FTA:
The study found that managers use RTO mandates “to reassert control over employees and blame employees as a scapegoat,” and concluded that “we do not find significant changes in firm performance in terms of profitability and stock market valuation after the RTO mandates.”
Anecdotally this has been pretty clear.
Even the language management coaches RTO in is more stick than carrot.
More and more it's announced alongside layoffs, in terms of "you better do it, because", rather than "we want the collaborative environment fostered by RTO" kind of phrasing.
Cool stuff, can't wait for the employment market to turn again and the ego trip ends.
Reminds me again of Josh Wolfe posting twitter chants of "suits! suits! suits!" as the RTO wave started 12-18 months ago. Clearly if thats the mindset, its a punishment & capital re-asserting power over labor.
> More and more it's announced alongside layoffs, in terms of "you better do it, because", rather than "we want the collaborative environment fostered by RTO" kind of phrasing.
In their defense, it's hard to take the latter seriously when the entire office is still on Zoom calls for every single meeting.
It really doesn't matter. Companies want to hire me. As a result they have to hire me as remote. Once they do so my productivity is sufficient that they want to keep me around. I earned the right to be remote a long time ago. Before I earned the right I worked in offices when I had to. Whether other people earn that right or not doesn't really affect me.
This isn't I think a bad state of affairs. If remote is more productive then companies will eventually switch over. If remote isn't more productive then they won't. If it's a wash then the people who earn the right to be remote will do so. The rest will go into the office. Life is full of earned rights like this. No sense in getting worked up about it. If you want to be remote then earn the right to be so.
> If remote is more productive then companies will eventually switch over. If remote isn't more productive then they won't. If it's a wash then the people who earn the right to be remote will do so. The rest will go into the office. Life is full of earned rights like this. No sense in getting worked up about it. If you want to be remote then earn the right to be so.
I think your faith in companies acting rationally is about ten orders of magnitude higher than my own.
I'm skeptical productivity would play a significant in the decision in the majority of the F500's and others who follow their lead. It's logical, of course, but if productivity was a focus, there are many other possibilities that could be explored/implemented, which rarely are. MBA run companies are full of waste and inefficiency.
I think it does matter to you and many others in terms of your possible opportunities. If less companies have a policy that allows remote work, the companies that are even able to hire you are less and your opportunities are more limited than they otherwise would be. Fishing in a larger pond is in your best interest.
I worked remote for years before covid, but I believe the way I earned that opportunity was by working in the office with those same people for a few years to earn their trust. Asking new potential employers who don't know me to trust me like that I think would result in fewer opportunities.
The data are heterogenous. I broadly see three categories: jobs where RTO is a clear win, jobs where the RTO penalty is more and the WFH penalty less than the offshoring penalty and jobs where both are more.
The first will RTO. The second will permit WFH with good compensation. The last will be offshored. We’re presently figuring out the divides, with a strong bias on the coasts towards domestic layoffs and offshoring experimentation in software development.
The missing category, jobs where WFH is a clear win, continues to elude. From what I’ve seen, it’s dominated by niche groups of ultra-elite workers providing unique services within otherwise mixed work environments. (Disclaimer: I do this.)
How about a fourth category: Jobs where RTO and WFH are a draw, but if enough people WFH the company can save a large amount of money on renting an office.
There have to be companies where the C-suite people can look at the rental expense and see "money that could go straight to the bottom line, and make us look good for doing it", right? If WFH/RTO is a draw, those companies ought to financially out-compete companies with power-tripping or incompetent managers that demand RTO, right? Smart leaders (don't laugh; there are a few) have to figure this out eventually, don't they?
Companies have been relentlessly thinking about how to automate and offshore positions, regardless of the broader economic trends and definitely regardless of your physical work location, for decades now. It isn't "RTO and avoid getting laid off", it's "RTO and get laid off anyway".
I am a 23 year old Covid-era graduate and I started a job at a big organisation last year. It is very noticeable how I, and all my graduate peers, are much more driven to come into the office than our older colleagues. I think it’s a combination of day to day social interaction that you just don’t get with WFH, and a genuine want to learn and develop professionally.
It’s honestly a bit disheartening seeing all of our older peers working from home all the time whilst simultaneously pushing an agenda of “network network network”. Of course we all see the benefits of a WFH / hybrid workplace but I’m sure everyone can admit that a conversation on Teams just isn’t as effective as in person.
People pushing the WFH agenda tout its benefits on productivity, but I argue that it’s detrimental in the long run because the lack of cohesion in teams will lead to more and more sticking points and blockers.
It’s all wonderful if you’re retiring in 10 years and you’ve already built your network, but for us younger people it’s definitely taking its toll.
You can build your network by doing a great job at your current work even if it is remote. I worked remote for my previous two companies--the last one is Amazon. I left both with great contacts. In fact, I was referred to Amazon by one of my previous coworkers whom, I had only met in person once. He knows the quality of my work because we have sat in meetings, and worked on projects together.
The point is you don't need to be physically present together to create a solid *professional* network. If your aim are more about building personal network (like making friends), then yes you need an in-office job. To me, I draw a very distinct line between professional and personal life, and in my 15+ years of professional life, I never got into sour relationship with my coworkers because of that.
I can understand this perspective, but I think it can work both ways. I'm 44 years old, and would also rather work from an office than from home, primarily for social interactions, and wanting to work outside of my house. My experience has been the inverse of yours, that most of my younger colleagues, who have spent the majority of their careers working from home, would rather continue to do so, and either hadn't had positive experiences working in an office environment and don't crave a return to it, or have focused their needs for social interaction elsewhere.
The researchers involved in this study acknowledge that there are methodology shortcomings, notably that even a "soft nudge" to work in-person a couple of days per week is considered an "RTO Mandate". We have seen that unstructured hybrid - where no clear expectations of when and how to work in-person manifests as "remote first" whether intentional or not, so many of the low performing companies in this dataset could in fact fall into that category.
Doesn't affect productivity? How could it not affect productivity? Between getting ready, driving in, finding parking, walking to the building, wandering around looking for an open place to sit, then reversing at the end of the day - I waste at least 2 hours that I could have been working. I'm not taking those 2 hours out of my non-work life. Those 2 hours are coming out of the time I devote to work.
Since I've returned to office back in September, I've talked to other human beings in person precisely 3 times for a total of 45 minutes all together. And only one of those conversations was actually related to my job. And, that one in person meeting later caused a problem because the meeting was not recorded so we could not refer back to it when we needed to (all of our zoom meetings are auto recorded and stored in a place we can easily refer back to them).
I know that there are some jobs where people do need to collaborate in person, but for those of us who do not need to do so, return to office is so stupid.
I would wager a lot of unnecessary Zoom meetings with far too many people on the call to be actually productive filled a lot of WFH hours along with refrigerator, TV, web surfing, and family breaks equals the deficit of commuting and walking to your desk. I use my commute to prepare for the day, not just drive or take a train, and I try and avoid Zoom while driving especially if I'm on my motorcycle! Make a F2F office meeting a Zoom meeting in person and have it record it the way you like it.
I think its just a strategy to cut head counts. For upper management, it has all the "advantages" of mass layoffs in terms of improving profitability on paper with less downsides...
It's a class thing too. I grew up poor, but had the good fortune of getting a computer back in 1978. I have had a mix of manual labor and office jobs over the years, and obviously you can't WFH if your job is diving and fixing underwater hydraulics and electrical systems or machining parts for a space mission. I've done both. I think getting out of the house to a place of mutual effort will always be required and has societal benefits and individual benefits to those who would typically shy away from face-to-face interactions. I guess if your work product is moving electrons and information you can work where you want. I worked in the middle of nowhere a few times for years. I guess that's why I need to have physical work along with my mental work. Being on a phone or laptop in a jungle or beach paradise takes away from my presence there. At least that's my opinion.
> obviously you can't WFH if your job is [...] machining parts for a space mission.
Machining as a general practice is quite well suited to working from home. Living in an agricultural community, which as an industry demands a fair amount of machining services, I have several neighbours who make their living as machinists working from home.
I think this part of the problem deserves a lot more attention. There is a social contract aspect to employment and that only works when all the players think things are fair.
It simply cannot be good for the health of the economy if lots of important jobs are undesirable because they can't be done remotely and, meanwhile, the remote workers are sitting on the beach.
I suppose the invisible hand can correct for this to some extent but I think WFH and work-life balance is probably more valuable to most than higher salary.
This should not be surprising to anyone. Anecdotally, what I've seen is RTO is often being used as a way to save money on doing layoffs. Announcing an aggressive RTO causes immediate attrition and doesn't require severance packages. If you look closely, you'll see that play being used all over the place in companies that otherwise need to cut costs.
There can never be "proof" that "return to office" is "pointless."
There are, of course, a myriad of variables that come into play for whether or not working physically near someone is more efficient than not.
Hyperbole is a bad thing in almost every case, in my opinion. And it is primarily used in the modern era to incite rage and misunderstanding between parties.
>There can never be "proof" that "return to office" is "pointless."
Setting aside a possible uninteresting conversation about the semantics of the word proof and discussions of the nature of falsifiable hypotheses that were last interesting when we were in junior high, zero average change in stock price or negative average change in stock price would be a strong signal that return to office is pointless. If the statistical significance of the result were strong enough, I would absolutely consider such a result "proof" that "return to office" is "pointless." This research may or may not clear that bar (it's hard to tell from the linked summary).
Wall street has tightened its expectations on money invested in a higher interest rate environment and the price/earnings ratio is one of the main KPIs that’s easy to game with a layoff. If you’re uncertain about how well your company’s performance will do, you do a round of layoffs and that boosts your chances. Furthermore in companies that pay well culture is often more cut-throat and management will blame remote work as first layer. People who have a family and live with a commute may struggle with that, but those with a spouse will make do and go back to the office. The spouses that earn less get impacted, especially if the variability of commute can’t support both parents commuting. The funny thing is that in consumer companies where you need to be attuned to consumer demand the jobs that keep a finger on that are perfect for remote work but less paid. So if you are a consumer tech company and you mandate return to office you are likely shrinking.
I would like to see a study done of the relative costs of going to an office for management / execs vs everyone else.
My hypothesis is that for many employees, the commute distances are long, relocation requirements onerous, not to mention costs like childcare, etc that pile up.
I suspect thought that the management / exec class doesn't feel these pressures. They can afford to live downtown with minimal commute and may already be paying for many of the services that allow them greater mobility
My CIO was a big RTO proponent. He also lived a few miles away in a ritzy part of town, had full-time child-care, a parking spot at the building, a garage at home. All this in a dense city. Then he'd walk into an office that had a view, a door that closed, independent temperature controls, furniture, workspace, was quiet, and private. Contrast that to the guy who drove 1.5 hrs each way due to construction on the main highway expected to last years, pays $30-40 a day in parking, $5-15 in gas and tolls, drops his kid off at daycare that costs $500 a month and charges extra every time he's gotta stay over. It costs that guy over a thousand bucks to work in an office every month. To do the same job he was doing remote. At an Ikea desk shoved in a row of Ikea desks.
I'll give a slightly different take on remote work and it has nothing to do with the productivity argument. I go into the office two days a week because I enjoy it. I get to connect with coworkers much better than the days I am at home. I'm able to chat about sports/shows we watch, as well as what is going on in their life outside of work. This is a benefit which has really no tangible benefit to the company, aside from me having more of a connection to my employment. But there is a benefit to this for me. I like the hybrid approach so that I get my days to be social, but then have days to recharge on my own.
On the development side, I also think there are benefits to being in the office. I sit right by my bosses, bosses, boss. He's very busy, but we still have small talk. When it comes time to promotion, there is very real benefit to having that relationship, whether you like it or not. Now I am more goal oriented where I see promotions as a sign of success for myself. Not the case for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Now the thing I hate about the conversations of working in the hybrid/remote world is the emphasis on making remote workers feel included. I have nothing against people who choose to work fully remote, but a benefit to being in the office is that its easier to connect with people. That's why I do it. Just like there are benefits to working from home, this is one of the benefits of working in office. I feel like this often gets overlooked and people are surprised that they feel disconnected when they aren't in the office. I have become good friends with my coworkers who also go into the office, and barely talk to the who don't.
I am now fully returned to the office, and while I miss not having to put on clothes, it’s much better for my career. A lot of my job is meeting and talking to people, and making those connections for later. I can’t do that at home. Isolated jobs could be work from home, but if your job interfaces with people, it really should be in person as much as possible .
I always worked from home, one day a week, before COVID. I'm Dutch and a consultant for hire and never had any issues with companies not allowing it.
After COVID most of the IT crowd I know wants to work from home.
I am currently working for a client on the other side of the Netherlands. It's a 90 minute drive to the office. I took this contract because we only go to the office once per 2 weeks (on the day the Sprint ends).
I know a lot of you think that 90 minutes is not a long drive BUT that is only on IDEAL times. It's straight though Amsterdam and on the busiest highways; it's more often a 2 hour drive than 90 minutes.
Also: My wife was actually from Rotterdam so each office visit is combined with a trip to my in-laws. I stay for one night so my travel is purely outside of the daily commute hours.
I only pick companies where I am allowed to work from home.
Sounds like travelling from Surrey to downtown Vancouver (BC,Canada). 45 minutes ideal, 2 hours or so if traffic. I really don't miss that daily commute, and living further out was worse. (all locations technically within the metropolitan Vancouver city). Yeah, scale is weird between countries and cities.
The pro-RTO don't talk about why is outsourcing perfectly ok but not WFH? All large companies have people outside of US, WITCH (Wipro, Infy, TCS, CTS, HCL) in India and some have people in Europe, South America, etc.
Second, even in large campuses (HQ of the company), many buildings, most people can't find a conference room to meet (they are almost always booked), and lot of them just webex from their desk because meetings are back to back, you won't have the 5 minutes it takes to walk to the conference room in the next building. Rarely do people work with just a few people around them. People work with others in different buildings, locations, countries, timezones. When this is ok, WFH is perfectly ok.
> The pro-RTO don't talk about why is outsourcing perfectly ok but not WFH?
It isn't that companies want RTO at all costs -- if they can lower labor costs by at least 30% then executives seem to get over their antipathy for remote work quickly.
Whereas in my experience, most of the employees who wanted to work remotely expected comparable salaries and employment benefits to what they earned when they were in the office. Ultimately most of them ended up complying with the RTO mandate without even demanding a raise.
My pov fluctuates a bit on the WFH/RTO topic. I used to enjoy WFH 100% but after a few years, I do miss a bit of some offices I worked at. But it's probably traumatic memory at play because 9 times out of 10 I left these jobs with an existential relief and screaming "free at last".
Commute plus office rhythm is rarely as efficient a WFH. In Office does enforce some rhythm, makes you change your mind a bit more, but you're now forced to endure the bad sides of toxic people. Warning, online streaming platform means that the same toxic people can now torture you via WebRTC.. stay strong :)
What a bad faith article. Most of the links don’t support the claims made.
> Your manager may suggest that returning to the office is imperative for the company’s success, workplace culture, and overall productivity. However, there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting that’s bullshit.
The link under “growing body of evidence” is to a study of a 4 day work week and has nothing to do with WFH or RTO.
> studies that have shown remote work is very productive
The link under “remote work is very productive” says:
“A study comparing productivity before, during and after an extended stint of remote work suggests information worker productivity isn't negatively impacted by remote working.”
which is very different from what is implied in the text.
> and RTO mandates could be causing a productivity slump
This is referring to a drop in labor productivity figures post pandemic which shot up during the pandemic. It’s well known that the spike at the beginning of the pandemic and the subsequent reversion is a statistical artifact resulting from the fact that the labor force working in person jobs such as restaurant and retail workers which are lower paying reduced drastically pushing up the average productivity by reducing the number of people in the below average jobs. Once retail and restaurant workers started working again the average dropped again.
The most likely reality is that we simply don’t know what works well and what doesn’t. It will take time to sort it out. But misleading screeds like this from someone whose clearly invested on one side do not help at all.
My office is on a hybrid schedule and so far it's worked out pretty well. I think for a lot of people it's not a question of whether wfh or the office is 'better', but being able to have some flexibility to suit their own circumstances.
[+] [-] steveBK123|2 years ago|reply
Anecdotally this has been pretty clear. Even the language management coaches RTO in is more stick than carrot. More and more it's announced alongside layoffs, in terms of "you better do it, because", rather than "we want the collaborative environment fostered by RTO" kind of phrasing.
Cool stuff, can't wait for the employment market to turn again and the ego trip ends.
Reminds me again of Josh Wolfe posting twitter chants of "suits! suits! suits!" as the RTO wave started 12-18 months ago. Clearly if thats the mindset, its a punishment & capital re-asserting power over labor.
[+] [-] scruple|2 years ago|reply
In their defense, it's hard to take the latter seriously when the entire office is still on Zoom calls for every single meeting.
[+] [-] zaphar|2 years ago|reply
This isn't I think a bad state of affairs. If remote is more productive then companies will eventually switch over. If remote isn't more productive then they won't. If it's a wash then the people who earn the right to be remote will do so. The rest will go into the office. Life is full of earned rights like this. No sense in getting worked up about it. If you want to be remote then earn the right to be so.
[+] [-] Hasu|2 years ago|reply
I think your faith in companies acting rationally is about ten orders of magnitude higher than my own.
[+] [-] stcroixx|2 years ago|reply
I think it does matter to you and many others in terms of your possible opportunities. If less companies have a policy that allows remote work, the companies that are even able to hire you are less and your opportunities are more limited than they otherwise would be. Fishing in a larger pond is in your best interest.
I worked remote for years before covid, but I believe the way I earned that opportunity was by working in the office with those same people for a few years to earn their trust. Asking new potential employers who don't know me to trust me like that I think would result in fewer opportunities.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
The first will RTO. The second will permit WFH with good compensation. The last will be offshored. We’re presently figuring out the divides, with a strong bias on the coasts towards domestic layoffs and offshoring experimentation in software development.
The missing category, jobs where WFH is a clear win, continues to elude. From what I’ve seen, it’s dominated by niche groups of ultra-elite workers providing unique services within otherwise mixed work environments. (Disclaimer: I do this.)
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|2 years ago|reply
There have to be companies where the C-suite people can look at the rental expense and see "money that could go straight to the bottom line, and make us look good for doing it", right? If WFH/RTO is a draw, those companies ought to financially out-compete companies with power-tripping or incompetent managers that demand RTO, right? Smart leaders (don't laugh; there are a few) have to figure this out eventually, don't they?
[+] [-] dangerwill|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|2 years ago|reply
Which applies to most people on HN.
[+] [-] throwaway19473|2 years ago|reply
It’s honestly a bit disheartening seeing all of our older peers working from home all the time whilst simultaneously pushing an agenda of “network network network”. Of course we all see the benefits of a WFH / hybrid workplace but I’m sure everyone can admit that a conversation on Teams just isn’t as effective as in person.
People pushing the WFH agenda tout its benefits on productivity, but I argue that it’s detrimental in the long run because the lack of cohesion in teams will lead to more and more sticking points and blockers.
It’s all wonderful if you’re retiring in 10 years and you’ve already built your network, but for us younger people it’s definitely taking its toll.
[+] [-] programmertote|2 years ago|reply
The point is you don't need to be physically present together to create a solid *professional* network. If your aim are more about building personal network (like making friends), then yes you need an in-office job. To me, I draw a very distinct line between professional and personal life, and in my 15+ years of professional life, I never got into sour relationship with my coworkers because of that.
[+] [-] jmpz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] punyearthling|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elonergan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irrational|2 years ago|reply
Since I've returned to office back in September, I've talked to other human beings in person precisely 3 times for a total of 45 minutes all together. And only one of those conversations was actually related to my job. And, that one in person meeting later caused a problem because the meeting was not recorded so we could not refer back to it when we needed to (all of our zoom meetings are auto recorded and stored in a place we can easily refer back to them).
I know that there are some jobs where people do need to collaborate in person, but for those of us who do not need to do so, return to office is so stupid.
[+] [-] eggy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juujian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eggy|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomdata|2 years ago|reply
Machining as a general practice is quite well suited to working from home. Living in an agricultural community, which as an industry demands a fair amount of machining services, I have several neighbours who make their living as machinists working from home.
[+] [-] jordanpg|2 years ago|reply
I think this part of the problem deserves a lot more attention. There is a social contract aspect to employment and that only works when all the players think things are fair.
It simply cannot be good for the health of the economy if lots of important jobs are undesirable because they can't be done remotely and, meanwhile, the remote workers are sitting on the beach.
I suppose the invisible hand can correct for this to some extent but I think WFH and work-life balance is probably more valuable to most than higher salary.
[+] [-] jnmandal|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jklinger410|2 years ago|reply
There are, of course, a myriad of variables that come into play for whether or not working physically near someone is more efficient than not.
Hyperbole is a bad thing in almost every case, in my opinion. And it is primarily used in the modern era to incite rage and misunderstanding between parties.
I don't think articles like this should be on HN.
[+] [-] yodon|2 years ago|reply
Setting aside a possible uninteresting conversation about the semantics of the word proof and discussions of the nature of falsifiable hypotheses that were last interesting when we were in junior high, zero average change in stock price or negative average change in stock price would be a strong signal that return to office is pointless. If the statistical significance of the result were strong enough, I would absolutely consider such a result "proof" that "return to office" is "pointless." This research may or may not clear that bar (it's hard to tell from the linked summary).
[+] [-] varelse|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dzink|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] softwaredoug|2 years ago|reply
My hypothesis is that for many employees, the commute distances are long, relocation requirements onerous, not to mention costs like childcare, etc that pile up.
I suspect thought that the management / exec class doesn't feel these pressures. They can afford to live downtown with minimal commute and may already be paying for many of the services that allow them greater mobility
[+] [-] muttled|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jairuhme|2 years ago|reply
On the development side, I also think there are benefits to being in the office. I sit right by my bosses, bosses, boss. He's very busy, but we still have small talk. When it comes time to promotion, there is very real benefit to having that relationship, whether you like it or not. Now I am more goal oriented where I see promotions as a sign of success for myself. Not the case for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Now the thing I hate about the conversations of working in the hybrid/remote world is the emphasis on making remote workers feel included. I have nothing against people who choose to work fully remote, but a benefit to being in the office is that its easier to connect with people. That's why I do it. Just like there are benefits to working from home, this is one of the benefits of working in office. I feel like this often gets overlooked and people are surprised that they feel disconnected when they aren't in the office. I have become good friends with my coworkers who also go into the office, and barely talk to the who don't.
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivolimmen|2 years ago|reply
Also: My wife was actually from Rotterdam so each office visit is combined with a trip to my in-laws. I stay for one night so my travel is purely outside of the daily commute hours.
I only pick companies where I am allowed to work from home.
[+] [-] teunispeters|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orev|2 years ago|reply
Nobody thinks that 90 minutes “is not a long drive”.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thelastgallon|2 years ago|reply
Second, even in large campuses (HQ of the company), many buildings, most people can't find a conference room to meet (they are almost always booked), and lot of them just webex from their desk because meetings are back to back, you won't have the 5 minutes it takes to walk to the conference room in the next building. Rarely do people work with just a few people around them. People work with others in different buildings, locations, countries, timezones. When this is ok, WFH is perfectly ok.
[+] [-] asoneth|2 years ago|reply
It isn't that companies want RTO at all costs -- if they can lower labor costs by at least 30% then executives seem to get over their antipathy for remote work quickly.
Whereas in my experience, most of the employees who wanted to work remotely expected comparable salaries and employment benefits to what they earned when they were in the office. Ultimately most of them ended up complying with the RTO mandate without even demanding a raise.
[+] [-] agumonkey|2 years ago|reply
Commute plus office rhythm is rarely as efficient a WFH. In Office does enforce some rhythm, makes you change your mind a bit more, but you're now forced to endure the bad sides of toxic people. Warning, online streaming platform means that the same toxic people can now torture you via WebRTC.. stay strong :)
[+] [-] addicted|2 years ago|reply
> Your manager may suggest that returning to the office is imperative for the company’s success, workplace culture, and overall productivity. However, there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting that’s bullshit.
The link under “growing body of evidence” is to a study of a 4 day work week and has nothing to do with WFH or RTO.
> studies that have shown remote work is very productive
The link under “remote work is very productive” says:
“A study comparing productivity before, during and after an extended stint of remote work suggests information worker productivity isn't negatively impacted by remote working.”
which is very different from what is implied in the text.
> and RTO mandates could be causing a productivity slump
This is referring to a drop in labor productivity figures post pandemic which shot up during the pandemic. It’s well known that the spike at the beginning of the pandemic and the subsequent reversion is a statistical artifact resulting from the fact that the labor force working in person jobs such as restaurant and retail workers which are lower paying reduced drastically pushing up the average productivity by reducing the number of people in the below average jobs. Once retail and restaurant workers started working again the average dropped again.
The most likely reality is that we simply don’t know what works well and what doesn’t. It will take time to sort it out. But misleading screeds like this from someone whose clearly invested on one side do not help at all.
[+] [-] bnegreve|2 years ago|reply
> we do not find significant changes in firm performance in terms of profitability and stock market valuation after the RTO mandates.
[+] [-] Finnucane|2 years ago|reply