Yves right here. In fact, I’ve a bias as a long-standing work at home sort, since 1989. My humble perception is that the large productivity-killer of working at house is different folks. Somebody with a house workplace and relations who respect their work hours (as in go away them alone!) must be simply as environment friendly as on the workplace.
Many managements are keen on the concept employees have serendipitous interactions and in addition type casual relations that facilitates info sharing. Whereas that’s true and does have upside for the corporate, the flip aspect is that corporations love conferences. I’ve discovered them to be primarily time sinks with solely occasional exceptions.
By Masayuki Morikawa, President, Analysis Institute of Financial system, Commerce and Business (RIETI). Initially revealed at VoxEU
Because the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the variety of folks working from residence has elevated quickly. Nonetheless, the productiveness of working from residence shouldn’t be but nicely understood. This column explores the modifications in prevalence, frequency, and productiveness of working from residence in Japan over a 12 months of the pandemic. Fewer employees had been working from residence in 2021 in comparison with 2020. Whereas the productiveness of working from residence has improved, it’s nonetheless decrease than the productiveness of working on the workplace.
Because the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the variety of employees working from residence (WFH) has been rising quickly. There has additionally been a speedy, parallel enhance in analysis on WFH. We now know what employees want to have the ability to WFH in addition to what sort of employees are literally WFH. Findings typically present that extremely expert, high-wage, white-collar workers in massive companies are likely to WFH, which means that the growth of WFH has tended to extend inequality within the labour market. Nonetheless, productiveness of WFH has not but been nicely understood.
Research on WFH Productiveness Through the COVID-19 Pandemic
At the moment, enterprise managers and coverage practitioners are eager about whether or not WFH will proceed as a brand new workstyle after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. Productiveness of WFH is a key determinant of whether or not WFH will persist or not, however quantitative proof on WFH productiveness remains to be restricted. Research primarily based on surveys of employees embrace Etheridge et al. (2020), Barrero et al. (2021), and my work (Morikawa 2020).1 Since this can be very difficult to measure the productiveness of white-collar employees, who carry out a big number of duties, all of those research rely on the employees’ self-assessment of WFH productiveness.
Etheridge et al. (2020) present that, on common, employees within the UK adopting WFH report little distinction in productiveness relative to productiveness earlier than the pandemic. Within the US, Barrero et al. (2021) point out that the majority respondents who adopted WFH report equal to or greater WFH productiveness than productiveness on enterprise premises. My research (Morikawa 2020) was primarily based on a 2020 survey of employees in Japan and paperwork that the imply WFH productiveness was roughly 60% to 70% relative to working on the traditional office and that it was decrease for workers who had been pressured to begin WFH solely after the unfold of the COVID-19 pandemic. To summarise, research on the productiveness of WFH below the COVID-19 pandemic are nonetheless restricted, and the outcomes are removed from conclusive.
To discover the productiveness dynamics of WFH in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, I lengthen the evaluation of my 2020 research. I performed a follow-up survey in 2021 to discover the modifications in prevalence, frequency, and productiveness of WFH throughout a 12 months of the pandemic and talk about the way forward for WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic (Morikawa 2021).
Prevalence and Frequency of WFH
Our 2021 survey requested employees in Japan concerning the adoption and frequency of WFH. The responses present that 21.5% of employees had been practising WFH, which is a lower from 32.2% a 12 months prior. Amongst solely persevering with (panel) respondents, the extent of the decline was bigger: it decreased from 37.1% to 21.1%. Of the workers who responded to each 2020 and 2021 surveys, 41.7% stopped practising WFH, indicating {that a} non-negligible variety of employees reverted to working at their traditional office. Particularly, people with decrease WFH productiveness had the next chance of exiting from WFH.
In distinction, the imply share of WFH days (WFH days divided by weekly working days) is nearly unchanged in the course of the previous 12 months: 55.7% within the 2020 survey and 56.6% within the 2021 survey. Even for the subsample of those that responded to each surveys and who continued to implement WFH, the imply frequencies of WFH are virtually unchanged (55.9% in 2020 and 54.3% in 2021). Whereas the change within the intensive margin (adoption) is comparatively massive, the change within the intensive margin (frequency) is negligible.
Productiveness Dynamics of WFH
The surveys requested the themes to self-assess WFH productiveness relative to 1’s productiveness on the traditional office (= 100). The distributions of WFH productiveness in 2020 and 2021 are in Determine 1. The determine reveals that (1) the general distribution has shifted barely proper, and (2) the decrease finish of the distribution has shrunk considerably. The imply WFH productiveness has improved from 61 in 2020 to 78 in 2021 (the place productiveness on the traditional office = 100). The subsample of panel workers reveals an identical sample: the imply productiveness has improved from 61 to 77.
Determine 1 Change in WFH productiveness distribution
The WFH productiveness of those that repeatedly engaged in WFH improved from 70 in 2020 to 78 in 2021. The 8-point enhance in WFH productiveness comes from, for instance, studying results and funding in WFH infrastructure at residence. The imply WFH productiveness within the 2020 survey of those that exit from WFH was 49, far decrease than that of WFH continuers (70). This choice mechanism contributes to a 9-point enchancment in imply WFH productiveness. Briefly, (1) a ‘choice impact’ arising from the exit of low-WFH-productivity workers from WFH observe, and (2) the development in WFH productiveness via a ‘studying impact’ contributed virtually equally to the improved imply WFH productiveness.
WFH After the COVID-19 Pandemic
Each the 2020 and 2021 surveys requested the telecommuters about their intention to proceed WFH after the pandemic. The proportion of WFH employees who answered they want to observe WFH on the similar frequency as they at present do even when the COVID-19 pandemic subsides elevated considerably from 38.1% within the 2020 survey to 62.6% within the 2021 survey (Determine 2). Even for the subsample of WFH continuers, the share has elevated from 56.2% to 68.2%.
Determine 2 WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic
We posit that the potential causes behind this variation are (1) the development in WFH productiveness, and (2) the rising recognition of the amenity worth of WFH. Since there was a robust constructive correlation between the intention in 2020 to proceed frequent WFH and the precise implementation of WFH in 2021, the end result means that WFH could turn into a most popular work type even after the pandemic subsides. As described earlier than, the productiveness of WFH is, on common, nonetheless decrease than that of the standard office, which means that WFH has a excessive amenity worth for teleworkers.
Nonetheless, in response to a survey of Japanese companies performed in late 2021, nearly all of companies are planning to discontinue the WFH observe and revert to the traditional workstyle after the top of COVID-19 (Morikawa 2022b). These contrasting outcomes point out that there’s a massive hole between companies’ pursuits and the preferences of WFH employees. From the viewpoints of the productivity-wage parity and the compensating wage differential, it’s potential that WFH employees’ relative wages will likely be lowered. Nonetheless, since it’s tough to precisely seize the productiveness of particular person employees who carry out WFH, there’s a potential that battle between employees and administration over WFH will come up after the pandemic.
Editor’s notice: The principle analysis on which this column relies (Morikawa 2021) first appeared as a Dialogue Paper of the Analysis Institute of Financial system, Commerce and Business (RIETI) of Japan.
See unique submit for references
