If those studies showing WFH lowers worker productivity are accurate, how can the record revenues and profits corporations across sectors have reported the past couple of years be explained?
On one hand, "worker productivity" is kind of a hard thing to define and measure across various industries while accounting for differences in corporate culture and investments in technology that might make workers more productive wherever they're working from. On the other hand, revenues and profits are a pretty objective metric to measure overall success of a company.
I just have a hard time understanding how companies are overcoming decreased productivity while also showing drastically increased profits. It seems either one could be true, but claiming both seems like a challenge to explain.
IMO, companies that are seeing decreased productivity should focus on finding out how they can mirror the companies and are having success with WFH. Of course, micromanaging employees is an easier "solution" than overhauling corporate culture. IMO, it's going to make less happy employees, who are then less productive, more likely to leave, which increases turnover and hurts productivity. So of course struggling corporations are going to choose the option that exacerbates the problem they're trying to solve.
