To think that everyone WFH thinks they are more productive but this view isn’t necessarily shared

I hear what you're saying but I think it needs to be judged on the outcomes either of the individual or organisation, not people's opinions. My employer has just had its best year ever, with everyone working remotely. But they have also demanded that people come back to the office, so staff are rightly feeling a bit confused - if the business outcomes are good, businesses are going to struggle to justify getting staff back at desks.

I'm PT flexible hours and can WFH most of the time. I am way less efficient at home as there are thousands of non work related distractions and interruptions (laundry, cooking, cleaning deliveries, teens coming home & wanting attention etc etc) and I miss seeing colleagues and being able to ask/answer questions or discuss issues. I hate trying to work from home as the tasks just expand to fill all the time, but nowadays if I go in, I'm in an empty office.

My work is deadline based, as is my teams. If we weren't productive, it would be extremely obvious.
It's so much better from home - getting more projects done as less disturbance.

Better work/life balance. i can shove washing on in my lunch break, i can get up 30 mins later, save fuel money, eat less and meetings are quicker as less non-work chat happens on Teams meetings than face to face.

Plenty of work places are asking for people back because they have office space sat under-occupied. Equally, lots of places here have taken the chance to move to full remote and save the office costs! Choosing to rent a much smaller space for face to face meetings and some hot desking.

Say your company closes at 9pm and there are still calls queuing after 9pm. These calls are expected to be picked up, you can bet the ones taking those calls are the ones working from home and not in the office.

It can be very beneficial to employers, employees and customers having the option to work from home!

It really doesn't matter if you think its the case.

It doesn't matter what teh individual wants their employer to think, the employer will know for themselves.

I think individuals want their employers to believe they are much more productive WFH.

I don't believe this is the case as it's easy to be distracted or to just do something else that's not work related.

I always think its interesting that even when it's acknowledged that loads of people swing the lead in the office, nobody suggests that's a problem with office work per se and they should be working somewhere else instead. Yet the reverse isn't true.

I get a lot more work done as I don't have to commute so start earlier than I would than if I had to travel to the office. Again I work later as I don't have to travel back and consider the traffic.

@Privatelyliving yes it is, which is why I make time to do it twice a week. If I was in my office I’d spend all week doing it so working from home the other three days means I get the actual work that needs doing done.

I work in local government and have legal deadlines I have to meet for my work so working at home is necessary to meet them.

You overstate your case OP. You're right to say the view is sometimes shared by others, but rarely? That sort of argument requires evidence.

Office work, for me - is far less productive. It involves constant interruptions, unnecessary small talk around the kettle, and delays for social etiquette

People standing around talking about their weekend whilst getting paid

It's not hard to measure productivity in the vas majority of WFH jobs. It's proven fact that I am more productive at home than the office. I manage a staff of ten, I know who is productive and who isn't.

In my experience the lazy twats who don't do much at home are the same lazy twats who don't do much in the office.

This is a very good observation. Most people at my workplace have to be in 2 days a week but I think apprentices and trainees and their supervisors have be in 3 days a week.

but surely that is easy enough to manage by saying that everyone has to be available 9-12 and 2-5 so they can only walk their dogs in a lunchtime slot (and if you ask for them to be in the office they need to find a dog walker?) As a manager you set the rules.

Another point on dogs, if my employer decided to allow dogs in the office I wouldn't go in at all.

I trust that all the employers mandating RTO have now banned dogs?

If I went into the office every day I would waste up to 4 hours commuting as well as the costs.

Nobody cares where my bottom is located, as long as my work gets done. I go into the office once a month, sometimes more often if I have meetings that are face to face.

WFH is good for women, carers, people with long term health issues and the disabled. That isn't allowed, so your macho types are insisting on RTO.

RTO is also bad for the environment.

There should be no one size fits all model. People are different, jobs are different and employers and sectors are different. But it's easier for some HR person to come up with a one size fits all policy because they are too lazy to put some thought into things.

I’m in a role where office attendance is optional. Last time I went, the two guys opposite me spent most of the day dissecting various football matches in exceptionally loud voices so I got naff all done. Not been in since.

As a manager some people are more productive WFH and some are less so. Each team I manage has different needs in terms of being in or not and they can do as they please unless there is a reason to be in more.

Reasons for being in more are:

• particular needs of the job that cannot be done remotely
• lack of productivity WFH
• mental health issues
• supervising others
• starting out and learning more by osmosis
• needing more face to face supervision

The ones that are more of a pain are the ones who are reluctant to be in because they have a dog. By far and a way they consider it unreasonable if I put an in person meeting in for a day when they are due to be out because they haven't booked in a dog walker. Working around people who are part-time means there is little wriggle room as it is. I never book in person meetings unless it is necessary, so it is particularly frustrating.

@Fieldofbrokenpromises easy. Volunteer rentention, volunteer recruitment, volunteer satisfaction, volunteer engagement and understanding of their role and the organisation.

Productivity and success is not just about churning out individual packages of work.

On a different point, I think of the things driving an increased push to get people back to the office is the first post covid cohort of early careers colleagues have passed through the system (graduates and apprentices) lets just say in some areas things are .... not good.

Self motivation and displaying accepted behavioral competancies when WFH are easy fine if you are middle aged and have 20 years experience of work. Less so when you are a 22 year old who has probably had a disrupted university education or an 18 year old who missed out on vital independence building activities in their mid teens due to lockdowns.

I like the mix personally. Being in the office is necessary sometimes for meeting new staff, in-person events, certain tasks etc but also good to catch up with colleagues and have that informal, catch-up-by-the-kettle interaction which has fallen by the wayside since Covid. It’s not the most ‘productive’ use of time but is really valuable for cohesion. But if I have tasks which need lots of concentration/quiet then WFH is good for that.

Wfh suits some employees and employers and not others

it suits some jobs and not others

Agree that employees and employers often see this differently. It must be really hard starting a new job with people who all work remotely and trying to fit into the team and learn what everyone does in their job.

I am far more productive at home - I'm in the office today I've been here half an hour so far I've made a cup of tea had a chat with a colleague and ticked in.
At home I would have already sorted and categorised my inbox allocated tasks to my no2 and set her up for the day and read the minutes from last week for my 830 ted talk

Wfh isn’t the reason that young people are having a higher turnover. It might contribute but there’s a whom shift in culture.

Young people (especially in the US) are less likely to to allow work to be the main focus when they get so little back from the companies. They can be let go in many states, at will. Employees being expected to profuse work over everything else, with little in return just isn’t appealing to young people. Trying to force people back to the office, whilst being unable to explain why it benefits employees is only strengthening this view. That employers ask for far too much in return for far too little.

If a company has poor data protection processes and systems in place, that’s not made worse by wfh. They have always been poor. They just got away with it. Most companies have laptop users, people who work from different offices and so on. If their Data protection has always been poor, that’s the issue. Not that people are wfh.

Inadequate supervision, is a poor management problem. Which happens in person and remotely. In office managers, aren’t better based on the fact they are in offices. If you can only be a good manager in person, there’s an issue.

Yes there is the issue of pensions. However, I am not convinced you can tell young people they should have a lower quality of life during their 50 years of working life, to maintain pensions, which they may not even live to claim. Or may only get to claim for a short period

I looked forward to early retirement as my husband and I could enjoy quieter times during school hours and term times.
Not a hope.
Pubs and coffee shops around us are rammed.
Traffic jams are constant... never before Covid... and garden centres are chock a block!
Endless queues at Tesco and Sainsbury's.
So many working age people just not at work.

I sound grumpy, I know.
But it wasn't like this before Covid.

Hahahah, I'm sorry that my popping out for a coffee has interrupted your early retirement. That must be tough.

How would you define and measure the productivity of chatting to the volunteers?