In a piece at The Hill Nick Bloom says it does and the numbers prove it:
The numbers paint a picture of small, positive productivity gains for hybrid work. The savings in commuting time more than offset the losses in connectivity from fewer office days. In contrast, the impact of fully remote working on productivity is typically mildly negative. Fully remote workers can struggle with mentoring, innovation and culture building. However, it appears this can be reversed with good management. Running remote teams is hard but done well can deliver strong performance.
But this is about more than just worker output. Firms care about profits — not productivity.
Working from home massively reduces overhead. It drives down recruitment and retention costs, as employees value working from home. Fully remote companies also slash office costs, and cut wages bills by enabling national or global hiring. Indeed, the widespread adoption of working from home has been a triumph of capitalism. Higher profits have led millions of firms to adopt this, generating the five-fold increase in home working many of us now enjoy.
It’s hidden a bit but that “global hiring” aside is important. I am presently leading a team of about 20 people. I’m the only one in the United States. The rest are in India, Ukraine, Serbia, and Mexico. The cost of paying that team is significantly lower than paying a comparable team comes into the office every day. The trick is in “comparable”. IMO the productivity of the team is not comparable to a completely local, stateside team on a head to head basis.
I actually think the issue is more complex than Mr. Bloom realizes and than the way it is usually presented. I think that WFH works for the people for whom it works and for the jobs for which it works. I can’t tell you who those people or what those jobs are but it isn’t everyone or everything. I can tell you some of the qualities the people for whom WFH works must possess. They must be self-starters, conscientious, and focused as a start. I could be wrong but I think that fewer and fewer people have those qualities.
I think he was selective about the studies he chose. Most seem to indicate a drop in productivity. However, as you note that does not include the cost fo workers and if you have trouble hiring it may be better to hire and retain more workers if you give them WFH and accept a bit less productivity. I also think that at present a lot fo WFH people actually started working in an office. They already knew the work culture, who to ask for advice, etc. I am less certain about how it works if you have everyone never having worked in person. I think it more likely that we see an increase in hybrid work with people doing 1/2 days a week in the office.
Steve
I have no inherent bias against WFH. But I think it’s for staffers. Analysts. I just don’t see it for line people. And I think your last sentence, and Steve’s similar nod, is all about the “covid kids.†They don’t know anything else.