During the pandemic, my observations of employees’ productivity while working from home (WFH) have varied. Some are more productive – some less. What I crave are facts supporting or refuting TTI’s productivity.
For example, is our increase in research expenditures this year indicative of increased productivity in WFH? Have time-off requests changed during the pandemic and what do they say about productivity? Are particular job roles more or less conducive to WFH? What kinds of social factors (e.g., family, community, health) affect productivity? What kinds of environmental factors (e.g., technology, office space, furniture) are relevant? I’m sure you have similar questions.
I came across an article this morning that reports decreased productivity, at least in the finance industry:
Some interesting takeaways from this article:
- Productivity slipped when JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s employees worked from home (the article doesn’t specify HOW they measured productivity)
- Work output was particularly affected on Mondays and Fridays
- WFH affected “organic interaction”
- Younger workers may be affected to a greater extent because they “could be disadvantaged by missed learning opportunities” by not being in offices
- Overall, [CEO Jamie Dimon] thinks a shift back to the office will be good for the young employees and to foster creative ideas
As I’ve reflected on our WFH experience so far, the best productivity solution seems to be a hybrid model of work that combines WFH with WFO and takes advantage of both environments. The right mix is likely different for different people. But the bottom line is that we currently have very little in the way of supporting data to formulate a policy which is in keeping with the perspective of our Agency.
David
Most of our folks need to work in the offices, labs, proving grounds or travel a majority of the time.
David,
I think it depends. As we all know, WFO/WFH is a complex scenario with many moving parts and variables that have impact…employee personality, perspectives and values, type of job, geographic location, family and home structure, connectivity, TTI business needs, project structure, sponsors, time of year, need for facilities and equipment, and so forth.
From a social and interaction standpoint, some level of physical interaction is important for communication and relationships over the long-term. In some cases, not working from an office structure could elevate issues for non-productive time. However, these issues can also persist in a WFO structure. Accountability and measurability matter, as do employee motivation and engagement. I find that not commuting 70+ minutes everyday allows for some productive time I can give to my job rather than the road.
I say we spend some time scoping the layered complexities of the environment we are functioning in and clearly define the priority barriers/opportunities for TTI and our people within the WFH/WHO perspectives. I think it will make our solution(s) identification process clearer in the end.
Joe – I like your comment “Accountability and measurability matter, as do employee motivation and engagement.” One of the big rocks we need to examine is management for distance employees. It begs the question, do we manage effectively in WFO? In most cases, I believe managing employees in a WFH environment is more difficult. I hope everyone would agree that we can become better managers, but it takes time and effort. I see this as a key area.
Good observations, David. I think JPMorgan recently asked certain groups of employees to return to the office.