Harvard Business Review: Women want to work from home too much, so don't let them.

[Metaphor]

https://hbr.org/2021/05/dont-let-employees-pick-their-wfh-days

...
We’ve been surveying more than 30,000 Americans monthly since May 2020 and our research data shows that post-pandemic, 32% of employees say they never want to return to working in the office. These are often employees with young kids, who live in the suburbs, for whom the commute is painful and home can be rather pleasant. At the other extreme, 21% tell us they never want to spend another day working from home. These are often young single employees or empty nesters in city center apartments.

...

But others raise two concerns — concerns, which after talking to hundreds of organizations over the last year, have led me to change my advice from supporting to being against employees’ choosing their own WFH days.


One concern is managing a hybrid team, where some people are at home and others are at the office. I hear endless anxiety about this generating an office in-group and a home out-group. For example, employees at home can see glances or whispering in the office conference room but can’t tell exactly what is going on. Even when firms try to avoid this by requiring office employees to take video calls from their desks, home employees have told me that they can still feel excluded. They know after the meeting ends the folks in the office may chat in the corridor or go grab a coffee together.
The second concern is the risk to diversity. It turns out that who wants to work from home after the pandemic is not random. In our research we find, for example, that among college graduates with young children women want to work from home full-time almost 50% more than men.


...
Adding this up you can see how allowing employees to choose their WFH schedules could contribute to a diversity crisis. Single young men could all choose to come into the office five days a week and rocket up the firm, while employees with young children, particularly women, who choose to WFH for several days each week are held back. This would be both a diversity loss and a legal time bomb for companies.


So I have changed my mind and started advising firms that managers should decide which days their team should WFH.
...

God I love how leftists really champion working people, unless working people's preferences interfere with leftist religion. Then it's time for women to suck it up and come into the office, even if they don't want to or have to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is what happens when you base "discrimination" on disparate outcomes.

 

[Arctish]

The thread title is grossly misleading.

The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.

 

[Metaphor]

The thread title is grossly misleading.

The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.

It is not misleading, let alone 'grossly'.

The author argues that because women want to work from home more than men do (the 'too much' of my title), that employers ought control both the number of days (don't let them indulge in their wishes of more days at home compared to men) and the timing of the days that employees be allowed to work from home.

The author backflipped on his earlier recommendation of letting employees choose how much to work from home, because he thinks women's personal autonomy leads to troubling non-diverse outcomes, and he is willing to sacrifice that autonomy on the altar of diversity.

I was able to work from home for the first time in my life starting in 2020, due to the change in culture brought about by COVID. It was wonderful. Now the diversicrats think employers should go back to removing some of that freedom and autonomy because women make different decisions to men, and those decisions must be corrected.

 

[Arctish]

The thread title is grossly misleading.

The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.

It is not misleading, let alone 'grossly'.

The author argues that because women want to work from home more than men do (the 'too much' of my title), that employers ought control both the number of days (don't let them indulge in their wishes of more days at home compared to men) and the timing of the days that employees be allowed to work from home.

No, it's misleading, and grossly so.

The author begins the article with this:

As U.S. states and the federal government start to roll back Covid-19 restrictions, and companies and workers start to firm up their office return plans, one point is becoming clear: The future of working from home (WFH) is hybrid. In research with my colleagues Jose Maria Barrero and Steven J. Davis, as well as discussions with hundreds of managers across different industries, I’m finding that about 70% of firms, from tiny companies to massive multinationals like Google, Citi, and HSBC, plan to move to some form of hybrid working.

But another question is controversial: How much choice should workers have in the matter?

He then goes on to talk about employees, not women or men or other gender presentations. He's talking about all employees, not just the female kind.

He says that many managers are passionate that their employees should determine their own schedule, but 32% of employees say they never want to return to working in the office, while 21% say they never want to spend another day working from home. He says that allowing the employees to choose their own work from home schedules raises two concerns: the difficulty of managing a hybrid team and people feeling excluded, and the risk to diversity. It is only then that the author makes any sort of distinction between male and female employees, saying that "among college graduates with young children women want to work from home full-time almost 50% more than men." And then he goes right back to talking about employees in general.

He presents a hypothetical in which "ingle young men could all choose to come into the office five days a week and rocket up the firm, while employees with young children, particularly women, who choose to WFH for several days each week are held back". Note that he says "particularly" women, not exclusively women. He calls it a diversity loss and a legal time bomb for companies. He says that for these reasons he has started advising firms that managers should decide which days their team should WFH.

The author backflipped on his earlier recommendation of letting employees choose how much to work from home, because he thinks women's personal autonomy leads to troubling non-diverse outcomes, and he is willing to sacrifice that autonomy on the altar of diversity.

He said nothing of the sort. That's just you adding your own spin to a pretty straightforward discussion of teamwork and basic management of employees.

I was able to work from home for the first time in my life starting in 2020, due to the change in culture brought about by COVID. It was wonderful. Now the diversicrats think employers should go back to removing some of that freedom and autonomy because women make different decisions to men, and those decisions must be corrected.

Ah, so this is all about you wanting to work from home too much.

Got it.

 

[Metaphor]

He then goes on to talk about employees, not women or men or other gender presentations. He's talking about all employees, not just the female kind.

He says that many managers are passionate that their employees should determine their own schedule, but 32% of employees say they never want to return to working in the office, while 21% say they never want to spend another day working from home. He says that allowing the employees to choose their own work from home schedules raises two concerns: the difficulty of managing a hybrid team and people feeling excluded, and the risk to diversity. It is only then that the author makes any sort of distinction between male and female employees, saying that "among college graduates with young children women want to work from home full-time almost 50% more than men." And then he goes right back to talking about employees in general.

He presents a hypothetical in which "ingle young men could all choose to come into the office five days a week and rocket up the firm, while employees with young children, particularly women, who choose to WFH for several days each week are held back". Note that he says "particularly" women, not exclusively women. He calls it a diversity loss and a legal time bomb for companies. He says that for these reasons he has started advising firms that managers should decide which days their team should WFH.

I have no idea how it's a 'diversity loss'. I literally can't figure it. If anything, his recommendations will drive employees disposed to 'office attendance' to companies that want office attendance, and drive employees that want maximal WFH to companies that allow maximal WFH, thus reducing diversity in 'forced' scenarios.

He has suggested it's a 'legal' time bomb but hasn't suggested how, or if there is any other way to mitigate the 'time bomb' except by reducing employee autonomy.

He said nothing of the sort. That's just you adding your own spin to a pretty straightforward discussion of teamwork and basic management of employees.

Of course he did not say that, but his discussion and conclusion implies it. If instead there was no difference between men and women's preferences in number of WFH days desired, or it didn't have a relationship to promotions, I doubt very much he would argue for reducing employee autonomy.

Ah, so this is all about you wanting to work from home too much.

Got it.

No: the article is all about a woke diversicrat at HBR who wants to reduce employee autonomy because he believes absent this reduction, women would make choices he doesn't like.

Some people want to come in five days a week, some people want to come in zero days a week. Reducing employee autonomy in allowing them to decide for themselves is a disbenefit no matter which side of the fence you are on.

I'd expect the allegedly pro-labour left to want employees increased autonomy. But apparently there are higher purposes than people's preferences. The preferences of the left for equity, for example.

 

[Gospel]

I'd rather eat boiled peanuts than admit this but I think Metaphor's take is correct.

 

[fromderinside]

I'd rather eat boiled peanuts than admit this but I think Metaphor's take is correct.

Boiled peanuts are great. Metaphor's take not so much. We learn from the pandemic that most American workers can be productive for their companies from home.

As for problems that will make for large office spaces I say convert them to living spaces so people won't have to live in shacks in the sticks.

Leave those spaces for retirees so they can enjoy themselves. They're mostly conservative any way so they can be with the addicts, fishermen, loggers, farmers, and other ner'do-well conservatives in intellectual deserts.

Its obvious Americans are selfish so why not let the old folk live in rural slums with no hospitals. I'm old and I'm up for the drive if I want to have good care.

So FU selfish ones.

 

[Arctish]

I'd rather eat boiled peanuts than admit this but I think Metaphor's take is correct.

His take on the article in the OP, or his take on the issue of employees being the ones to decide when they work from home and when they come into the office?

The only time I've ever had the 'autonomy' to decide when I would be at a workplace was when I was an Uber driver. Other than that, it was always my manager's decision when and whether I was physically present at the business. So I don't really get what's the big whoop about a business advisor advising businesses to have their managers make those decisions.

 

[Metaphor]

I'd rather eat boiled peanuts than admit this but I think Metaphor's take is correct.

His take on the article in the OP, or his take on the issue of employees being the ones to decide when they work from home and when they come into the office?

The only time I've ever had the 'autonomy' to decide when I would be at a workplace was when I was an Uber driver. Other than that, it was always my manager's decision when and whether I was physically present at the business. So I don't really get what's the big whoop about a business advisor advising businesses to have their managers make those decisions.

Employee autonomy is valuable to employees. In fact, low autonomy often correlates with low job satisfaction.

I like working from home and I object to bullshit reasons for that choice to be taken away or reduced. That women want more days working from home is a bullshit reason to reduce employee autonomy and take away WFH choice.

 

[Politesse]

Nick Bloom is a "Leftist"? Words have lost all meaning.

 

[prideandfall]

Employee autonomy is valuable to employees. In fact, low autonomy often correlates with low job satisfaction.

I like working from home and I object to bullshit reasons for that choice to be taken away or reduced. That women want more days working from home is a bullshit reason to reduce employee autonomy and take away WFH choice.

so, given that your posting history on this forum that isn't your gender-based hobby horse is notably pro-corporate and blindly in favor of the cultural worship of predatory capitalism, how do you square these two ideas?

employee autonomy is directly in opposition to corporatethink, which staunchly demands total control over every second of an employee's life and only begrudgingly concedes a couple hours per day for sleep and biological needs.
it seems like getting to tell you when and where you work, with or without a valid reason, would be entirely within the scope of what you support.

 

[Metaphor]

so, given that your posting history on this forum that isn't your gender-based hobby horse is notably pro-corporate and blindly in favor of the cultural worship of predatory capitalism, how do you square these two ideas?

Produce evidence of my 'notably pro-corporate' posts as well as my 'cultural worship of predatory capitalism'. I'll confess I don't quite know what you mean by the latter so I don't know if I've been guilty of it.

employee autonomy is directly in opposition to corporatethink, which staunchly demands total control over every second of an employee's life and only begrudgingly concedes a couple hours per day for sleep and biological needs.
it seems like getting to tell you when and where you work, with or without a valid reason, would be entirely within the scope of what you support.

You appear to have a number of unevidenced and false beliefs about what I support. I support corporations making products and services for consumers. I oppose corporations doing bullshit things for bullshit reasons, like reducing employee autonomy in the name of equity, virtue-signalling Pride in safe, secular, Western nations and failing to do so in places that might actually benefit, and building unwanted, unfree, censored "safe spaces" for me that I did not ask for. Bullshit like that.

 

[Arctish]

I'd rather eat boiled peanuts than admit this but I think Metaphor's take is correct.

His take on the article in the OP, or his take on the issue of employees being the ones to decide when they work from home and when they come into the office?

The only time I've ever had the 'autonomy' to decide when I would be at a workplace was when I was an Uber driver. Other than that, it was always my manager's decision when and whether I was physically present at the business. So I don't really get what's the big whoop about a business advisor advising businesses to have their managers make those decisions.

Employee autonomy is valuable to employees. In fact, low autonomy often correlates with low job satisfaction.

It would be nice if you cited a source for that claim but I'll accept at face value that people like autonomy if you accept at face value that they also like getting money, and most people will give up a bit of one in order to get a bit of the other

I like working from home and I object to bullshit reasons for that choice to be taken away or reduced. That women want more days working from home is a bullshit reason to reduce employee autonomy and take away WFH choice.

That is not the reason given in the article. That's your own bullshit you're looking at.

 

[Metaphor]

It would be nice if you cited a source for that claim but I'll accept at face value that people like autonomy if you accept at face value that they also like getting money, and most people will give up a bit of one in order to get a bit of the other

Sure? I didn't argue or imply otherwise.

That is not the reason given in the article. That's your own bullshit you're looking at.

The reasoning is in the article. The author spells out his disaster scenario in detail. Young men (but not young women, for some reason) would rock up in person five days a week, while others (particularly women) would choose more WFH days. Down the track, the people who did more office time are more likely to be promoted, and that would mean more men would be promoted.

This would not be good for 'diversity', so we should not allow employees to choose the number or the timing of their days off.

That men and women have different preferences on average for wanting to work from home, and this may lead to differential promotion, is a bullshit reason to reduce WFH choice.

 

[laughing dog]

I read the HBR article. The author is making the point that it may make business sense to require or expect in person work for two major reasons - managing personnel is easier in person, and that lack of attendance tends to reduce promotion chances.

In this thread, there does not seem to be much (if any) dispute about the accuracy of those reasons. I think the advice the columnist says he will give is a little too strong. I think it would be better for him to advise businesses about these possibilities and their effects on productivity, promotions, etc.... because each business will have a different culture which may allow for more tailored policies.

The concern about the reduction in promotion chances for women because they tend to choose to work more from home is not "woke". It has been around for at least 4 decades. It is reactionary claptrap to invoke "woke".

The idea that mandating some in-person work is necessarily a "disbenefit" to everyone is wrong. There people who prefer to use rules to justify their choices - it gives them cover for the choices they would like to make.

Moreover, restricting the possible choices to employees by requiring in-person work does have an expected benefit to the company (in terms of productivity) and a possible future benefit to those who would have chosen to stay home more (increased chance of promotion). So there are clearly benefits and costs to such policies. Criticizing them because one fears it may restrict one's choice while explicitly ignoring those benefitw seems, at a minimum, rather overly narrow-minded.

 

[Gospel]

Psshaw, No one on this thread claimed that "mandating some in-person work is necessarily a "disbenefit". Metaphor did however call the reason given in the article for making it a mandate; bullshit. That I agree with.

So what if more women than men decide to work from home. Hows about you change your promotion triggers to something other than coffee machine talk. I don't get what the difference is between Working from home or in the office if the work is getting done. At that point, it's things like speed, efficiency, and the ability to problem-solve that matter. Ya know, results. Fuck basing it on who walked into the boss's office and kisses his/her ass every morning.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thread title is grossly misleading.

The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.

It's in favor of not allowing people to choose when to work at home because that could result in a disparate impact. In other words, women are not to be allowed to choose a path that is better for them but which might hold back their career.

 

[laughing dog]

The thread title is grossly misleading.

The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.

It's in favor of not allowing people to choose when to work at home because that could result in a disparate impact. In other words, women are not to be allowed to choose a path that is better for them but which might hold back their career.

Did it occur to you that holding back a career might not be considered better?

 

[Trausti]

The thread title is grossly misleading.

The linked article's author argues against allowing employees to choose which days they will work from home, and in favor of businesses making that decision based on business needs and fairness in the workplace.

It's in favor of not allowing people to choose when to work at home because that could result in a disparate impact. In other words, women are not to be allowed to choose a path that is better for them but which might hold back their career.

Did it occur to you that holding back a career might not be considered better?

Who gets to make that choice?