Debates about “work from home” often give the impression that “full time” WFH is rather widespread. In one sense, it is common. Up to 40 percent of the U.S. workforce (employed full-time) works at least part of the time from home, or out of the office.
But “WFH” does not equate to “works full time from home.” That remains rather rare. When researchers study WFH, they need a functional definition: does it mean “100 percent from home or some percentage from home? As a practical matter, researchers tend to go with a definition that includes in the WFH number employees who, by company policy, can work two to three days from home, the balance in the office or at the job site.
Ignoring for the moment the issue of whether productivity is higher, the same, or lower, when WFH policies are in place; as well as subjective beliefs about the matter on the part of managers or employees, there are measurable outcomes not related to productivity.
To the extent that employees require some amount of office space, WFH can reduce firm needs for real estate. WFH can lead to employee benefit and cost savings when WFH enables hiring of workers from anywhere in the world.
If one believes that happier workers are more productive workers, when WFH, to the extent it leads to “happier” workers, might be valued irrespective of whether such policies can be shown to boost productivity for firms.
WFH probably often boosts worker productivity, who then will divert extra time to non-firm activities. If one believes knowledge or office work can be measured, it is possible that WFH is more “productive,” in the sense that workers can get their expected workloads accomplished in less time.
But the firm might not reap the rewards of “extra time,” as workers consume that time for their personal use, rather than using the time to produce more work for their employers. As with so much of life, “who benefits?” is the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment