How? If I own a building and I can’t rent it out, I’m losing money. I still have to pay some bills and probably repay the loan that I took to build or renovate it.
To clarify, they may still be losing money (i.e. leasing/renting costs), but not nearly as much as if they had to maintain and pay for utilities for a building that’s full of people.
It’s still to their advantage to keep people home.
Is there undeniable data proving that? I’d like to see a bunch of researches that support each other and have serious samples.
Yes and no… depending on the type of work and who wants the study to succeed/fail. 😂 Even having people WFH 1-2 days a week has been shown to be positive for productivity, employee happiness, etc.
I find that one caveat with studies that shows how WFH “fails” is that they tend to use some piss-poor setup that’s not designed with the appropriate tools to allow people to be efficient. For example, no dedicated office space at home, lack of communication tools, etc. These are growing pains for the most part, and an effective WFH setup is distraction-free and made to be efficient.
One analysis suggested that a hybrid work but without specific corporate mandate seemed to see the best result.
If the business arbitrarily said “come in all the time” or “come in three days a week”, they tended to not get good results.
If the business said “ok, no more office, all remote”, they seemed to also not get good results.
The businesses that said “office is open and ready for you to use as you and your teams see fit”, they seemed to have the best result. The optimistic will ascribe that to people thriving on the flexibility and respect of their employer. My somewhat more cynical view is that peer pressure works to get people into the office, and the employee is less pissed because it’s “their choice” to come in. Just like when a company grants employees “unlimited vacation” and rejoice, as unlimited vacation tends to mean the employees take less vacation.
To clarify, they may still be losing money (i.e. leasing/renting costs), but not nearly as much as if they had to maintain and pay for utilities for a building that’s full of people.
It’s still to their advantage to keep people home.
Yes and no… depending on the type of work and who wants the study to succeed/fail. 😂 Even having people WFH 1-2 days a week has been shown to be positive for productivity, employee happiness, etc.
I find that one caveat with studies that shows how WFH “fails” is that they tend to use some piss-poor setup that’s not designed with the appropriate tools to allow people to be efficient. For example, no dedicated office space at home, lack of communication tools, etc. These are growing pains for the most part, and an effective WFH setup is distraction-free and made to be efficient.
One analysis suggested that a hybrid work but without specific corporate mandate seemed to see the best result.
If the business arbitrarily said “come in all the time” or “come in three days a week”, they tended to not get good results.
If the business said “ok, no more office, all remote”, they seemed to also not get good results.
The businesses that said “office is open and ready for you to use as you and your teams see fit”, they seemed to have the best result. The optimistic will ascribe that to people thriving on the flexibility and respect of their employer. My somewhat more cynical view is that peer pressure works to get people into the office, and the employee is less pissed because it’s “their choice” to come in. Just like when a company grants employees “unlimited vacation” and rejoice, as unlimited vacation tends to mean the employees take less vacation.
There are still productivity advantages to be had by in person with and meetings. I have meetings all the time, some are fine remote and others not.
It’s good not to waste people’s time in either case, however. Email can replace many, but not all communication. Often it can make it worse.