What is the value of outsourcing for the workplace? Image by Tim Sandle
The unnecessarily vexed question about remote working is finally getting answers that should surprise no one. A study published by Melbourne University has crunched some significant numbers. The study includes 20 years of data in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey.
The study specifically omitted the pandemic era, job losses, and major life events. These atypical situations aren’t really ballpark for a general overview of remote work.
Important, please note: Before I deluge this article with a series of caveats – The whole idea of this study is critically important, filling a huge gap in assessing core realities in the workplace. Credit is due for even trying to nail down this major issue.
The modern workplace isn’t some sort of Earthly paradise:
Employee turnover, office politics, office wars, and the sledgehammerlike facts of the disincentivization of the work ethic are very big deals if you know what the word “productivity” means.
The workplace is absurdly, expensively, and unrealistically hostile to remote work. Reality for employees onsite and off never gets a word in. Nor do the costs of work to employees. The exceptionally high stresses of both work and cost of living are typically brushed off in some pitiful AIgenerated executive summary.
The study has its own internal factors to manage:
The study has some issues with definitions. A bit of nitpicking is required here. The study specifically says that working from home benefited people with mental health issues, but not so much those without issues.
Ahem. How do you define mental health? How many people admit to having mental health issues? Being smug and arrogant in a managerial role doesn’t mean you’re a picture of mental wellbeing.
Real things have changed, too. 20 years ago, mental health was already a very big issue in the workplace, but hardly on the same scale as it is now. The pandemic changed the values of working from home permanently. Turnover has gone down more due to cost pressures than happiness in the workplace.
The economics of an office job haven’t changed. They’ve got a lot worse. You’re still spending about two hours of what might otherwise be productive time just getting to work. Employers are still paying a fortune to run a bricksandmortar workplace.
“Mental health” is also far too big a picture with more than a few holes in it as applied to individuals. There can be no onesizefitsall for mental health. The common currency for mental health issues is stress. Stress is personal. Stress levels vary a lot in accordance with individual circumstances and specific environments.
Nor has anyone ever claimed that the modern workplace is somehow stressfree. The workplace is highly stressful for workers who may have been in grade school when this study started.
Let’s not avoid the good news.
There were definite benefits from working for home for those with mental health issues, however defined.
Reduced commuting also helped. The study noted that many people actually had quite short commutes.
Remote work was identified as a positive in worklife balance.
That’s not at all surprising, given that the workplace still runs on antiquated Industrial Revolution principles.
Now – Does any of the above indicate any sort of reevaluation or progress in addressing realworld issues? Alternative working arrangements work for some people.
OK, now realize that 1 in 4 people have or will have mental health issues. That stat is not debatable. 25% of the workplace can’t be ignored. Point made?
It might also be advisable to point out in executive summaries that this is no longer the Middle Ages. If you want to play office, at least count the costs, human and financial, of still living in the 1950s.
AI will obliterate the workplace soon enough. Now is the time to acknowledge facts.
