During Covid lockdowns, the workplace changed. For most employees, the traditional 9-5 Monday to Friday week was turned on its head as employees worked from home.
Post pandemic, the workplace remained changed forever. For most employees, the working week was a hybrid model of a combination of days working between the office and home. Some employees continue to work exclusively 5 days a week working from home (WFH).
Much commentary has been written on the various pros and cons of this ‘once in a century’ game-changer.
Many commentators suggested that this would be a huge win for employees with no reduction in productivity. In fact, it has even been suggested that productivity would increase.
Throughout all of this, I have remained sceptical.
With no modern-day equivalent for comparison, we have had to allow the passing of time to provide anecdotal evidence on what impact WFH did in fact have on productivity.
But first a few caveats.
Not all workers have moved to a WFH model. Construction, Allied Health Services, Tourism & Hospitality have all continued working on-site.
Also, I want to make it clear that my commentary does not ignore the many benefits that WFH has provided employees including:
Elimination or reduction of commuting to and from work
Reduced travel costs
Increased family/personal time
Flexibility in working hours and life admin
Flexibility around childcare and family arrangements
Improvement in work/life balance
However, the ‘elephant in the room’ for me has always been the fundamental assumption that, WFH all or some of the week, will still provide the same level of productivity that existed prior to WFH.
I have been waiting for the productivity data to land, as there is a lag.
The data has started coming in and it’s not pretty.
From 2022 to 2023 there was a 3.2% drop in productivity. I have no doubt we will see more.
Our GDP per capita in Australia (after adjusting for migration) has also gone negative.
Quantitative Observations
The assumption that employees are as efficient as they think, is flawed.
Observationally seeing crowded cafes, suburban parks, 24-hour gyms and constant higher-density local traffic are all visual indicators that employees are enjoying more flexibility throughout the working week.
But my question remains the same.
Are these employees working an additional 1-3 hours per day after the traditional 9-5 workday is finished, to ‘make-up’ the flexi-time utilized by them during the day?
It is a fair question and employers are asking.
But it gets worse.
For every day that the flexi-hours are not returned by an employee, the productivity debt grows daily and on a compounding basis.
Just 1 hour per day of less productivity from 1 employee balloons approximately to 230 hours per year. A small business with a dozen employees loses 2,760 hours of productive labour annually on this conservative basis alone.
The notion that every employee re-balances or repays this productivity gap daily when WFH is folly.
Why?
The WFH model (other than Ai tools on computers) is not measurable as there are blurred lines between employees moving in and out of work/home activities.
The employer cannot see employee productivity WFH. Attempts to monitor productivity are seen to be punitive by employees.
The employee does not monitor and measure productivity. There is no motivation or self-interest in employees monitoring their productivity.
Of course, these comments only cover off on time-based productivity.
Product based businesses can measure the number of widgets being produced. This is assisted through employees in production physically working in the factory or warehouse.
For service-based businesses, how many services or projects are produced in a WFH setting versus the traditional workplace is dubious.
Nobody really knows.
Productivity is invisible in real time and may only be measured, if at all, as a lag indicator as stated previously.
With the onus on the employer to ‘assume’ the employee is working productively, the employee is left to decide whether they are working at the same productivity level as they would in a traditional workplace setting.
These assumptions seem fanciful to me.
Qualitative Observations
Consideration of the qualitative observations of WFH unfortunately gets worse.
WFH has many challenges and problems (as well as the opportunities stated earlier) that get largely dismissed including:
Culture and morale within the organization is diluted
Leadership being demonstrated is challenging with a splintered workplace
Strategy is harder to share and communicate
Management of staff is more difficult in directing, supervising and assessing tasks completed within a remote workplace
Transfer of in-house information and operational updates are reduced or eliminated
Traditional ‘on-the-job’ training is severely reduced, or even eliminated, under the WFH setting
Workplace meetings are not as impactful virtually versus in-person
More meetings are typically needed to coordinate remote work
Higher email volumes are required in a virtual workplace
Team synergy is compromised working remotely
Workflow is harder to monitor and appraise
Hiring, induction and performance management is more difficult
Customer expectations are often harder to manage in a splintered remote workforce
Product/Service QA may be more difficult to guarantee
Training and professional development of junior/intermediate staff weakens in a remote work-setting
Mentoring is diluted remoted versus in-person
IT assurance is challenging with employees WFH
OH&S risk profiles increase in a WFH setting
These are just some of the qualitative challenges to productivity we now face.
In Conclusion
We need to have open and collaborative conversations about how we move forward with the WFH model.
Neither employers nor employees will ultimately decide the answer.
Customers will decide.
Customers are smart.
When they realize, and they will, that they are now receiving less for more – they will query productivity.
They won’t know why and they won’t care.
Customers are outcome-based.
Customers will migrate to businesses that provide a quality product/service in return for a fair price.
Employers and employees will need to follow.
The Productivity Scorecard will need to be re-balanced.
The conversations should start earnestly now between business owners and their people to get productivity back on track.
I fear we have lurched too far to one side, and we need to return to a more equitable model for all.
I implore you to review your WFH model with a fresh lens with a focus on fairness, equity and productivity.
Creating a WIN/WIN/WIN outcome for Customers, Employees and Employers should be the ultimate goal.
I write blogs & videos just like this one on business, productivity and human development. If you'd like it delivered straight to your inbox head to https://darrenkbourke.com/the-fourth-moon-blog and let me know your email.
Email me at darren@darrenkbourke.com to schedule a meeting (at no cost or obligation) to discuss how I can help you, your business and your team this year.