this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
402 points (98.6% liked)

Science

5583 readers
73 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (6 children)

The article, at least, doesn't seem to try to define or measure "productivity". Well no shit people are going to be happier not being forced to go somewhere for some period of time five days a week.

Am I happier working from home, or having the choice to do so? Sure. Their data strongly backs that. Do I actually get my work done equally well? For me personally yes but anecdotally group decision-making in remote contexts is much slower.

The research here is ultimately pointless, because it drives zero action to the people who would be deciding WFH policy who are making that choice based on business goals, not personal goals. It might inform politicians if they're driving policy to promote remote work, but without data about productivity tradeoff or lack thereof, there's no informed decision to make.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I personally am less productive working from home because I have so many half finished personal projects to distract me.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 6 points 1 month ago

There are always exceptions, including people who can't manage their time and those that don't have an adequate setup to work from home. We have an option to work from home several days a week but some people want to go into the office because it is a break from home or they don't have a dedicated workspace and typing at the dining room table doesn't work for them.

The big thing is that for those that can WFH successfully it is a huge positive for both happiness and productivity, and not having it as an option is a negative for them.

load more comments (4 replies)