I FINALLY found some of the supposed "Research" that has been claiming that Remote-Work is less Productive than In-Office work!

(It's only taken 10 months to find!)

But what do these Research Papers actually show?

Is the Problem Remote Work itself?

Or is there something else being revealed?

I've been looking at this and writing about it for nearly a year now.

The first thing you need to understand is that there is a LOT of bad Research that exists out in the world.

Now, there are a variety of Reasons for this, and not all of those Reasons are the fault of the Researchers.

The world of Scientific Research has some interesting demands, and it can be VERY difficult to get good funding.

So, when looking at Research, you need to be careful, otherwise it is VERY easy to be misled.

Let's look at some of this Research and find out what it Reveals!

True Research?

For Instance, I found this wonderful Research talking about challenges with Remote Work Productivity...

But the Problem?

It is a "Working Paper".

What that means is that it hasn't been accepted in any Scientific Publications as of yet - meaning it hasn't been officially reviewed.

If something has not been officially reviewed, it "technically" could say ANYTHING it wants, even if there is NOTHING to support it.

Now, I'm not saying "this" particular Paper is like that, I'm just saying that you need to be careful of what "type" of Research you are looking at.

It also has been a Working Paper since July of 2023 - so 6 months and it hasn't been Published yet.

Now, it may end up getting Published at some point, but if a Working Paper is one of your Strongest pieces of Evidence, and you can't reference Published Research for your claims...

Is your claim strong enough?

Now, this particular Paper DOES reference other work within it, but "Productivity" is a very small section of what this Paper is about - less than 18% of everything covered.

And what it says seems to point to other major Problems.

But let's look at other Challenges.

Sample Size

Another problem I am seeing with a LOT of these papers being referenced is that of Sample Size.

Now, there is more than 1 way to understand Sample Size.

Let's take some Research from Gibbs.

If you pay attention, there are 2 different Sample Sizes in the Paper.

The first is the number of participants researched.

10,000 skilled IT Professionals.

That "sounds" really big, right?

It is, but it fails to take into account the Second Sample Size.

"10,000 skilled professionals at a large Asian IT services company".

This research comes from only 1 company, so that is a Sample Size of 1.

MANY Research Studies only use a Sample Size of 1 like this when it comes to the world of Business.

The problem though is that a Sample Size of 1 Business does not speak to the Overall Trends.

The Problems being referenced COULD just be a problem with "that" Organization.

The reality is that if the "Overall" trends show an Increase in Productivity (as they do with Remote Work), but an "Individual Organization" shows a Decrease in Productivity - the Problem isn't Work-From-Home, the problem is THAT Organization.

It points not to a problem with how Work is done, but how Leaders at specific organizations are Failing their Employees.

When you dive further into these Studies as well, we can see "what" Leadership Failures are occurring with these Specific Organizations.

The Tech Issue

I recently wrote a piece that showed that Improvements in Technology have allowed Remote Work to not only close the gap but surpass In-Office work when it comes to Innovation and Disruption.

What that means is that, as long as your Technology is up to par, Remote Work doesn't seem to make things worse.

But this becomes a problem with some companies because not ALL Companies "help" their Employees get the right technology in Remote Work Situations.

But this isn't a Remote Work problem, it is a Leadership Problem.

If you Fail to give your Employees the right tools to Succeed, they are not to be blamed.

If you lose Productivity because you refuse to set your Team up for Success, you only have yourself as a Leader to blame.

A Failure to properly Adapt to Changes is a Leadership Failure that will eventually destroy a Business.

What Counts As Productivity?

One of the interesting findings in this Research is that when we talk about "Productivity", we seem to be looking at 2 different definitions.

To Employees, commute times are seen as a "part" of Work (even if they don't get paid for it).

If they have to drive 1 hour or more (which seems to be the average) every Work day, their "Productivity" is spread over 9 hours.

In 1+ of those hours, they get 0 results.

However, from the Leader's perspective, they are not seeing that commute as "Work" because they aren't "Paying" the Employee for it.

So, to the Employer there are only 8 hours of "Productivity".

To the Employee, if they no longer need to commute, their days DO get more Productive because they gain an extra Hour!

This allows them to do whatever they need - including things like Recovery which is ESSENTIAL to Peak Performance.

What does this mean?

Well, this is another Leadership Failure.

We are seeing that Leaders are failing to consider the fullness of an Employee's Work Experience.

If an Employee doesn't "NEED" to Commute to get Work done, but the Employer "FORCES" them to, then that Employer is basically "STEALING" Productive Time from those Employees.

Plus, it COSTS Employees to GET to the Office - Gas, Parking, Child Care, Etc.

Commuting is a HUGE Cost, both in Productivity (48+ hours per year on average) and Financially for Employees.

Employees are now seeing this and getting vocal about it.

Some Employees are starting to demand that Employers pay them for Commute time - which makes sense when you look at it from this Perspective.

Time Frame

Now, another aspect to pay attention to in Research Studies is the Time Frame of the Study.

Longer Studies "Tend" to provide better Results (if the Research is solid), and Short-Time Frames "Rarely" provide accurate Data in comparison.

However, looking at some of these "Studies", not only are we looking at a Sample Size of 1 company, but the data comes from short periods of time!

For Instance, Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth (referenced in the Working Paper) reported the shift to Remote Work lowered average labor Productivity by 8% - 19%.

It sounds like a lot until you realize that this measure was taken at the VERY onset of the Pandemic.

"In March 2020, the company abruptly shifted all employees to fully remote work in response to the pandemic. Immediately after the shift..."

Abruptly and Immediately point to this data being HEAVILY skewed during a time of mass panic and uncertainties.

This however is not pointing to Remote Work being the Problem, but 2 other factors.

The first is the problem of Dis-Stress, which EVERYONE was in at that time at the onset.

It is a well-known fact in the Scientific Literature that Dis-Stress leads to lower Productivity, which is not surprising.

In fact, that is why Burnout has become such a hot topic over the years, even "before" everything in 2020.

Because All Stress Adds, when you have Employees in Burnout and then add MORE Stress, OF COURSE Productivity is going to Immediately drop!

However, Research has also shown that in the Long Term, employees have had Improved Wellbeing and Wellness from working Remotely, meaning the Burnout/Dis-Stress problem was actually being HELPED by Remote Work in the long run!

Now, the other factor this data point is pointing to is another Leadership Failure.

This would be Leaders' Failure to handle Sudden Adversity.

If there were dramatic drops in Productivity at the beginning of 2020, it more likely points to how those Leaders were unprepared for the sudden Adversity, and their continued Failure to handle it well.

But again, neither of these issues is inherent to "Remote Work".

Correlation does not mean Causation.

When we look at the Long-Term Trends of Remote Work, this data does not match.

This Short Period of Research only shows "Correlative" Data toward Remote Work.

The "Causation" of Productivity Losses from this Data is Significantly more likely to be Dis-Stress, Burnout, and Leadership Failures.

The Meeting Problem

One of the Deadliest Productivity Wasters is Meetings.

Even before the Pandemic, Meetings were being overdone, and commonly Destroyed Productivity.

Now, when we look at Gibbs' Research Paper from above, they stated that "Total Hours" at work increased and "Productivity" fell by 20% (again, this is still a Sample Size of 1 Business).

Now, when taken out of context, that "sounds" really bad!

BUT!

The paper also says this Immediately after:

"Time spent on coordination activities and meetings increased, but uninterrupted work hours shrank considerably."

What this is saying is that the time when Employees ARE Productive, during "uninterrupted work", shrank CONSIDERABLY.

So even though Employees were "working" longer, their Productive Work Hours Decreased.

In this sample size of 1, we are seeing, again, that the Problem is not the Remote Work itself, but rather an Excessive Amount of Meetings that led to decreased Productivity.

This points to another Leadership Error - Excessive Unproductive Meetings.

It should be surprising to NO ONE that if you give Employees less Uninterrupted Work, their Productivity will Decrease.

In Fact, Uninterrupted Work is one of the MAJOR Benefits of Remote Work!

Before 2020, there was already considerable Research done that showed that most In-Office Employees were losing MASSIVE Amounts of Productivity because they were regularly Interrupted!

In Remote Work, you can quite literally shut out almost all distractions!

Unless, of course, you regularly force Employees into unnecessary Meetings.

In this Sample Size of 1, it seems that instead of allowing Employees to utilize MORE Uninterrupted Work, Leaders instead opted to do Excessive Unproductive Meetings.

Bad Agents

Inevitably, when we talk about Remote Work, someone will bring up Bad Actors.

From the Working Paper:

"Other concerns about the productivity effects of remote work center on motivation and self-control. As one gag line has it, the three enemies of working from home are the bed, the refrigerator, and the television. Indeed, college students sometimes study in libraries as a commitment device - even though grades, self-esteem, and future career prospects would seem to provide powerful incentives already. So, it is unsurprising that some people struggle with motivation when working in a remote capacity."

All very interesting, but there are so many problems with this.

Bad Agents are not the Majority.

Are there Bad Agents in the workplace?

Of Course!

Anyone who isn't Oblivious understands Bad Agents exist.

But they constitute the Minority.

When you look at the overall trends, this is not a real Overarching Issue, and Indeed I have yet to see ANY data that supports these types of claims.

This claim in this Working Paper doesn't even reference ANY Data, likely because "they" couldn't find any to support it.

This is not the Reality for most Employees, but rather the Imagined Fears of Incompetent Leaders.

Why do I say Incompetent Leaders?

That is because this Fear ONLY arises when you don't know what your Individual Employees are doing and don't know what their typical Productivity Results should look like.

If the Leader DID know what real Productivity Results should look like, it would be VERY easy to see that an Employee seems to be under by 2 hours of work because they were watching TV during that time.

Think of it like this:

If the Productivity Results should be, say, 80 sales calls to customers in a day.

That would equate to 10 calls per hour, assuming an 8-hour, Undisturbed Workday (In this hypothetical, we'll assume no meetings).

If you find that there is one Employee who is at an average of 60 calls regularly while doing Remote Work, you should be able to pull their phone records (assuming the Leader provides proper Technology to Employees) to find that they weren't making calls for 2 of those hours.

Now you know that Employee is a Bad Agent!

However, there is a further Problem with this argument.

It assumes that Bad Actors will stop being Bad Actors when forced into an Office.

We know that isn't true, even before 2020!

Between Quiet Quitting and Actively Disengaged Employees, we know that Bad Actors are NOT afraid of doing the same thing in an Office.

We also know that when people are forced to do things they don't want to do, they are FAR more likely to Quiet Quit and become Actively Disengaged.

So, when you force Good Employees (the Majority) to do something against their will (such as threaten them with being Fired or Limiting Their Career Possibilities) due to the Leader's Fears of Bad Actors (the Minority, who will be Bad Actors regardless), then you are almost guaranteed to turn many of those Good Employees into Bad Actors.

Then, when you add in the Psychophysiological aspect of In-Office work, this will cause higher levels of Dis-Stress and Burnout, and likely turn the Office into a Toxic Environment (assuming it wasn't one already).

All of which could have been avoided if you FIRST fixed the Problems that already exist (aka Burnout and Poor Leadership) while Employees are still Working Remotely.

Mentoring And Teaching

Now of ALL of the arguments that I have seen calling for a pushback to the Office, I will admit that THIS is the most solid and relevant.

It does seem that Remote Work seems to pose a problem with Mentoring and Teaching, specifically with New Employees.

Now, we can see real trends in the world of Education that seem to point to the struggle of Teaching Remotely.

Students DO often seem to be challenged with Zoom Learning.

However, when we translate this to the Office, there are a few Problems with using this as a reason to force In-Office Work.

The first Problem is in "what" is being Learned.

See, a large part of the reason that School Teaching suffers on Zoom is that most Students are NOT INTERESTED in most subjects!

When you were in school, how many Subjects did you LOVE?

One?

Maybe Three for some people?

But NO ONE Loves ALL of their Classes!

The thing about Humans is that if they aren't Interested in something, it is VERY difficult to get them Interested!

Now, it is VERY true that if you are NOT Interested in a Subject, being on a Zoom class WILL make it more difficult to Learn.

The problem isn't the Teaching though, it is the "Interest" in the Subject of what is being Taught.

This is not to say that the "Teacher" is not Interesting, it's just a fact that not EVERYONE will care what you find fascinating!

This is equally true of Students, New Hires, and everyone else in the world.

If you are not truly Interested in it, you will Struggle with Learning it.

However, this is NOT true of people who ARE Interested in the Subject being Taught.

When people are REALLY Interested, they can learn about the Subject through ANY Medium.

Why do you think Podcasting is so popular?

Podcasting is a form of Remote Learning, and MANY people benefit from Learning from them.

Books, Online Articles, Webinars, and even YouTube and TikTok are other forms of Remote Learning.

Data is showing that people who learn through these Mediums are starting to outpace institutions like "College", which is why so many Organizations are taking College Degrees off of their "Requirements" for Employment.

When people WANT to Learn, they will, and they will Learn Quickly.

Often, Learning the Subjects we are interested in also leads to Flow States, which increases our rates of Learning 4.9 times FASTER!

When the DESIRE is there, the Medium rarely matters.

So, when it comes to New Employees, if they don't "Desire" to Learn the Job, the problem isn't that it is Remote Work, your problem is that you're Teaching the Wrong People!

That is a Hiring Problem, not a Remote Learning Problem.

Then, there has been a long-term issue with Training in general.

LONG before 2020, many Organizations were Struggling to Train at all, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE as you go higher up in Leadership.

Transitioning already Failing Teaching Programs from In-Person to Remote Learning is also going to Fail, and that's not Surprising.

That is a Program Issue, and it is VERY common.

It's still not a Remote Learning Problem.

We can also look at the Technology Problem mentioned earlier in this respect.

When Leaders are not Properly Outfitting their Employees with the tools to do their jobs correctly, you KNOW they are also Failing to provide Employees with the tools to Learn those jobs correctly.

Businesses always resource Job Needs above Education Needs, which makes perfect sense - there's no point in Teaching something if they can't "do" that thing.

If those Job Needs aren't even being met though, they aren't going to resource "Education" either.

This is a Leadership Problem of Failing to Equip their Team.

Again, not a Remote Learning Problem.

When we take the Mentoring and Teaching argument further, we also see that New Employees are the Minority of Employees.

When we look at Productivity for Experienced Employees (who are properly supplied), we only see Data showing increases in Productivity.

We run into the same issue as the Bad Actors.

The Minority does not represent the Majority.

I will admit though, I can see a Benefit to Requiring ONLY New Employees to Learn In-Office until they grasp the work Well.

I think there could be Value in that.

However, once they have a good grasp of how to do the work, I see no reason to Force them the remain In-Office.

A Few Caveats

Now, I've written on Remote Work several times now, and I do get some common push-backs, so I'd like to address some of them.

To start, I write these Articles from an "Overall" Perspective, as these Ideas and Data apply to the Majority.

"What About X Job? How Can That Be Remote?"

I do realize some Jobs currently don't have a Remote Capability or truly ARE harder via Zoom.

Earlier I mentioned that it IS harder as a Teacher to do constant Zoom meetings, especially with Students who may simply not care that much about a specific Subject.

Again, there is a good chance that it is NOT the Teacher's fault if a Student isn't interested in the Subject.

We all have certain Subjects we like, and Subjects we don't.

For the Subjects we don't like, it's HARD to learn them at all, and it's indeed even harder online.

In Education, especially K-12, EVERY Student will Struggle with at least one class (Even those who get perfect grades and become Valedictorians).

You also have Production and Retail jobs that require humans to be inside of a Plant, Factory, Shop, or similar setting.

Again, these are not the Majority when it comes to "this" debate in the world.

Now, if you have a "truly" Mixed workforce, where jobs that are NECESSARY to be at a Physical location are in the SAME building as employees who CAN do Remote Work, there COULD be a challenge here.

In these cases (again, the Minority), where a Leader might worry about Fairness, you have to make a choice.

Everyone stays In-Office, Everyone from the Office goes Remote, or the "Office" could be separated so that those who COULD gain the benefits of Remote Work can do so with a Hybrid-Style Office.

I personally would say that the Third Option would Benefit most Organizations in the long run.

Which leads me to my next point.

What About The Benefits Of In-Office Work? Or "I Have Had Better Benefits With MY Team In-Office"

It is true that there "are" Benefits to In-Office work that we currently can't Achieve with Remote Work.

At the TOP of that List I would say is Group Flow States!

Really, the HIGHEST Level of Productivity comes from Group Flow States.

So why do I so passionately argue for Remote Work?

The MAJORITY of Organizations are NOWHERE NEAR Achieving Group Flow States.

The Majority right now are Struggling with Burnout, which AUTOMATICALLY will prevent Group Flow - end of story.

If you don't fix the Burnout Problem, then you will NEVER get your Organization to Group Flow States.

The thing about "Fixing" Burnout?

It's SIGNIFICANTLY easier to accomplish via Remote Work than it is via In-Person work!

When it comes to Burnout, human Psychophysiology makes it INCREDIBLY difficult to fix when a large number of people are all experiencing Burnout at the same time in the same place.

In today's workplace, 80% of people are in the Burnout Phase, with more moving steadily toward it.

In-Person work therefore will COMPOUND the damage via Neurocardiology.

So if Burnout is Rampant at your Organization, fix THAT first, and don't make your life more difficult!

If you are among the EXTREME Minority where Burnout TRULY isn't an Issue, then you might be right about In-Person being Beneficial!

But YOU are not in the Majority, which means there would be other things your Organization "can" Focus on to move closer to Group Flow States.

Congratulations on being the Rare Unicorn in Today's Business Landscape!

"But I LIKE To Work In-Office!" Or "But I AM More Productive In-Office!"

Awesome!

I'm happy for you!

If you want to work In-Office, go for it!

But realize YOU are the Minority right now.

If the Working Article is to be believed, only 14% of people "feel" more Productive In-Office.

There is a reason Businesses are making Threats and not making Return-To-Work Mandates "Official".

They can't.

If they WERE to make them Official, they would have to fire a SIGNIFICANT portion of their Employees which would cause Chaos for EVERYONE.

If this is you, realize that no one is Forcing you to work Remotely, and many Organizations would welcome the fact that you want to work in the Office!

But many Businesses ARE trying to FORCE a significant portion of their Workforce to do something they don't want to AFTER being promised they wouldn't do so.

Is that Fair to those Employees?

Should Business "Force" people to do things they don't want to?

Especially after Promising those Employees that Remote Work was there to stay?

These are the questions that I'm getting at in my work.

What About A Hybrid Workplace?

I think that every Business' Goal SHOULD be as much Hybrid work as possible, perhaps learning more toward Remote Work.

THAT is the Future of work.

I believe that most Businesses have Offices that are WAY too large, and they would be significantly better served if they had a lot of Medium to Small sized offices for their Teams.

You could gain the Benefits of Remote Work AND the Benefits of In-Office Work PLUS allow Employees better Wellness AND if you have Multiple Offices, it could allow Employees to Travel to different Places and still get to "The Office"!

That is a winning Employee Formula!

It gives you access to a larger Talent Pool and has most things going for it!

The Data seems to suggest that 3-4 Days of Remote Work is Optimal when it comes to Hybrid Workplaces.

However, the biggest problem in Business today still remains - Burnout.

In-Office Work during High Levels of Burnout is DETRIMENTAL to Business Success.

As long as Burnout is the "Norm", there are NO In-Person Benefits that are Attainable.

If you DO fix Burnout first though, then I say you should see how a Hybrid Option could work!

There are MANY ways to do it, and no two Businesses are EXACTLY alike, so it may take a bit of Trial and Error to figure out what is Optimal for YOUR Business and Team(s).

Final Takeaway

A Large part of the Reason why Leadership is FAILING so Dramatically in our world today is that it completely Ignores Human Psychophysiology.

When you Understand Human Psychophysiology, the Data that is coming out makes PERFECT Sense.

The longer you Ignore the Fact that Employees are "Humans" first, the longer you will have these Problems.

If you want to overcome the Problems of Today's Workforce, you need to solve Burnout first!

The best way to accomplish this is to be a Leader who Designs a Regenerative Legacy.

It's a Human-First Psychophysiological Approach to Leadership that addresses all of the problems we are seeing within the Remote Work Debate.

If you take this Approach as a Leader, you will Flourish, your Team will Flourish, and your Organization will Flourish.

The Reality is that All Flourishing is Mutual.

If Employees are not Flourishing, then you are not Flourishing as a Leader.

Eventually, that will catch up to you.

So be proactive as a Leader and stop playing a losing game!

The Future is Regenerative.

Problems With Research Papers Claiming "Productivity Loss" From Remote Work

The Research Shows A Completely Different Set Of Problems

What will you write today?