Here are two interesting studies that explore the relationship between remote work (distributed teams) and innovation:
This one explores how distributed teams have impacted "disruptive scientific discoveries" from 1961 to 2020. To measure this they look at scientific discoveries that end up becoming widely cited, which they take to mean that the work has supplanted an existing body of knowledge. Here they find that distributed work is inversely correlated with disruptive innovation. It is fine for incremental improvements, but it is less than ideal for new foundational ideas. That said, they do note that new technologies -- stuff like Zoom -- have started to minimize the innovation gap by helping people communicate as if they were co-located.
But stuff like Zoom isn't perfect. The second study looks at the impact of virtual communication on idea generation. And what they find is that videoconferencing is bad for that, largely because it focuses people on a screen and "prompts a narrower cognitive focus." So if your job involves coming up with new ideas, Zoom may not be the best forum for that. But you probably already knew that.
Here are two interesting studies that explore the relationship between remote work (distributed teams) and innovation:
This one explores how distributed teams have impacted "disruptive scientific discoveries" from 1961 to 2020. To measure this they look at scientific discoveries that end up becoming widely cited, which they take to mean that the work has supplanted an existing body of knowledge. Here they find that distributed work is inversely correlated with disruptive innovation. It is fine for incremental improvements, but it is less than ideal for new foundational ideas. That said, they do note that new technologies -- stuff like Zoom -- have started to minimize the innovation gap by helping people communicate as if they were co-located.
But stuff like Zoom isn't perfect. The second study looks at the impact of virtual communication on idea generation. And what they find is that videoconferencing is bad for that, largely because it focuses people on a screen and "prompts a narrower cognitive focus." So if your job involves coming up with new ideas, Zoom may not be the best forum for that. But you probably already knew that.
One of the big questions for this year is about whether or not work from home (WFH) and work from anywhere (WFA) policies are going to stick following this pandemic. It's something that I mentioned in my 2021 predictions at the beginning of this year because it is something that would obviously have a massive ripple effect. So today I thought that it would be interesting to look back on data and articles that were published prior to 2020, before everyone really started prognosticating about the rise of fully distributed workforces.
What is clear, at least from census data, is that working from home was on the rise before COVID-19, but that it still only represented a relatively small percentage of the overall workforce. The numbers are significantly higher if you consider people who maybe occasionally worked from home, but for those who were 100% remote, it was estimated to be only about 5.2% of the US workforce in 2017 (~8 million people), about 5% in 2016, and about 3.3% in 2000. But the question still remains: Now that many/most people have had a taste of the increased flexibility, to what extent will it stick?
There's a ton of research out there about the impacts of working remotely -- covering everything from productivity to morale. But one takeaway that makes intuitive sense to me is that WFH/WFA flexibility is perhaps best when two things are present: 1) the employees already know how to do their job really well and 2) the work that these employees are doing is fairly independent.
The corollary to this is that remote work is probably not the best environment for newer and younger employees who would benefit from being around other more experienced people, and for situations where collaboration among coworkers and outside humans is essential for the job. When I think of the job of a real estate developer, I would place it high on the collaboration scale. Building a building involves a full orchestra of people that all need to be playing in sync. Personally, I find that easier to do when you're sitting across a table.
My belief continues to be that we are are greatly exaggerating the extent to which work is going to disperse in the short-term. I recognize the trend line that existed prior to this pandemic and I recognize that some jobs are perhaps well suited to decentralization. But I think we will continue to see real limits on how much of this sticks as we move past this moment in time and into 2022.
One of the big questions for this year is about whether or not work from home (WFH) and work from anywhere (WFA) policies are going to stick following this pandemic. It's something that I mentioned in my 2021 predictions at the beginning of this year because it is something that would obviously have a massive ripple effect. So today I thought that it would be interesting to look back on data and articles that were published prior to 2020, before everyone really started prognosticating about the rise of fully distributed workforces.
What is clear, at least from census data, is that working from home was on the rise before COVID-19, but that it still only represented a relatively small percentage of the overall workforce. The numbers are significantly higher if you consider people who maybe occasionally worked from home, but for those who were 100% remote, it was estimated to be only about 5.2% of the US workforce in 2017 (~8 million people), about 5% in 2016, and about 3.3% in 2000. But the question still remains: Now that many/most people have had a taste of the increased flexibility, to what extent will it stick?
There's a ton of research out there about the impacts of working remotely -- covering everything from productivity to morale. But one takeaway that makes intuitive sense to me is that WFH/WFA flexibility is perhaps best when two things are present: 1) the employees already know how to do their job really well and 2) the work that these employees are doing is fairly independent.
The corollary to this is that remote work is probably not the best environment for newer and younger employees who would benefit from being around other more experienced people, and for situations where collaboration among coworkers and outside humans is essential for the job. When I think of the job of a real estate developer, I would place it high on the collaboration scale. Building a building involves a full orchestra of people that all need to be playing in sync. Personally, I find that easier to do when you're sitting across a table.
My belief continues to be that we are are greatly exaggerating the extent to which work is going to disperse in the short-term. I recognize the trend line that existed prior to this pandemic and I recognize that some jobs are perhaps well suited to decentralization. But I think we will continue to see real limits on how much of this sticks as we move past this moment in time and into 2022.
Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it plans to return to an "office-centric culture" as its baseline. Its rationale was that being in an office allows the company to better "invent, collaborate, and learn together." All of this was laid out in an announcement that was distributed to its teams globally. On the other end of the spectrum, Twitter continues to double down on working from home. The company, which is currently hiring, is even trying to target talent that may be disgruntled by the fact that their current company is planning for them to return to the office. Two very different approaches. So which one is right?
This is, of course, a great debate right now and the right answer probably depends on a myriad of different factors, some of which are likely specific to the company. Dror Poleg has been trying to think through this problem with something he calls the talent equation (because it's all about talent). It works like this: level of in-person interaction x overall size of talent pool = innovation and financial success. The basis behind this equation is pretty simple. In-person interaction is great for business. This much we know. But you also need the right talent interacting. Allowing remote work is one way of expanding the size of your talent pool. But again, you do this at the expense of in-person interaction.
In-person interaction is what makes cities the great organisms that they are. And I believe firmly in this side of the equation over the long-term. Even right now I find that when I go into the office, my call and Zoom volumes go down dramatically and I have more time to think, collaborate, and do, you know, actual work. This is because many interactions don't require a Zoom meeting when you're in the office. You stop by someone's desk. You ask a thing (usually pretty quickly). And then you go off and action that thing. But I also acknowledge that for some companies, access to the right talent -- and lots of it -- may be a real challenge, particularly in smaller cities.
Like Amazon, I am a supporter of office-centric work cultures. But I do think that Poleg's talent equation is a useful way to think about this debate right now.
Earlier this week, Amazon announced that it plans to return to an "office-centric culture" as its baseline. Its rationale was that being in an office allows the company to better "invent, collaborate, and learn together." All of this was laid out in an announcement that was distributed to its teams globally. On the other end of the spectrum, Twitter continues to double down on working from home. The company, which is currently hiring, is even trying to target talent that may be disgruntled by the fact that their current company is planning for them to return to the office. Two very different approaches. So which one is right?
This is, of course, a great debate right now and the right answer probably depends on a myriad of different factors, some of which are likely specific to the company. Dror Poleg has been trying to think through this problem with something he calls the talent equation (because it's all about talent). It works like this: level of in-person interaction x overall size of talent pool = innovation and financial success. The basis behind this equation is pretty simple. In-person interaction is great for business. This much we know. But you also need the right talent interacting. Allowing remote work is one way of expanding the size of your talent pool. But again, you do this at the expense of in-person interaction.
In-person interaction is what makes cities the great organisms that they are. And I believe firmly in this side of the equation over the long-term. Even right now I find that when I go into the office, my call and Zoom volumes go down dramatically and I have more time to think, collaborate, and do, you know, actual work. This is because many interactions don't require a Zoom meeting when you're in the office. You stop by someone's desk. You ask a thing (usually pretty quickly). And then you go off and action that thing. But I also acknowledge that for some companies, access to the right talent -- and lots of it -- may be a real challenge, particularly in smaller cities.
Like Amazon, I am a supporter of office-centric work cultures. But I do think that Poleg's talent equation is a useful way to think about this debate right now.
