"More than five years into the homeworking revolution, a narrative seems to have emerged - of employees being hauled back to the office against their will. This contrasts with what COVID taught us: that people can work flexibly, benefit from not commuting, and even work for employers based far from their home - expanding the labour pool for employers. In fact, both of these arguments are oversimplifications."
"There is nothing inherent to working from home that makes it inefficient or efficient. It may not be particularly flexible, and may lead to people working longer hours (though this is variable). Even if employees welcome it, they may still experience downsides like missing in-person relationships. The one pre-COVID study which used objective data to compare homeworking and onsite working, from Stanford University in the US, found that productivity of homeworkers was higher. But later studies, using objective and subjective measures, have produced mixed results."
Arguments that employees are being forced back to the office or that homeworking is inherently efficient are oversimplified. Homeworking has no inherent efficiency; its effects vary by role, context and individual. Early objective research found higher productivity among homeworkers, while later studies show mixed productivity outcomes. Hybrid arrangements often yield similar average productivity to on-site work but higher job satisfaction and lower turnover. Interviews with professional university workers found homeworking improved focus through fewer interruptions and increased effectiveness at completing tasks, though not always efficiency. Changes in working hours often reflect timing shifts rather than substantial increases.
Read at The Conversation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]