Employees in WFH work harder, but suffer productivity drop! How sustainable?

 Hence when it comes to the overall outcome, there is not much difference between WFH and WFO staff.

This research finding, based on a detailed study of efforts and outcome variables in a large India based IT firm, shared by Becker Friedmn Institute, UCHICAGO, has several ramifications in the way we embed and prioritize WFH as part of our delivery model. 

Study subject includes IT professionals engaged in the cognitive work of solution and application development that involve a fair deal of collaboration and coordination with the team for optimum output.  Further, the measurements are more dependable as efforts are tracked by system app, instead of being self-reported, which may suffer from amplification bias.    

Let us first take note of the summary findings:

1.        On an average IT professional increased his working hours between 1.5 to 2 hrs per day, when in WFH mode in contrast to WFO mode.  These additional hours come from extending the work to non-office hours
2. At the same time, the average productivity of every active hour fell to the extent that overall outcome would have been between 88-94% for the same number of work-hours (say 40 hrs week)
3. Extend of variance between WFH and WFO pattern depends, to a varying degree, upon employee variables like: gender, total work experience, tenure with the company, and presence of children at home. 
4. Employees with children work additional time to compensate for the drop in productivity due to distraction. 
5. Average commute time to the office seems to have not much correlation with the additional hours spent in WFH mode. Another study suggests that employees allocate at-least one-third of time saved from commuting to office work.
6. Male members with greater tenure with the firm and high overall work experience seems to have the least dip in productivity. 
7. Reasons for productivity decline are linked to the increased time spent in communication, coordination, and collaboration activities.  This manifests itself in the form of increased time spent in meetings (MS Teams) and overall Email flows.  Interestingly the number of meetings employee participates along with Manager has seen an increase, while one-2-one meetings and caching conversations seems to have come down.
8. Output levels are seen as more closely related to uninterrupted time (focus time) than overall hours spent at work. And clearly, WFH has lower uninterrupted time than WFO. 

On reflection, what does it mean for those who are considering WFH as a permanent feature?

1. Can we rely on enhanced working hours as a sustainable solution to compensate for the dip in productivity?  Some part of the enhanced working hours is also on account of lock-down restrictions that reduce the appeal and usage options of leisure time. 
2. The tenured experienced staff which is secure and requires little over-the-shoulder assistance and watch are better suitable for WFH mode.  How do we make other segments ready, as they may be more in number? How do we accommodate their personal and professional needs in their work routine?
3. If we have adverse selection during identification of employees for WFH mode, can we really use paired comparison for drawing performance conclusions? 
4. What is behind increased time spent on coordination and communication?  Is it psychological and professional insecurity that is behind WFH employees populating their calendar with avoidable meetings or shooting emails every twenty minutes?
5. Have we made Mangers capable of making their expectations known over the distance and have they developed competencies to deliver feedback online in an unambiguous, secure and productive manner?
6. How are we going to reinforce the importance of uninterrupted focus time among those in WFH mode?  How do we let them know that delay in an email response or not answering call at a particular time is acceptable and not considered being irresponsible.  
7. Are the rules of decision making and opportunity allocations clear and transparent for all to feel secure and engaged and trusted?
8. How realistic and effectively are we using the collaboration tool and technologies to promote innovative thinking, transactional efficiency, and inclusive feeling among all engaged in the process? 

While we will continue to get informed by research work and experiential sharing by fellow professionals, each of us has to define our own strategy to leverage WFH in the most effective manner, given our context, culture, and compulsions!