tl;dr : There’s no difference in performance between in-work versus home/hybrid models
For my academically-inclined peeps, an interesting randomised study into office-versus-hybrid performance.
The quick version is that, when we create purposeful interventions, there’s no difference in performance between in-office, at-home or a combination of the two, based on performance reviews.
There are two challenges to consider though:
It all comes down to creating a purposeful culture.
What are you trying to achieve and how do you create an environment that nurtures those supporting behaviours?
From Minervra Psychology:
Believing it does is fueling many return-to-office mandates.Wouldn’t it be good if someone had run a randomized controlled trial to check this out…?
Well, they have.
A recent 6 month RCT explored the effects of hybrid working on 1,612 employees in a Chinese travel tech company*. Employees were randomly allocated so they either worked from home on two days and come into the office on three days (hybrid), or were onsite for all five days.
The results suggest:
Takeaway: Hybrid working from home (3-2 model) appears to improve retention without damaging performance.
Of course, this may not apply to all jobs and may not suit all people. And there may be cultural and other effects at play. However, the debate about hybrid working is mired in opinion and power politics, and very little fact. Here are some facts.
“Firgun”, “#HappyBeesMakeTastyHoney” and the hexagon device are registered trademarks of Firgun Ltd.
Registered in England and Wales: 13907991. Copyright 2023 | Firgun Ltd – All rights reserved.