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

[Cucumbertomatoes]

On here, everyone who WFH insists they are much more productive than in the office. However, I’ve noticed this view is rarely shared by others, hence companies wanting workers back. It’s an interesting one as clearly perceptions vary. AIBU to think that while you might think you’re more productive you may not be?

I think you have to remember there is an interest in people using the office -gets them using transport - and amenities - the owners of the buildings don't want them empty either. In reality it is not all about productivity.

This. Lots of government and well paid senior corporate staff have investments in urban property that are heavily reliant on commercial property values (which could plummet if demand for offices disappears). There's a massive amount if economic activity around people woh.

• transport
• Hotels for work travel
• cafes/coffee shops as people buy lunch
• people buying more clothing for work
• office furniture and refurbishments
• working parents spending on longer childcare hours due to commute time
• people buying vehicles to commute
• paying building cleaners,office security teams etc

How have you managed that? I mean manage as in what management process did you use, to just bring the parents back in?

I love WFH and having the head space to come with new ideas and blast through admin.

I’m busier in the office the day or two I go in due to cramming meetings but I’m definitely better at my job now vs full time office. If we’re ever forced back I would leave.

Mine is less output and more I just have to answer the phone. I do that whether I'm in the office or at home, we are monitored the same with call/screen recordings so makes no difference
I probably get more of my own work done at home because in the office I spend a lot of time helping newer staff which technically isn't my job

But the productivity thing long predates the pandemic. It’s been an issue for a decade or more. That has far more to do with pay structures and the benefits system than it does working from home.

I have a few issues with WFH:
1.) people might feel that they're finishing all their work but don't consider the team as a whole. As I'm full time in the office, often tasks which are unallocated come to me, as it's easier for people to explain the case face to face. I suppose that's just human nature. Also covering for colleague sickness or annual leave tends to come to the person in the office. No one covers for me when I'm off as they're all WFH and can't see what's not being done.
2.) it's not fair that those of us who can't wfh should pay more for petrol, childcare, trains, food, car insurance when our wages haven't increased to reflect this. Those WFH could just come into the office in winter to save money on heating bills but I can't just WFH all summer to save on childcare.
3.) we deal with very confidential information and this has to be considered at all times. Therefore living in a shared house/ parents house and WFH was never going to be ideal. How can you discriminate like that and say you can WFH as you have a home office and live alone but you can't as you live with your mum and she might see your screen if you're working at the kitchen table? I don't think new employees get the importance of this and think they can take their laptops to the local cafe, merrily displaying who is in which prison and what they did. Managers don't think to point out every possible breach of confidentiality because the world is changing so fast.
4.) safeguarding employees. Lisa turning up with a black eye gets missed. Morris smelling a bit like whisky gets missed. Ella seeming more and more withdrawn each day gets missed. A lot of people only have work in their lives and so if their only interaction with the outside world is now done remotely with cameras off, then how will anyone know if there is something wrong. Do you know how many colleagues have confided in people at work over the years? That's a huge support network which has disappeared!
5.) impact on home work balance. I just don't want to work all day at the dining room table where I eat with my kids at weekends. I don't want to bring my work world into my house. Much easier to just keep working later as you're already home, much harder to switch off. Have colleagues waking up and turning their laptops on at 7am, it's really unhealthy.
6.) training new starters and promotion opportunities as stated by PP. I think women will set themselves back if they stay at home for childcare reasons/ ease/ keeping on top of domestic stuff and loud, arrogant men go in everyday (because their wives are WFH doing everything). They will become insufferable in their efforts to be seen as productive and team players.
7.) I had hoped that WFH might help with climate change but there seems to be more cars on the road than ever? I've heard people considering schools further away as they'll have more time to get their kids there as WFH so no commute. Also a lot of people moved further away in the pandemic so now have further to drive to get back to the office.

''@Deathbyfluffy

As a team leader I find it’s those with kids who tend to take the piss most - a subset of parents seem to think that it’s acceptable to have their kids at home and in their care when ‘working’.

We’ve had to bring those people back to the office, which is a pain for everyone involved.''

Just sounds to me like the issue is with you being a poor team manager.

Because you just made a random, blanket statement and implied having kids is an issues. The reality is that some people, parents or not, make poor employees and it is your job as a manager to work with each individual to improve their performance. Not to demonise parents in general.

You are also being discriminatory if you target/ treat people in a less favourable way simply because they have children (ie asking parents to go back in the office but maintain flexible options for other staff).

Not to mention foolish if the plan is to remove home working for everyone because a tiny minority abuse the system, because you will lose many good employees that way as they will simply move to another employer with better flexible working policies.

All in all it confirms my suspicion that poo/ lazy managers who can't be bothered to deal with individual performance issues use and instead use ''let's blame WFH for everything'' as an excuse for being crap at their jobs.

Its not about how individually productive each employee is , it’s about how productive the whole organisation is . Research in the US has shown that for repetitive tasks WFH works well but in terms of building cohesion and creativity it mitigates against . In addition it encourages a silo mentality and makes systemic change difficult . It’s far harder to bring everyone on board with new methods of working when they are working in disparate locations, it can be done but involves a much much bigger organisation change and management style and huge investment both in time and money.

Companies are also seeing higher turnover from in particular younger people because they feel less connection and attachment . This costs money. In addition insurance claims are rising based on both unsuitable working environment, inadequate supervision and poor data protection.

All pension schemes in the U.K. are invested in commercial property as it was previously seen as a safe bet. So if you are in a pension scheme then a crash in commercial property will affect your pension.

I definitely am, if I’m in the office at least a 1/3 my time is spent chatting with the volunteers. They are lovely but it isn’t my most productive time so I limit that to twice a week and work the rest of the time at home.

But surely making the volunteers feel included/welcome/valued is important work?

@Deathbyfluffy

As a team leader I find it’s those with kids who tend to take the piss most - a subset of parents seem to think that it’s acceptable to have their kids at home and in their care when ‘working’

You sound like a bigot tbh.

@Privatelyliving indeed! I'm sure research would show it increases volunteer productivity or retention.

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

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.

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 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

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.

Wfh suits some employees and employers and not others

it suits some jobs and not others

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.