The point is that you can’t measure productivity if there is no effort to actually make it work. At that point hybrid is just as bad.
The article was interesting, and this stood out:
“In many of the studies we cite and in some of our own survey evidence, workers often get more done when remote simply because they save time from the daily commute and from other office distractions,” Barrero tells Fortune. “This can make them look more productive on a ‘per day’ basis, even if it means they’re actually less productive on a ‘per hour’ basis.”
So why does per hour win over per day? I would rather be productive each day and manage my own time over an hour by hour basis.
Which leads to another key point in productivity: asynchronous work. Hybrid and in office tends to go back to synchronous work, which in itself is not productive.
I started off this whole thing by saying that the evidence currently mounting that hybrid is most productive. I’ve provided that evidence.
You are cherry picking one quote from the article, misinterpreting it, and then using that to basically dismiss the whole thing. For instance, it does not say that all of the studies show this. Nor does it say that this was true for the majority of the people in the study, only that some people in some of the studies were more productive per day due to these factors. And the article goes into numerous other things as well showing how in office is more productive, which was just ignored.
That being said, the quote is true for me, to an extent. When I first started, there there were fewer distractions (like people coming in and shooting the shit with me) and so it made me more productive. . . at first. I feel like that waned over time because, honestly, primarily because I got lonely and secondarily I wasn’t bouncing ideas off of my fellow engineers as much. After 10 years of it, I chose a hybrid job simply because I was okay with being around people again, and it ultimately improved my mental health. And on top of that, I feel like my productivity has also increased drastically. Although, i fully understand that this is a personal thing. My office is very collaborative, and I’m shocked now being back in the office that anyone actually thinks full WFH is more productive. I 100% get why people prefer it tho.
Hybrid and in office tends to go back to synchronous work, which in itself is not productive.
If we are going off personal opinion at this point, I absolutely 100% disagree. Asynchronous work is better when no one is working on the same thing as someone else. But when you are all pulling in the same direction, it’s certainly better when there are two people pulling at the same time, rather than 1 person pulling, and then a few hours later another person pulling. I can see that if your work literally has nothing to do with anyone else ever, how asynchronous is always king, but when you are working on similar thing, or simply working around other people who have some knowledge in what you are working on, it’s better to be working with them, rather than just whenever.
The point is that you can’t measure productivity if there is no effort to actually make it work. At that point hybrid is just as bad.
The article was interesting, and this stood out:
“In many of the studies we cite and in some of our own survey evidence, workers often get more done when remote simply because they save time from the daily commute and from other office distractions,” Barrero tells Fortune. “This can make them look more productive on a ‘per day’ basis, even if it means they’re actually less productive on a ‘per hour’ basis.”
So why does per hour win over per day? I would rather be productive each day and manage my own time over an hour by hour basis.
Which leads to another key point in productivity: asynchronous work. Hybrid and in office tends to go back to synchronous work, which in itself is not productive.
deleted by creator
I started off this whole thing by saying that the evidence currently mounting that hybrid is most productive. I’ve provided that evidence.
You are cherry picking one quote from the article, misinterpreting it, and then using that to basically dismiss the whole thing. For instance, it does not say that all of the studies show this. Nor does it say that this was true for the majority of the people in the study, only that some people in some of the studies were more productive per day due to these factors. And the article goes into numerous other things as well showing how in office is more productive, which was just ignored.
That being said, the quote is true for me, to an extent. When I first started, there there were fewer distractions (like people coming in and shooting the shit with me) and so it made me more productive. . . at first. I feel like that waned over time because, honestly, primarily because I got lonely and secondarily I wasn’t bouncing ideas off of my fellow engineers as much. After 10 years of it, I chose a hybrid job simply because I was okay with being around people again, and it ultimately improved my mental health. And on top of that, I feel like my productivity has also increased drastically. Although, i fully understand that this is a personal thing. My office is very collaborative, and I’m shocked now being back in the office that anyone actually thinks full WFH is more productive. I 100% get why people prefer it tho.
If we are going off personal opinion at this point, I absolutely 100% disagree. Asynchronous work is better when no one is working on the same thing as someone else. But when you are all pulling in the same direction, it’s certainly better when there are two people pulling at the same time, rather than 1 person pulling, and then a few hours later another person pulling. I can see that if your work literally has nothing to do with anyone else ever, how asynchronous is always king, but when you are working on similar thing, or simply working around other people who have some knowledge in what you are working on, it’s better to be working with them, rather than just whenever.