> Surprised this post isn’t getting more comments.

From article:

"The company that provided data is one of the world’s largest IT services companies. They have over 150,000 employees who work with clients across the globe. Most work in the home country, a rapidly- developing Asian nation."

This is about a half-assed Indian "IT Services" company. (From where I am. Need to specify lest I also be branded as racist white dude or whatever). So there is hardly anything to learn in general. Of course similar type IT companies can learn that their lazy micro-managers need to do even more micro managing to get anything done.

The only thing I learned is that one can get even prestigious institution like University of Chicago to do shady shit if there is enough money to motivate.

Imagine observing lower productivity in HCL, Wipro, Tata, Techmahindra. Having worked with all of them I assume detecting lower productivity would require a mirror to see if they were breathing.

Great comment

Never been better. Thanks for asking!

>The result is pretty clear with over 10,000 participants in the study.

They're all from the same Asian company, it's far from clear.

Yes, this was my concern with applying the lessons more broadly. I would love to see a similar assessment for a company that was substantially staffed from other locations to see how much this is a universal picture or not.

I can't mention the company, but I was told from someone at a very large financial company in the US that their productivity tanked over the last year. I won't be surprised if this is generally the case for WFH.

So you heard from a second-hand source that productivity at a bank tanked, and that's making you think that negative WFH productivity is the norm? Maybe base your opinions off a little more information than a friend's story.

Interesting. This contradicts the prevailing HN sentiment that WFH increases productivity because there's less time spent socializing or dealing with distractions.

I brought up concerns about WFH productivity once in another thread and quickly realized that many people on here do not want to discuss the facts and only want to consider anecdotal evidence in favour of WFH.

I'm glad to see that there are studies being published that show how certain companies are actually doing, rather than a handful of people loudly saying "my group is equally as productive WFH so no one should work from offices". I don't think those people are going to be so happy as more research is published and company leaders realize what is happening to productivity.

I'm confident that HN sentiment is a fantasy created by people who are barely working.

It varies dramatically by circumstance. I had coworkers who struggled with 3-4 kids and working spouse at home.

For me, my son is 9 and my wife was partially at home. No big deal for my productivity. For my sister, she sold her car and hired a nanny for a year.

Maybe if you do nothing but greenfield coding, but when does that ever happen? You'd need to be in a startup or a company with severe NIH that also likes to rewrite everything every few years.

> a company with severe NIH that also likes to rewrite everything every few years.

Like a FAANG? Well at least, the F and and the G do.

Anecdotally, I've seen this happen on my team, and it is the single biggest factor that makes me somewhat receptive to going back into the office. It's easier to draw a line between work and home that way.

Maybe we should just turn Slack off altogether outside of business hours, and only enable it in emergencies. LOL

You should turn Slack off outside business hours! And, remove from your phone. If there is a true emergency, this is why people are on call.

This applies equally to whether wfh or in office.

All from the same company though.