I think most organizations are *terrible* at measuring (never mind *managing*) “productivity”. Virtually every single one of these studies that I have seen — on either side of the discussion — has used a self-reported “how productive do you think your team/yourself has been with WFH compared to office?” That’s a garbage way to understand things. Most folks don’t get bonused on anything other than overall company performance or their manager’s gut feelings of “this person deserves a bonus”. Do we honestly think that a company that is relying on the manager’s gut feelings to give someone a bonus actually has any real productivity measures, never mind enough measures with baselines and such, so that they can truly say that WFH is a benefit to them or not? I don’t.

That said, it’s clear a very large majority of people prefer WFH. Does that mean they are more productive? I don’t know. I know happier employees on the whole should be more productive, all else being equal, but WFH vs. RTO is not “all else being equal”, not by a long shot. There are pros and cons to either one, which can more than offset the productivity boost from happiness. But when people *prefer* WFH, of course they are going to say they are more productive there. Not only are they happier, but they want to protect it. They aren’t going to report on a survey that the boss gave them (who sweeeeaaaaarrrrs it’s anonymous) that they love WFH but are less-productive doing it.

So… yeah… I’m not saying WFH is bad, but I’m saying there’s very scant evidence to conclusively believe that it is more (or less) productive for folks than the office.

When companies figure out how to measure productivity… different story. :)

J.Ja