Scientists have been studying remote work for four years and have reached a very clear conclusion: “Working from home makes us thrive”
-
Now imagine: being home without working!
-
Right?! I agree with the vibe, but I was hoping for more detail, a link to the study, etc… But the article just ends with this incredibly vague statement and no sources:
“This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.”
️When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to “the editorial team” but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they’re putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site. Plus the writing style is full of AI-isms.
-
working does not make us thrive
-
Me too. Seriously hit my mental health because I was feeling so isolated. Even just two days a week from the office was better, the best for me personally is 4 days in the office, one or half from home.
My criticism towards most WFH set ups is that it erodes the unity of workers, making it easier for managers to pick on them. You end up knowing your coworkers less and therefore working less as a team.
- again, my personal experience.
Mandatory WFH isn’t as good as optional WFH.
After all it’s being able to choose, what makes most people with “WFH option” happy and thriving.
It sounds like you have found your balance between office and WFH. Now find a workplace that allows living that balance!
All the best! -
I like my boss and colleagues, but we have an option to work hybrid and working from home 3 days a week is awesome because there aren’t any office distractions and I get to do the in person thing for those that need it twice a week. Some people do go into the office every day because that works better for them, and the flexible arrangement works really well for everyone overall.
Hybrid is the way
-
This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.
Well then, list the sources, you twits. Also “editorial technologies” sounds suspiciously like “AI”.
-
The almost equivalent claim is that going to work sucks. This second claim is perhaps more instructive.
-
Now we need a genius architect to convert all of that office space into homes for the homeless. That includes changing any laws that would prevent that from happening.
-
working does not make us thrive
Having a purpose makes us thrive. In some cases, it could be work.
-
Now we need a genius architect to convert all of that office space into homes for the homeless. That includes changing any laws that would prevent that from happening.
There’s no superhero coming to save you. Bother your local city council yourself, or at least donate to groups who will.
-
A bit harsh maybe on someone for enjoying to work in a different way than you?
Not when these losers are trying to make work from home look bad. I’m honestly betting it’s some middle management shill.
-
Not when these losers are trying to make work from home look bad. I’m honestly betting it’s some middle management shill.
Different people prefer doing things in different ways, that should be obvious?
-
Anyone have a link to the actual study?
-
Anyone have a link to the actual study?
…Right?
“This article is supported by verified sources and supported by editorial technology”
Cool… So if those sources are verified you won’t mind sharing them with me?
-
There’s no superhero coming to save you. Bother your local city council yourself, or at least donate to groups who will.
The fish step is realizing that it’s a possibility. The second step is to create awareness. This person just made it to step two. Let’s cheer them on!
-
Different people prefer doing things in different ways, that should be obvious?
Someone needing to be constantly monitored to be effective isn’t a different way of doing something, it is acting like a child.
-
Someone needing to be constantly monitored to be effective isn’t a different way of doing something, it is acting like a child.
That is not what they said. I could argue you are acting like a child.
-
Wait, we’re thriving?
Working from home makes life significantly better, but that’s a pretty low bar.
-
There’s no superhero coming to save you. Bother your local city council yourself, or at least donate to groups who will.
Well, I don’t need saving, but others do. There is no such thing as a superhero but I agree…there is lots of bureaucracy and administration! Going through proper channels while the world burns is not something I put a whole lot of faith in when the first knee-jerk response to anything is the economic cost. Sometimes the people have to get involved, not the systems (which are decidedly lacking nowadays).
-
The article, at least, doesn’t seem to try to define or measure “productivity”. Well no shit people are going to be happier not being forced to go somewhere for some period of time five days a week.
Am I happier working from home, or having the choice to do so? Sure. Their data strongly backs that. Do I actually get my work done equally well? For me personally yes but anecdotally group decision-making in remote contexts is much slower.
The research here is ultimately pointless, because it drives zero action to the people who would be deciding WFH policy who are making that choice based on business goals, not personal goals. It might inform politicians if they’re driving policy to promote remote work, but without data about productivity tradeoff or lack thereof, there’s no informed decision to make.
I appreciate this as a balanced take.
I’ve done a little work from home, and it’s nice being home, but it’s still work. If you’re doing your job right, it’s still your job.
Unfortunately, I’ve also seen that while some people are great at WFH and even do better, a lot of people either don’t get anything done, or look very “productive” because they’re harassing people still at work with meaningless busywork like sending emails that don’t do anything or asking other people to do parts of their job they’d be able to do if they were at work.
I think that partially goes to the point of “what is productivity?” since someone can look busy but not be doing anything that actually does anything positive for either boots on the ground micro views or mile high macro views. “Oh, look at how many emails got sent” great, did that actually help the business run? And sometimes the answer is “yes, and we should let this WFH worker continue at all costs”, and in others the answer is “No, and we need to get this person into the office or eliminate the position because either would be better than the status quo”
It’s a bit managerial in the way to look at it, but in order to justify WFH, the people working from home must be providing enough value to justify their employment, because too much overhead waste and the business ends, maybe every business embracing WFH ends, and then all that’s left is the ones that didn’t. To be clear, that’s not a moral stance, but a purely pragmatic evolutionary stance: Those things which survive continue and those that die do not.
