Working from home increases productivity

The argument

Working from home has proven to increase productivity in employees, and this argument explains why by looking at how the working day is actually spent rather than at how long it lasts. The core difference is the handling of attention. In an office setting a person is interrupted by coworkers frequently, so they lose concentration and then have to regain it — and the cost is not the interruption itself but the recovery afterwards, repeated through the day. Remote employees do not have to endure typical office distractions and conversations, so they remain focused for longer periods of time, and more of the hours worked are spent on the work. The effect has been measured. A study at Stanford University concluded there was a drastic boost in employee performance when staff were allowed to work from home: productivity increased by thirteen percent per week, which is equivalent to a full day of work. That is a gain of a whole working day's output from the same nominal week, obtained by changing where the work happens rather than by asking anyone to work harder. Other differences push in the same direction. Telecommuters often work longer hours, with shorter and less frequent breaks. Employees are also less likely to call in sick or take vacation days, since the minor illnesses and obligations that would cost an office worker a whole day need not cost a remote worker one. With no separation between office and home life, people typically spend more time working instead of commuting, taking a lunch break, or talking to coworkers — the time the office consumed around the work is returned to it. Companies are therefore able to earn more productivity out of their employees by allowing them to work from home, which is what makes remote work better than the traditional office on this argument.

Premises

Counter-arguments

People who work from home can expereince as many distractions as office workers. It is easy to go from doing work to slacking off because people cannot concentrate while working from their homes. Although some people may thrive while telecommuting some employees struggle to work independently without supervision from their boss.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The Stanford study is narrower than the use made of it: it followed call-centre staff at a single travel company doing highly measurable, self-contained work, among volunteers who had chosen to take part, and a substantial share of the measured gain came from more hours worked rather than more output per hour. That result does not carry over to collaborative or creative roles, and home working brings interruptions of its own, as the counter notes. [Rejecting P2] The second premise argues against the position it serves. Longer hours, fewer breaks, less sick and annual leave, and no boundary between home and work describe a transfer of the employee's time to the employer rather than a better arrangement for the worker — as the argument says outright when it concludes that companies 'earn more productivity out of their employees'. The question asks which is better, and a premise about extracting more hours leaves the sibling position that a balance is best entirely untouched.