilling with their phone; calculator or calendar maybe? Are people napping in the office? In that regard, does daydreaming count?
This study will be added to the variety of factors that management considers in the world of work. There will be persistence in the desire to work remotely. All else equal, the absence of the commute will drive a great deal of this, as will wardrobe, comfort, and quiet. One person lauded that they go to work in their slippers and don't wear makeup when telecommuting. Those are benefits.
Personally, the quiet is what I could not become accustomed to in the 6 months during which I worked virtually one day weekly. No, the pandemic did not drive that decision. Some people did not do their jobs back in September 2020. In the midst of a pandemic, we were challenged in Paradise with a hurricane. It was not much of a storm, but a construction company failed to secure its equipment. What was once a bridge was rendered a pretty useless "half-bridge" for about six months. The commute of a few minutes turned into a daily ordeal. See If you were Half the Bridge I am, (June 2021).
Thus, temporarily, I found it wise to dodge the commute one day each week. I cannot say I enjoyed virtual work. I like being in the office. I get a great deal of work done in the office. But, for a lot of people the 1.5 hours each way, each day commute begins to wear. I get why they would strive to minimize it. Virtual has its personal benefits. I also get why the trend, however, is not full remote but hybrid. Some portion of time in a group environment is perhaps critical.
Stanford also concluded that the most common "in-office" days for those who are hybrid are Tuesdays and Thursdays. Don't those four-day weekends get burdensome? And in that flavor, why not Wednesday? How is it not among the most common? The point of all of this is that there are proponents and critics. There are perceptions and beliefs. There are studies showing problems or complications. And there is adamate belief, support, and desire.
The world is changing. The trip is not over. Buckle up.
