Permanently remote workers seen doubling in 2021 due to pandemic productivity

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-technology-idUSKBN2772P0

by rustoo • 6 years ago

164 123 6 years ago

Summary: "The survey said information technology decision-makers expect permanent remote work to double to 34.4% of their companies’ workforces in 2021, compared with 16.4% before the coronavirus outbreak, a result of positive productivity trends.

About 72% of their companies’ total global workforce is currently working remotely, according to the CIOs."

Honestly I would expect it to remain at more than 34%. Who would want to go back to daily commutes of >1h?

If we're able to do our jobs remotely it would be in our interests as human beings to resist losing 5-10 hours a week commuting.

quaintdev• 6 years ago

While saving money on fuel and avoiding pollution. If you can avoid pollution in India you can literally increase lifespan.

The problem here in India, when I brought up "WFH is future", all the experienced manager above 10yrs were not happy with idea. Why? Probably because they are paying EMIs for hefty loans they took for buying flats. People like me who are relatively less experienced don't want to take that risk at all. Moreover I intend to move to my hometown permanently. Needless to say, my ideas don't sit well with managers.

carlmr• 6 years ago

I think the other issue is that middle managers see that people working from home barely interact with them, which means that their middle man role is visibly unnecessary. A recipe for getting scared.

roland352• 6 years ago

At my company we recently had an incident related to the recent WFH with a subcontractor in India. He was providing his credentials to another contractor who impersonated him, which is something that he probably would not have tried in the office!

Although maybe he would have tried it, because the impersonator called into meetings and everyone noticed that he sounded completely different (had much better English) and the work was different (less skilled)! If it was me, I would be checking the sub-sub-contractors work and at a minimum calling into meetings myself ;)

bobthepanda4• 6 years ago

This is great if you have a house with lots of space.

Personally as a single young adult I like living in the city with lots of amenities nearby. I would hate being forced to WFH, the same way some hated being forced to go into the office.

vladvasiliu• 6 years ago

This is an often recurring argument on this subject.

For example, I don't care about having a big garden but I don't necessarily enjoy living in a dense city. If I could WFH at least three days a week for the foreseeable future, I would gladly move to a town in the suburbs where I could have a bigger apartment for the price of my studio apartment. I bet a lot of people would do the same. This would lessen the pressure on housing in the city center, so people like you who actually prefer living in the big city for reasons other than work could afford larger apartments.

My main reason for living where I do is so that my commute is less than 30 minutes each way.

I guess the point is that as the constraint of everyone working in the same place is reduced, there will be less people wanting to live in the city allowing better conditions for those who do.

qz2• 6 years ago

I thought the same for years and chased that dream. Eventually I found I ended up as a miserable isolationist to some degree. So roll on a number of years and I’ve got 5 people living in a tiny house in London. I sleep, eat, work and play in one room and have done for about 10 years now. It’s great and I wouldn’t swap it for anything.

The important thing is that you find activities to do outside the house because it doesn’t matter how big your space is; you need to get away from it sometimes.

yuribro• 6 years ago

Working remotely doesn't have to mean working from home. You could be working from a rented office or shared office space, friends, a hotel and so on.

What's great is the flexibility and customization for each individual employee.

christophilus• 6 years ago

Being forced to work from home is better than being forced to work from an office. In the former case, you can (and I did) rent an office, join a coworking space, work from coffee shops, etc. In the latter case, you have one choice and one choice only, and that choice sucks for a whole lot of folks.

vidarh3• 6 years ago

That's a great argument for pushing employers to be prepared to provide an allowance for office space (whether to cover costs of adjusting your home, or for membership at a co-working space convenient for you). We don't need to go back to centralised offices to solve that issue.

whateveracct• 6 years ago

I lived downtown for years while working remote for companies in different cities. Not going to the office made it even easier to enjoy the city imo.

Philip-J-Fry2• 6 years ago

For some people (me included) the office is a very productive environment. Some things I am really interested in can be smashed out at home with no problems. But boring work is a chore unless I'm at the office where I can get my mind to say "you're at work, you're getting paid for this". I can do boring work well at work, whereas at home I wanna do anything just to get it out of my face.

Not only that, for some people the commute is 1h each way and for others it's 10 minutes. So some people don't see the issue with going into the office every day.

And unless everyone is going to work from home, if you're someone working from home but most other people are in the office then that can stifle your career development for internal promotions. Like it or not, the managers and higher ups will be in the office, it's easier to get to know someone in the office, it's easier to get inside knowledge on what's going on, what projects are happening, etc. I work for a company who has remote developers and none of them are leading anything or have any sort of significant power to influence decisions. They are just man power to get work done, even if that is wrong, that's how it is and I don't see it changing.

For as long as this is the case I don't see fully remote working as a viable career choice. I would only do it for a company which is all remote or all software dev is remote.

DrAwdeOccarim3• 6 years ago

Thanks for writing this out as you've really hit the nail on the head. I manage a medium sized team and I can tell you some people are totally cool with just being a worker bee. I wish more of the conversation around WFH focused on how everyone is different, one size fits all rarely works, and if you do want to "get ahead" you'll need to put in face time. Period. Humans are social and want connection. Meritocracies are great in principal, but that's just plainly not how the world works. If you want managerial carrier development and growth, you have to put in the face time.

theshrike797• 6 years ago

Managing a split remote/local team is one of the hardest things to do. Nigh-impossible I'd say.

garenp• 6 years ago

Your last point about career development is an interesting one that comes up. If you are remote but your co-workers are interacting in person I can see how there would be an informational advantage in favor of your co-workers that is unavoidable.

My preference is to WFH most of the time, but not all the time. When WFH for awhile, I can much more easily get into a zen-like state of concentration after an hour or so that is extremely difficult to get in an office. At the office I have to contend with constant sources of distractions and interruptions (people walking up on foot, phone ringing, non-work related discussion, ...) which has often made me feel like the only time I can push through a hard problem is during off-hours when no one is around. Most importantly, being in a zen-like state while working and getting stuff done is what makes work enjoyable for me.

That said, whenever there is a significant amount of collaboration or a need for a lot of round-trip communication with someone (new employee, need to bring someone up to speed, ...) it's better in person - but I find this to be only an occasional need.

EliRivers• 6 years ago

Putting aside the 4000 GBP (5200 USD) I no longer have to pay each year for the privilege of taking the train to work, I would definitely trade a significant amount of career success for a lifetime working from home. It's so, so good.

Obviously others have a different take, but I can see myself never going into the office regularly again.

raducu• 6 years ago

Because a lot of people, the kind that matter politically, don't like to sit and think of concise messages, actions and implications, in fact, don't like deep thought at all, they just like to interrupt, ask stupid questions without doing any basic research first and like others to see them as appearing busy -- that is wasting the time of people who actually do do deep work.

That and socializing, getting away from kids/stressful homes.

vidarh3• 6 years ago

I'd expect it to remain at more than 34% too, but people are likely reluctant to make that decision this quickly. I'd expect we'll see the number they predict will keep increasing as more people get confidence it works for them, and as they get better at navigating it.

rsynnott2• 6 years ago

Honestly I would expect it to remain at more than 34%. Who would want to go back to daily commutes of >1h?

I think it's quite a personal thing. I can't wait to be back in an office; I really need to be around people. The last eight months has been a miserable experience.

Mind you, my commute in the before-times was a 15 minute walk.

panny• 6 years ago

The article is light on reasons for increased productivity, but according to anecdotes I've heard, it's due partly to even longer working hours at home.

Concretely, when salary employees WFH, all hours have become working hours for them. I've read accounts where people are having mental issues due to the dystopic new reality where they are always at work. They end up working around the clock, because they are constantly distracted by family and domestic issues intruding during the work day. To add to their demoralization, no more office perks either. Free coffee, snacks, lunches, after work get togethers, a chance to chat with a cute co-worker, etc are all gone.

Decreasing wage is also considered a productivity increase, because same now work for less pay. As people WFH more permanently, there are many receiving salary cuts as they migrate to areas with lower cost of living.

The "new normal" seems pretty hellish for some.

theshrike797• 6 years ago

For others it's a hellscape and for others - like me - it's a blessing.

I can work in the morning, make some lunch, work a while after lunch. Then the kids come home, I can help with their homework and keep working for a bit more.

I can even assist colleagues in different time zones, since my computer is near me at all times. Just a quick chat during my evening (their morning) will speed things up immensely by unblocking their tasks right away.

I've even spent parts of the week at the family cabin and at my in-laws. No one cared, my productivity didn't change a bit.

But I think I'm privileged since my company only tracks my productivity and are smart enough to not overwork anyone on purpose. And I've had one burnout already, so I can see the symptoms of overworking and relax well before I run into any issues.

Maakuth• 6 years ago

How are you ever unwinding if you do work around the clock? For me I'm quickly feeling stress symptoms if I start to do work tasks after hours. I have a family too, so in theory it would be great for me too to do family stuff in the middle of the day and then return to work in the evening. But in practice if I do that, work will soon intrude my dreams, my mood worsens and I have less energy.

nullsense5• 6 years ago

My 1 hour commute where I got much needed downtime during which I would read books was replaced with sitting in front of my screen working. Basically wound up working additional 2 hours a day. Just totally unable to switch off either. Fucking hate it. Muh happier commuting and working with real people in an office.

mnahkies• 6 years ago

I understand the desire to work with people face to face, but regarding the lack of downtime on your commute: have you considered simply reading at home, or going to a coffee shop for an hour before/after work? I've found replacing my 1 hour subway journey with a 45 minute walk around the neighborhood with a podcast to be much better for my wellbeing

theodric2• 6 years ago

Clock in when you would normally arrive at work, and clock out when you would leave. Even my employer, a big, ancient, conservative firm, has started telling employees to set boundaries.

tester342• 6 years ago

That's what I miss.

I used to commute by train basically 2.5h daily, so I could spend that on e.g reading books

But on the other hand vision of waking up around 8:30 instead of 7, and then being at home around 16:30 instead of 18 is so good.

I just need to improve my work ethics(personal, not an actual work)

I think the best trade off is like 2-3 days of WFH and the rest on site.

Smithalicious• 6 years ago

Then just don't do that

theshrike797• 6 years ago

The ability to switch from work to personal time is something everyone either learns by themselves or is eventually forced to learn after burning out.

A few colleagues use their commute time to take a walk around the block, that gets them in "work mode". And after they clock out they do the same in reverse.

dudul• 6 years ago

Did someone force you to spend this hour in front of the screen? Its up to you to decide what to do with the 1 hour you used to spend commuting.

cableshaft3• 6 years ago

Can you go outside with a book at all? Even if you live in an apartment, there should be either some shared courtyard space or a balcony. Even just going out into the hall. That's basically what students did when I was in the dorms at college. Put some physical space between you and your work environment.

I live in a house, so I can just take a seat on the patio out back (as long as it's not cold or raining like it is today), but there should be some equivalent. Do that for an hour then go back into your apartment and sign in for work.

akmarinov• 6 years ago

I've found the reverse to be prevalent for me.

Instead of all hours being work hours, once I'm done with the tasks I've outlined for the day and see that there's not enough time to pick up something new - I just wrap the work day up with some time to spare.

If I was in the office, I would've been forced to sit in front of a computer, even if I'm mentally clocked out.

free6522• 6 years ago

So just wrap up the day? What about if something happens when you "wrapped" your day up? Or someone got a question?

You still need to be at the computer, same as in the office.

jeremyjh• 6 years ago

The productivity gains are self-reported. No one can measure this objectively so the CIO can say whatever they want. It is not surprising that they want to say something to make themselves look good, instead of bad.

roland352• 6 years ago

I think it depends a lot on expectations - I have had different managers who have had different expectations even in the office! I even had one manager who said I was walking from my desk too much and I definitely don't miss that (maybe schedule less meetings??)

With WFH I generally don't respond at all off hours. I keep track of my hours on a pad of paper for the week for both my timecard and for my sanity, so when I get to 8 hours I am DONE!

rsynnott2• 6 years ago

but according to anecdotes I've heard, it's due partly to even longer working hours at home.

Yeah, personally I'm definitely working longer hours, though I'm pretty sure I'm less productive per hour, due to the psychological effects (I pretty much constantly feel awful).

xwdv2• 6 years ago

Personally I feel the push for the right to work from home without being treated as a second class citizen is more important and will do more for society than policies such as raising the minimum wage.

theodric2• 6 years ago

If you can work from home, you are now competing with the entire global labor force for your job. Expect your salary to go down as a result, since you are now much more replaceable.

ozim2• 6 years ago

No, you underestimate issues that come with hiring someone from another country.

I am not going to hire an accountant from Vietnam to do my taxes even if I would be able to pay him $1 instead of $100. Accountant from Vietnam is not going to learn US or some EU country tax code if he has customers in Vietnam. In case something goes wrong, like you would have to go to court to settle things, good luck on getting someone from other side of globe to the court and setting things straight.

Local regulations, local language plays huge role in a lot of jobs that can be done remotely. But they will be done 'local' remotely so you still compete locally not globally.

jbjohns7• 6 years ago

You already have been for decades at this point. The high salaries seen in some places is not due exclusively to locality but the quality of the employee.

What I'm seeing is people from low cost locations which traditionally migrated as soon as they could to get western salaries are not getting those western salaries without having to leave. I would say if you were at the highest compensation level you may see a decrease but it will remain that the best command large salaries as now. The difference will probably be that some who were the best and underpaid will have an easier time getting reasonable compensation and some people who were taking advantage of locality factors will now approach a more reasonable salary for their actual contribution.

driverdan• 6 years ago

This depends on your experience level and the position. In my experience on the senior end it doesn't mean pay goes down, it means getting the job is much more competitive.

Some positions, such as junior dev, may have reduced pay since there are millions of international lower skilled devs.

abellerose• 6 years ago

I personally think remote workers living close enough to meetup if need be is the future.

As a programmer this year has been great in regard to work; while working from home. Slack or Zoom for video chats when needed, solves all situations I would've been next to someone in-person and if it wasn't for the pandemic.

I don't fear being outsourced as well, since companies still want their employees to be near and I doubt video conference will ever change that desire.

theshrike797• 6 years ago

Outsourcing always brings cultural and time zone issues, they can all be managed but do require extra attention and know-how to work through.

jbjohns7• 6 years ago

Some additional things to consider:

1) Remote work does not necessarily mean WFH. It means work where is most effective for you instead of going to some office. These days there are many different kinds of solutions for having office space if you want/need it. It also becomes more of a commodity that you can simply use when needed (e.g. a final push before release, a workshop preparing for a big new project, etc.).

2) Companies who recognise this and get rid of their local offices may experience a cost advantage because having offices costs more than just the building. There are a lot of utility costs involved, you need people who manage the facilities, etc., etc.

3) If we're really serious about the environment, avoiding people having to commute to work should be a serious goal. Companies tend to talk about reducing how much they fly around but what is the Co2 footprint of flying in total compared to commuting?

terramex• 6 years ago

I think autocorrect changed "WFH" (work from home) to "WTF" in your comment.

jbjohns7• 6 years ago

Ack, thanks. Corrected.

Shivetya• 6 years ago

Outsourcing will definitely increase as management gets more comfortable with not being hands on for the work being done. Once you convince them they don't need their people onsite then its a simple step to not needing their own people at all.

jbjohns7• 6 years ago

In the western European country I live in, everyone was pushing for more and more outsourcing. Initially India but they started using eastern EU countries as well which was cheaper but didn't have e.g. timezone issues. They're mostly pulling back to in-country. There could be a lot of reasons for this, but if the issue is about work quality then I don't see why that changes now.

Anyway, fearing getting replaced by outsourcing is like fearing to get replaced by robots. Maybe it will happen in the end but if so, we never could have stopped it anyway. If it's the right direction and we should pursue it.

tboyd47• 6 years ago

I see either 1 of 2 things happening. Either these large companies will lobby Congress for laws forcing all companies to offer full-time remote, or half these workers are back in the office by 2022.

jscheel• 6 years ago

We absolutely should not be measuring WFH productivity right now. There are way too many variables to consider at this point. Because it's new for a lot of people, and because of the lockdowns, there seem to be a lot of issues with overwork. I absolutely love WFH, and I've been doing for quite a long time, but I feel pretty confident that we are going to see a bunch of companies claim to go fully WFH, and they backpedal in a year or two. Hopefully not, but if the expectations are wrong, these companies are settings themselves up for failure from the start.

cableshaft3• 6 years ago

Just anecdata, but I've been doing full WFH for my company for the past 2.5 years. If anything my productivity has gone down because of the stress of the pandemic, not up because of more hours (which I worked more hours WFH before the pandemic also).

Exmoor• 6 years ago

I think you can make really strong arguments for productivity both being higher than normal times (due to overwork, less options for non-work activities, etc.) and lower than normal (due to additional childcare responsibilities, overall stress level, etc.). I think both make a good case for the OP's point that the current situation is not indicative of what we'll be able to sustain long-term, both good and bad.

Personally, I think the biggest thing my team discovered was how much of our work was actually able to be done remotely. We were all averaging roughly one day a week work from home, but I expect to be more like 2-3 long-term.

WarOnPrivacy• 6 years ago

My concern is that remoting may be responsible for the unexpected increase in housing prices. Areas that were borderline unaffordable before the pandemic have skyrocketed in the last 6 months. Rents and housing prices both just leaped out of range.

ilaksh• 6 years ago

The only thing that is truly permanent is change. Things never stop changing.

I don't know how many years we will be on this increased remote thing. Hopefully for some time.

But imagine a few years from now when there is no pandemic. Say someone creates a futuristic smart city with good density, lots of parks, and 100% autonomous cars. In that situation you may find that working from home becomes uncool.

Or another totally different possibility. Virtual and augmented reality become so good that whether you are actually in your home or not does not really determine much about your working situation. It's down to software configuration, such as whether you place your avatar in the shared virtual space or your virtual office.

ribaldev• 6 years ago

We use task management apps to save us time and give more visibility over the work. However, the app can become so complicated to use by itself, that we may choose to go for very basic note-taking apps to avoid the complexity.

I was looking for a minimal, simple and user-friendly app for daily task management, so I developed Renoj.

Fast to-do task management in Desktop for ultimate productivity.

Website: https://ribal.dev/renoj

Permanently remote workers seen doubling in 2021 due to pandemic productivity

Related Stories