I'm of the opinion that WFH has been a net negative to productivity. Measuring productivity was much easier for managers to do when everyone was in the office as employees would find it more difficult to hide attempts at slacking off. Those who are less productive when WFH are less willing to admit it and I believe it's the reason why whenever the topic of WFH comes up, it's drowned by the voices of all those who say it's been absolutely great for them.

I don't think anyone is going to argue about the conveniences this WFH culture has brought. And I'm certain there quite a number of people who can prove how much better their work has been because of this shift. Those who are being far less productive, though, are kinda ruining it for the rest of us and lots of managers know it. I think Satya is on point when he talked about what employers say about productivity and what their managers think is actually happening.

Measuring productivity is hard in and out of the office.

From personal experience, it was incredibly easy to do nothing when working from the office while remote you’re more held to your deliverables. In an office, it’s very common to see people look busy, but are just doing unrelated things.

The only difference is that in an office people mask their lack of productivity by pretending to be busy, whereas remote you don’t have to do that.

Why is measuring productivity easier to do in the office? Don’t your coworkers have deliverables? How does being in the office make it easier to tell if those deliverables are complete?

Eh. I could offer anecdotes ( as I am sure many would as well ) about office life and how much time is spent pretending to work by engaging in vaunted water cooler discussions that recent anti-WFH corporate propaganda had the balls to brand as spontaneous collaborations. And I am saying this with over 15 years of experience in corporate bullshittery.

I honestly do not count "is he in chair staring at screen" as productivity. I count successfully finished projects as such, which brings to question what those managers are trying to measure if they are clearly failing so badly at this. I said before and I will say it again. Managers in US had an easy ride for the past 7 or so decades. Now they are actually asked to work instead of 'managing by walking' and they can't handle it. They need 'throw away their skill set due to Covid'. See twin trail of tears in my eyes?

Managers have all the tools they need and then some. The sheer amount of corporate monitoring software on corporate lappy is beyond astounding. Our manager does not seem to care, but I am horrified to think what other managers use it for. It is very, very intrusive. In other words, if managers can't measure even with those ridiculous and invasive tools at their disposal, what are they doing exactly?

<<I think Satya is on point when he talked about what employers say about productivity and what their managers think is actually happening.

Satya may be repeating what the managers are saying, but managers are saying that they have to actually work for morale and motivation. The horror.

<<Those who are being far less productive, though, are kinda ruining it for the rest of us and lots of managers know it.

Well, is it not manager's job to motivate and coach the less productive employee?

If this is true, why was productivity so high pre-pandemic when everyone was in an office?

What everyone is ignoring is that financial speculation leaks into productivity numbers, and we went into a speculative boom during covid and have been in a speculative bust during this recent period.

This article and the chart within it reference the rate of change in productivity, but not the raw productivity number.

Without seeing those numbers, my assumption -- and what seems to be implied here -- is that productivity rose in early 2020 with remote work, and it is now dropping to pre-pandemic levels.