lemm.ee

1 point

6 months ago

The reason you feel the need to attack me is probably because, on some level, you realize I have the stronger position as mine is actually based on the evidence.

What evidence? As I pointed out, the Forbes article linked above does not say that hybrid work is more productive, it says that when in-office companies who aren’t prepared for remote work suddenly have to switch, they do better with hybrid than fully remote.

You want to believe yourself objective and evidence based,

No, that would be you. I don’t think there is good evidence one way or another because it’s a) a brand new en masse practice that’s still evolving, b) people don’t tend to study those things in huge detail because companies aren’t huge fans of their workers being researched rather than working, and c) at it’s best “productivity” is a nebulous concept that is extremely difficult to measure objectively for most jobs that actually matter.

Again, I’ve already pointed out that the previous evidence you presented does not say that hybrid work is more productive, it merely examines the impact of the pandemic on companies.

So do you have any other studies to cite, or are you willing to accept that there isn’t good evidence one way or another and your anecdotal opinions from colleagues who chose to be in office are just as valid as my anecdotal opinions from colleagues who chose to work remotely?

report

[ - ]

EatATaco@lemm.ee

1 point

6 months ago

Literally posted an article of a bunch of experts pointing to and discussing the evidence that hybrid works seems to hit the sweet spot. And you’re claiming I’ve provided nothing. The article even notes that Zoom is bringing people back to the office. And you’re suggestion is that Zoom is part of the answer. I’m cracking up over here.

So do you have any other studies to cite, or are you willing to accept that there isn’t good evidence one way or another and your anecdotal opinions from colleagues who chose to be in office are just as valid as my anecdotal opinions from colleagues who chose to work remotely?

False dichotomy. You’ve already proven that you’ll just reject evidence and the opinion of experts when you don’t like it. But I will agree that my anecdotal experience is equivalent to yours. The difference I see is that my anecdotal experience seems to line up with the evidence, yours just lines up with what you want to be true.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

Literally posted an article of a bunch of experts pointing to and discussing the evidence that hybrid works seems to hit the sweet spot. And you’re claiming I’ve provided nothing. The article even notes that Zoom is bringing people back to the office. And you’re suggestion is that Zoom is part of the answer. I’m cracking up over here.

Bud, go read the above comments again. I read the studies that the Forbes article links to as its sources and tore them apart and pointed out that they do not even say what the Forbes article says they do.

Measuring a drop in the productivity of Indian call centers when they’re forced remote / hybrid because of a pandemic does not say that hybrid work is more productive, even if a pro business trash mag like Forbes somehow thinks it does.

You’ve already proven that you’ll just reject evidence and the opinion of experts when you don’t like it.

No, I’ve proven that Forbes is a trash magazine that doesn’t accurately report or draw conclusions from the studies it cites, and it just so happens that those conclusions line up with the opinions of management.

report

[ - ]

EatATaco@lemm.ee

1 point

6 months ago

I did read your comments. It’s just pooh-poohing the evidence away. Anyone can do that. And people do it all the time when they don’t like what the evidence tells them.

I’m cracking up that you think a Forbes “journalist”, counts as an expert.

Maybe you should try reading the article with an open mind rather than manufacturing reasons to ignore it.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

Maybe you should try reading the article with an open mind rather than manufacturing reasons to ignore it.

I had an open mind, but critical thinking occasionally requires criticism. Maybe you should read an article’s sources rather than accept claims from a business mag at face value.

But if you want to stop squabbling and talk evidence, let’s examine each specific claim on the basis of the evidence supporting it.

The Forbes article makes several specific claims and references:

A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) found that remote working might not be as productive as once thought. Workers who were randomly assigned to work from home full time were 18% less productive than in-office employees, either taking longer to complete tasks or getting less done.
- Now does a study that takes a fully in office company, and randomly assigns some employees to work from home, say that a fully remote company is less productive than a in-office company? No. It says that when you have random employees work from home in an environment not suited for it it doesn’t go well.
In another study, Stanford scientists at the Institute for Economic Policy Research found that remote work productivity depends on the mode of remote work. Fully remote work is associated with about 10% lower productivity than fully in-person work.

Now let’s look at how the Stanford scientists arrived at that. From page 18 of the linked working paper:

Fully Remote Work. Several studies find that fully remote work yields lower productivity than on-site work. Emanuel and Harrington (2023) analyze data from a Fortune 500 firm that, before the pandemic, operated call centers with both remote and on-site employees in the same jobs. In response to the pandemic, the firm shifted all employees in these jobs to fully remote work. Productivity among formerly onsite employees fell 4 percent relative to that of already-remote employees. Emanuel and Harrington also find evidence that the closure of phys-ical call centers reduced call quality, especially among less experienced employees. These findings are noteworthy, in part, because they involve a firm with prior experience in managing fully remote call-center workers. Presumably then, the firm had already adapted its systems and practices to manage fully remote workers.

Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth (2023) study productivity outcomes for skilled professionals at a large Indian technology services company. In March 2020, the company abruptly shifted all employees to fully remote work in response to the pandemic. Immediately after the shift, average worktime rose by 1.5 hours per day and output fell slightly according to their primary performance measure. They esti-mate that the shift to remote work lowered average labor productivity (output per hour worked) by 8 to 19 percent. They also provide evidence that greater communication and coordination costs drove much of the measured productivity drop. In particular, time spent on meetings and coordination activities rose, crowding out time devoted to a concentrated focus on work tasks.

Do you think the experience of an Indian Call Center suddenly going remote because of the pandemic, and an Indian IT company suddenly going remote because of the pandemic is somehow indicative and generalizable to every company operating in normal times?
Now go and read trough the section on hybrid work and note that it says upfront that studies have found an increase in productivity or no gains in productivity. Then read through and notice how not a single study compares hybrid or in office companies to fully remote companies. All of them deal with studying the jarring transition of an in office company transitioning to partially remote, and none of the studies anywhere listed come close to broad economy wide or even market wide analyses of real world productivity in the long run.

So you want to talk evidence, that is the entirety of the evidence behind your claims that hybrid work is on a broad basis more productive, and it’s basically a bunch of pandemic studies on Indian and Bangladeshi call centers. It certainly does not support the Forbes articles’ general claim that Fully remote work is associated with about 10% lower productivity than fully in-person work., that is a gross mischaracterization at best, if not an outright lie, and shows you the journalistic standards of somewhere like Forbes.

report

[ - ]

EatATaco@lemm.ee

1 point

6 months ago

I get it, you have some criticisms of the studies and they are imperfect. What you’ve offered up is precisely zero. Even even they have very glaring imperfections, they are still infinitely more useful than absolutely nothing.

I had an open mind

No you didn’t, because if you had you would realize that they were quoting experts and scientists throughout the article and wouldn’t have accused me of just believing what some journalist said. It’s not like this was some sneaky part of the piece, it was front and center throughout it.

report

[ - ]

1 point

6 months ago

Even even they have very glaring imperfections, they are still infinitely more useful than absolutely nothing.

No, they’re not, they are literally nothing because they do not say anything about remote work being less productive or hybrid work being more productive.

I can present you a study on the population levels of minks in North America but that doesn’t make it better than nothing because it says nothing about the current topic we’re discussing. The studies at the core of their arguments are not even trying to compare hybrid companies to remote ones or in-office ones, they’re measuring what happens when you disrupt established patterns.

No you didn’t, because if you had you would realize that they were quoting experts and scientists throughout the article and wouldn’t have accused me of just believing what some journalist said. It’s not like this was some sneaky part of the piece, it was front and center throughout it.

I accused you of just blindly accepting what an article said at face value like that’s abnormal because I was annoyed and being unfair, no one is reading through the sources of every article they read, but that doesn’t change the fact that in this case if you look at the evidence the article is based on, it’s flimsy, niche, and not actually saying what the article author is saying (I would argue that even the abstract from the Stanford paper is grossly misleading).

report