Or maybe workers realized that the corp working conditions are declining and getting worse every year, and it was crystal clear during the pandemic how a lot of requirements were taken for granted while they don’t really contribute much like being physically in the office? 40 or 50 years ago, a corp job and pay for one of the parents (usually the husband) was sufficient to buy a house, 2 cars, feed a whole family while also enjoying life, nowadays, you and your SO are both working 12hrs a day and maybe even two jobs, and barely living paycheck to paycheck, owning a house is a dream unless you are willing to have a mortgage for 70 years (1) or 50y in the UK (2), rent is sky high especially in the crowded cities -where the offices are-, gas and car prices are abysmal, not to mention the wasted time in commuting due to again, crowded city, during the pandemic people realized how fool they were wasting there life in this rat race that doesn’t benefit anyone except the greedy corps, so unless the compensation and other factors are adjusted so it matches the old times, I don’t think anyone will get back to the old ways of work, as in: “we will get back to old ways of work if we are compensated like the old times”.
Fortune runs almost daily articles that are anti WFH. The entire publication has become an elite mouthpiece sadly.
If you check in with this terrible publication from time to time you will just see anti-worker articles sprinkled in. This site is more propaganda than news.
Looks like they're already going to war over WFH; all the business press are on it anyway.
I mean the culprit must be WFH, right? Not supply chain disruptions, closures, restrictions, actual sicknesses and bereavements, cost increases and accelerated inequality due to financial turbulence/bailouts, etc, etc.
If you ask me, tech, at least, is more productive without constant office-space type interruptions and harassment etc.
I’ve never seen corporate America aligned so strongly against something as they are aligned against WFH. It’s like every CEO went to the same seminar where they were told that WFH is going to rob their treasury and shoot their dog. The only other things they are as universally against are unions, which is telling.
Or MASSIVE numbers of people that simply aren't working and are reconfiguring their lives to require a lot less money?
The constant downpressure on paying labor is now at the "quiet revolt" level.
The good news: if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.
>The good news: if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.
I had similar argument with my previous employer, it was simply about “culture” and “team work dynamics” and other BS, ironically, when most of management team was allowed wfh but denied for software/engineering team
>if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.
Haha - I can't believe I've not seen this mentioned anywhere before. This is hilarious.
This I agree on. I'd also add based on my experience, consultancies add to the issue. After 20+ years of meddling and pushing the latest idea we are still not productive
Oh it was very expensive in the last job I worked. You needed to redo everything we got back from the cheap labor there.
I automated most jobs that I was told to send there. Since due to the quality issues only the busy jobs were sent there that are faster to automate and higher quality, too.
After a few months my boss came to me and told me I need to use the outsourced staff more, since they have nothing to do.
Outsourcing != bad hire. Sounds like you just did bad hires, whether that's outsourced or not is diagonal.
I'm a business owner, and we do extensive outsourcing, with a very good outcome. The trick? We outsource from our home region (where I emigrated from), so we know the market better and how to hire well.
> Not supply chain disruptions, closures, restrictions, actual sicknesses and bereavements, cost increases and accelerated inequality due to financial turbulence/bailouts, etc, etc.
The article said this:
> U.S. productivity plunged 2.7% in the first quarter of this year compared to last year, EY found.
Most of that doesn't really apply in 2023Q1. Even SVB hit late in Q1. You could argue that the stability in Q1 should have improved productivity.
> U.S. productivity plunged 2.7% in the first quarter of this year compared to last year, EY found. That’s a 0.9% year-over-year drop. Concurrently, quarter-over-quarter output grew slightly (0.2%), and hours worked grew 3%. That means people are working longer hours and barely putting out more products, because they just aren’t as productive as they used to be.
Is 0.9% significant enough to not be a rounding error (especially considering "productivity" is a very broad measurement). I want to hear devil's advocate for how this shows anything.
The rest of the article is speculation from a chief economist and 2 CEOs that this is caused by WFH and increased job-hopping.
I don't know that it's a very useful metric for businesses that are capital intensive. For example, say you automate your factory and have only one employee left, who is in charge of turning the machines off each day. That person's labor productivity would be off the chart, but it's not because they've become more 'productive' in the regular sense of the word.
The definition says “output per hour worked”. Company revenue would depend less on individual workers and more on strategic decisions from upper-level than, and target audience spending above all.
But how do you measure worker output? Even “units produced” can be altered by higher-level strategy (e.g. less efficient production). And some aspects software development don’t have units produced at all, like how much “progress” someone makes on an app (LOC doesn’t count)
When you measure this at the level of the whole economy, you can think of the numerator as being the country's GDP, and the numerator as the number of hours worked by all employees.
But how do you measure worker output?
Great question, and that is exactly my point: in many modern businesses (and hence in the economy as a whole) 'labor productivity' is not a measure of worker output.
Imagine an economy in which everything has been automated, and everyone is unemployed and living on welfare, except the one guy to turn the machines on and off. He is paid $100k for a not-very-demanding job.
Now you calculate labor productivity, and it's a gazillion dollars per labor hour, the highest it's ever been. At the same time the (ex-)workers are as unproductive as they have ever been, because their skills are no longer applicable to any useful activity.
Consider the times in your career when you were most productive (in the everyday sense of the word). Do those coincide with the times when you worked at a company that high the highest profit per employee-hour? Maybe, maybe not.
That’s by definition more productive. But it’s not just a definitional quirk. Your example is one where economists would indeed consider labor productivity to have risen dramatically because of automation.
This sounds more like hopium to me. I'd sure like some of what they are smoking, but that doesn't make the reality any better.
You would think these people would be educated enough to know how supply and demand actually works, and how if inflation goes up, you are paying your workers less. Completely disingenuous.
You get what you pay for, and arbitrarily abusing your staff by changing the metric goalposts every few months to justify churn to pound pennies breaks trust, as much if not more than making them RTO during the pandemic, risking their lives on a job role that can be done completely remotely because you believe workers work best in the office when you really just want to justify the outlays you're stuck with having an office.
Working from home is merely a benefit that has grown in popularity, comparable by importance to health insurance in certain industries, but fundamentally it is a benefit.
The decline in productivity can be attributed to a broader decrease in workplace morale in most American corps, for many obvious reasons. Contrarily, I have not come across stories of productivity issues in smaller organizations with effective management and engaged employees.
We are on the verge of a significant labor transition from poorly managed mega corporations to companies that prioritize employee well-being, trust-based management, and shared goals. Many of the top performers from big tech are already either founding these better companies or joining them, conceding to lower salaries and benefits to get some of their work satisfaction and morale back. Eliminating a valued employment benefit like remote work will only alienate more employees and hasten the shift.
In other words, if your Glassdoor ratings are below 65%, it's not work from home, it's that a large proportion of your employees hate working for you. And you need carrots, not sticks, to improve morale. I cannot believe this even needs to be said.
"Working from home is merely a benefit that has grown in popularity, comparable by importance to health insurance in certain industries, but fundamentally it is a benefit."
Not at all. It is desirable for many people, not all, but it is not just a benefit.
It's a different way of working. For some kinds of work, it's a better way of working.
I maintain that in the majority of the tech industry, remote work is a sought-after and highly valued benefit. However, in the long run, the transition to working from any location where one can be most effective may be regarded as a more fundamental aspect of the modern workplace.
Nonetheless, some might point out that in the United States, medical insurance is considered essential to employment, yet it is frequently presented as a benefit. The definition of an employment benefit is pretty loose.
But I understand your sentiment — this could become (or perhaps you already see it becoming) larger than a typical employment benefit.
"to companies that prioritize employee well-being, trust-based management, and a shared objective"
These are neither sufficient nor necessary. There are (and will be) companies that succeed without prioritizing one or more of these. And there are (and will be) companies that prioritize all three and yet fail.
Success is a different matter and I agree with you on that. But what I am saying there's a strong link between employee morale and productivity, and that people prefer to work in high-morale companies.
Yes, I would use gross value added to define productivity. But it may not have a strong correlation with business success as it doesn't directly correlate with profitability, net worth, revenue growth, market share, or other success metrics.
High GVA businesses in competitive markets might experience low margins, limited growth potential, and significant annual losses. Companies in commodity sectors like oil or precious metals may have large cash flows but low margins and profits. Additionally, GVA can be influenced by expenditures, such as R&D costs, which might not yield returns. Highly leveraged and indebted businesses can also have inflated GVA due to higher cash flows. Moreover, a profitable company with high GVA can face external challenges, such as legal or regulatory issues, affecting its success in the medium or short term.
Nevertheless, strong employee morale and engagement will contribute to increased productivity or GVA in all cases I can think of. The problem with WFH in the pandemic is that the pandemic was a confounding factor that influenced WFH rates, but also mismanagement and morale itself.
Yes, I would use gross value added to define productivity.
If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that the three factors you listed earlier will drive companies to have high GVA per labor hour, and that companies that lack one or more of those will have lower (or perhaps even negative) GVA per labor hour.
I'd say I'm less productive than at the beginning of my career because I'm no longer naive about nature of working life. Loving your job, work ethic, recognition, career progression, etc.. it's all a big joke. It seems ludicrous to give 110% for 40 hours a week because of some ridiculous, intangible ROI based in emotion or obligation to Business Daddy, because he _did me a favour_ in hiring me. If I apply myself at work at all beyond the minimum required, it's because it benefits me and only me directly. In fact my progression to this cynicism is thanks to the realisation that this is how the corporate world actually works. It's self-interest all the way down. Those not on the employee's side will try hard to muddy the waters, but it's plain to see: you are selling your labour and they're buying it, as cheap as they can, and only if they have to. Why would I hand over more in that transaction than I need to? The other party won't.
Do you think your change in perspective is entirely from experience? Or do you think that the nature of working life has shifted during your career?
(I have struggled to temper my idealism with the increased cynicism that life/work experience has given me. In some of my positions, I have had sufficient authority and trust to create pockets of sincere idealism, but eventually friction with the system was my undoing. (Sorry, I'm having trouble articulating clearly.) This seems to have worsened over the years and I'm wondering if this perception is entirely from my sluggishness in shedding my naivete or if there is also a component that's the reality shifting.)
I can only say it's from experience, and though I know folk at the end of their careers who will say things like "it's different now; you're only a number these days" which might suggest there's been a shift, in all honesty I can't suggest it, because I feel that for me it is more of a red pill scenario, and not that I have observed a shift in my ~10y career.
Your thoughts about tempering idealism, running up against 'the system', etc feel familiar to me and I could even relate it to a painful scenario I found myself in 2 jobs ago. I don't think the origin of that idealism is coincidental, and if it were, it is still certainly exploited. It's not difficult to see how cynicism might result from the realisation that your idealism is at best convenient for your employer; that doing The Right Thing TM is only tenable when it aligns with the goals of the employer. At worst, it's just handwaved away with "this is what the business needs". And how can you argue with that? (Nearly all) businesses exist to profit and arguing for intangible Right Things TM against cold hard dollars is tough, sometimes hopeless.
Regarding your mention of how things have worsened over the years: I speculate that the pandemic itself, the resulting WFH, the looming recession and current layoffs, and (for some folk) the CoL situation have created conditions where the corporate world is struggling to maintain the facade that working life is great and a good job is the path to happiness. There are definitely folk out there working hard to attribute blame and "worker productivity" gives us a clue who.
Semi related edit: I have been reading [1] and though I find the switching between labour movement history and anecdotes from today's workers kind of painful, there's been some interesting bits. Possibly worth checking out the reviews and reading only the first half as many have said is the better part.
Thank you for your detailed response, and for the book suggestion.
(For me personally, part of my challenge is that I want the ideal. I'd like to be loyal and committed to my employer (and I've tried to select employers that make this more possible, such as smaller and privately held companies at which I hopefully report to the CEO) and to have that not be foolish.
I have trouble truly accepting the reality of human nature, including within myself. From the perspective of "traditional" measures of success, I'm certain that I've hamstrung myself. But I'm unsure I could have done differently; my awareness of my naivete seems insufficient for changing my behavior much. It's as if I cannot endure reality and have to pretend I live in an alternative universe. (Not because I'm so admirably committed to such high ideals, but because I am too weak and afraid to endure the guilt and shame of intentionally failing to meet the standards to which I strive.)
Most employers do not accommodate disabilities and actively discriminate against those who have them. I will never work in an office again because of the positives that working from home has resulted for me.
JP Morgan does something like $38B in income per year. Its new HQ is $3B. Spot lease prices might be down 50%, but since the building has a 60-year lifespan, it won't be that big of a deal long-term. That's for a company that owns. Companies that rent don't care. While some of these companies own commercial real estate, they're not really commercial real estate companies.
As soon as you realize that "productivity" is measured in dollars, this seems like an unsurprising result. Supposed gains in productivity over the last $many years have mostly been driven by relatively few very high "earners" (using that term more loosely than it has ever been used before). It's like the old joke about Bill Gates walking into a room and the average person in the room suddenly being a multi-millionaire ... even though nothing has actually changed for them. When a metric is inflated by a very small number of contributing data points, the loss of even a few of those data points will inevitably bring the number back down. As you all know, we've lost more than a few lately. The story is only interesting if the result remains significant after accounting for that.
There have been studies showing both dramatic increases and decreases in productivity after companies shifted to WFH throughout the pandemic. A common problem with these studies is that the pandemic itself is a confounding factor that affected employee morale and productivity very differently in companies with different management styles, yet this confounding factor is not acknowledged.
It is not impossible that, all other things unchanged, WFH would have a negative impact on productivity. That is because for WFH to work, many other things need to change. To illustrate this with a stupidly simple example — if you ask your employees to work from home but don't give them access to company resources from home, the productivity is going to tank. This extends to a hundred other things that need to be adjusted for WFH. You must necessarily manage the company in a way that supports WFH to empower WFH employees to succeed. But plenty of studies show that tremendous increases in productivity are possible, they have been de-facto achieved in companies that managed WFH right.
It's pretty funny to me how quickly all the comments are saying this is a conspiracy against WFH. Maybe at least entertain the thought that on aggregate people are less productive w/ WFH?
IMO there are a still a ton of benefits outside productivity such as life satisfaction, housing costs and maybe this can cure the fertility decline that make it worth the productivity decline.
Many people would be open to the idea that working from home (WFH) decreases productivity if there was solid evidence and a general consensus, rather than mere speculation and differing reports from various companies.
From our daily experiences in the tech industry, most people would likely observe that WFH has not led to a decrease in productivity. Instead, factors such as low morale have had a much more significant impact. Issues like layoffs, employee turnover, wages not keeping pace with living costs, mismanagement, a global pandemic, economic uncertainty, lack of prospects for homeownership and family-building, and generally declining life satisfaction weigh more heavily on work engagement than the WFH arrangement.
In fact, remote work is often viewed as a perk and is optional—many companies that offer WFH still maintain offices that employees can choose to work from, but few opt to do so. This means that the perk is desired and has a positive effect on morale.
In terms of direct counters to the notion that WFH inherently reduces productivity, consider the following sources:
While these sources provide counterarguments, the broader sentiment seems to be that a lack of trust in employees and mismanagement in WFH environments can hinder productivity, but properly managing remote work can actually enhance it. WFH in itself appears to be a poor predictor of productivity changes within a company when such a policy is implemented. The correlation is weak, with the noise of poorly managed companies struggling with remote work drowning out the success stories of well-managed companies that achieve higher worker effectiveness in a WFH environment.
It shouldn't be funny that people feel protective about the benefit that increases their work satisfaction, morale, and in many cases, productiveness. And if a company fails to implement WFH properly, then I'm sure it's not too difficult to imagine how it would go poorly. But this is c-suites not doing their jobs properly, not employees who struggle to keep morale high as is.
As a developer and engineering manager, I’ve never felt more pressure to increase productivity for myself and my team.
That pressure isn’t being exerted on us by senior management. Today’s fundraising environment is brutal. LLMs and Copilot mean future devs have the tools to out-code and out-produce us. If we don’t adapt, we’ll fall behind.
I expect the future of software engineers requires embracing new tools to increase both code quality and quantity. And if I can adapt and help others, our productivity will either be the advantage we need in a more competitive environment or the table stakes to avoid the next 6 rounds of layoffs. Either way, our productivity is on the rise.
(1) https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMYEGwwSD/ (2) https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-lender-set-offer-50-173000...