Work from home: yes or no?

By Lachlan McKenzie

There’s been a lot of debate lately about WFH (‘work from home’, or ‘remote work’ as some people prefer to call it). There appears to be two basic arguments: the anti-WFH crowd, coming across as micromanagers who thrive on power and control; and the pro-WFH crowd who maintain that productivity increases when they work from home.

Who is right?

Numerous studies and reports have shown that productivity often increases with remote work. Here are a few key reasons why:

1. Fewer Distractions: Employees often experience fewer office interruptions, leading to more focused work time.

2. Flexible Hours: Workers can align their schedules with their most productive hours, improving efficiency.

3. No Commuting: Saving time on commuting allows employees to dedicate more energy to work or personal well-being, which can boost performance.

4. Autonomy: Remote work often gives employees more control over their tasks, leading to higher motivation and job satisfaction.

Productivity, however, can vary depending on the individual, the nature of the job, and the level of support provided by employers. While many thrive in a WFH environment, others may struggle with isolation or lack of structure. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, but overall, the data suggests productivity tends to rise.

Some employers, managers, and even politicians and bosses oppose WFH despite increased productivity for several reasons, often tied to control, tradition, and economic factors:

1. Loss of Control: Micromanagers and traditional leaders may feel they lose oversight and authority when employees work remotely. They prefer in-person visibility to monitor staff.

2. Old-School Mindset: Many leaders are accustomed to the traditional office model and equate physical presence with productivity, even if data suggests otherwise.

3. Commercial Real Estate: Politicians and businesses tied to urban economies (e.g., office buildings, restaurants, transit) may push for a return to offices to sustain these industries.

4. Power Dynamics: Some bosses thrive on hierarchical structures and in-person interactions, which can be harder to maintain in remote settings.

5. Misplaced Concerns: They may worry about collaboration, company culture, or innovation suffering, even though remote tools and hybrid models can address these issues.

6. Resistance to Change: Shifting to WFH requires rethinking management styles and investing in new systems, which some leaders may find challenging or unnecessary.

In short, it’s often about control, tradition, and economic interests – not necessarily what’s best for productivity or employees.

Some of our elected representatives politicise against WFH for a mix of economic, ideological, and practical reasons, often tied to broader agendas or vested interests. Here’s why:

1. Commercial Real Estate Interests: Many politicians are influenced by or tied to the commercial real estate industry, which suffers when office spaces remain empty. A push for returning to offices helps sustain this sector.

2. Urban Economies: Politicians in cities may worry about the economic impact on businesses that rely on office workers (e.g., cafes, restaurants, transit systems). Empty offices can hurt local economies.

3. Tax Revenue: Cities and states may lose tax revenue if fewer people commute or work in urban areas, impacting public services and infrastructure funding.

4. Traditional Values: Some politicians hold traditional views about work, believing that in-person work fosters discipline, collaboration, and national productivity, even if evidence suggests otherwise.

5. Union and Labor Dynamics: In some cases, unions or labor groups may oppose WFH due to concerns about job security, worker rights, or the erosion of workplace protections.

6. Political Posturing: Opposing WFH can be a way to appeal to certain voter bases, such as small business owners or those who view remote work as a privilege or a threat to traditional work culture.

7. Control and Surveillance: Some politicians may align with corporate interests that prefer in-person work for greater oversight and control over employees.

Ultimately, politicising WFH is often less about productivity and more about economic dependencies, power dynamics, and maintaining the status quo.

I prefer working in the office, but I see huge benefits in letting people who thrive remotely work from home – productivity often increases. Sure, there are kinks to iron out, but banning WFH entirely feels more about ideology and self-interest than actual results.

 

Also by Lachlan McKenzie: Why reporting “Peter Dutton says…” is poor journalism and can promote propaganda

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969