I find it MUCH easier to be efficient at home than in an office, particularly the dreadful open plan offices.

I second this. I've been working out of hours a lot recently and find that my productivity is boosted dramatically when I am alone. Open plan offices need to go the way of the dinosaur.

My optimal work environment is working with one or two coworkers in a coffee shop. I'm something like six times more productive (in terms of code/feature points/tasks) than working strictly remote (as I do most of the time).

It's a reason why I'm looking to hire remote developers who are mostly geographically located near me--main office is in Nashville, I'm in Boston. WFH when you want, head into a coworking space when you want some company. Seems the best of both worlds to me.

Open plan offices are the absolute worst. The worst.

There's a lot of research suggesting that people overestimate their productivity in remote working environments and that in general, max productivity comes from small, in-person working environments.

My guess is almost all of this is totally dependent on the environments you are discussing. Some people have built very productive home work environments but most have not. Most people's office environment is probably better than what they have at home (maybe they have multiple monitors, supplies, a nice chair and desk, etc) but I don't think there's anything specific to office vs. home aside from the investment into productivity of that space.

My guess is some of the folks on here hollering about being way better workers at home are right. They also probably spent several thousand bucks on a nice workspace, keyboard, extra monitor, stand up desk, whatever they need....

The research that I've seen supporting small in-person environments has all been carried out with low-skill workers (typically undergrad volunteers) on tasks that do not require deep critical thought or creativity. It's not at all clear that it generalizes to the sort of work that a senior technical staff member does.

I am not a researcher in the field, so its entirely possible that there is good work to support your claim, but all the research I've seen cited on HN in past discussions was crap or simply not relevant for the stated reason.

I've yet to see research that compares a modern distributed workflow with github/trac/unfuddle, IRC/campfire, IM, Skype, etc. compared to on site. Some of the remote developer studies are hilariously out dated.

Maybe there's a generation gap (People who grew up with IM/IRC can naturally use it communicate better?) or my experience is too colored by working only remote my whole career, but between the places I worked without distributed workflows and those I hear about from my friends in the industry, my anecdotal evidence says distributed teams are far far more effective.

citation needed. I've seen research showing remote workers are more productive than on-site. http://www.stanford.edu/~nbloom/WFH.pdf

Which one makes people happier with their lives?

Happiness is not a concern in this.

In America, the pursuit is for money and profits for your employer - an employee's emotional wellbeing is irrelevant.

Now be a good serf and pop your head back down into your cubicle.

Citation needed.

I think we'd need to see this research. Just in terms of avoiding drive-bys, working remotely is far more stable and efficient (ergo productive).

Same here. Not everyone can focus at home though. I know I can get a TON of work done at home compared to office, but my girlfriend cannot get anything done at home. Definitely depends on the person :)

> Frankly for me I find home working far less distracting than work.

Having young kids at home might change your opinion.