Read on Twitter
Back in 2010, four economists ran a fascinating randomized experiment that assigned workers in China to work from home https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/f/wfh.pdf
They found WFH raised productivity, increased work satisfaction, and reduced worker attrition [though promotion rate fell]
![Back in 2010, four economists ran a fascinating randomized experiment that assigned workers in China to work from home https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/f/wfh.pdfThey found WFH raised productivity, increased work satisfaction, and reduced worker attrition [though promotion rate fell]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EVKheHKUUAEWmK4.png "Back in 2010, four economists ran a fascinating randomized experiment that assigned workers in China to work from home https://nbloom.people.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/f/wfh.pdfThey found WFH raised productivity, increased work satisfaction, and reduced worker attrition [though promotion rate fell]")
They found WFH raised productivity, increased work satisfaction, and reduced worker attrition [though promotion rate fell]
Q: "Why did the firm not introduce WFH before?"
Authors speculate:
- Free-rider problem in process innovation (rivals would imitate)
- Career concerns of senior managers; in fact, experiment got off the ground b/c a co-author was the chairman (& co-founding CEO) of the company
Authors speculate:
- Free-rider problem in process innovation (rivals would imitate)
- Career concerns of senior managers; in fact, experiment got off the ground b/c a co-author was the chairman (& co-founding CEO) of the company
After running the randomized experiment, the company learned that allowing work from home raised profits and decided to stick with it going forward
This paper makes me think that the temporary "shock" of WFH right now for many firms may have permanent effects -- as companies realize that WFH can actually increase productivity and profitability in some cases </thread>
