Study shows remote workers are becoming more, not less engaged

[Daniel Sims]

The big picture: The backlash against the rise of remote work was probably inevitable. Some who favor returning to offices claim that remote employees become less engaged over time, but a recent study suggests the opposite. It also provides some possible tips on improving remote work.

A recent analysis of millions of teleconferenced meetings suggests that remote workers increased their engagement with colleagues between 2020 and 2022, contrary to previous assumptions. The results have limitations but show that work-from-home interactions changed over time without decreasing frequency.

Teleconferencing and collaboration analytics company Vyopta compared remote meetings during the six weeks from April to mid-May in 2020, 2021, and 2022. The company collected metadata from Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Webex conferences from 10 large global companies. The analysis showed that over those three years, companies generally transitioned to holding a higher number of short meetings with smaller numbers of employees.

From 2020 to 2022, the observed companies increased the number of teleconferences by 60 percent, from an average of five to eight weekly meetings per employee. However, those sessions became 25 percent shorter, from an average of 43 to 33 minutes. Furthermore, the number of participants fell by half, from 20 to 10. Vyopta chalks these changes up to the rise in spontaneous one-on-one gatherings during the observed period.

The metadata told Vyopta which meetings were scheduled on calendars and which used functions like Microsoft Teams' "Meet Now." In 2020, 17 percent of employee discussions were one-to-one, and 17 percent were impromptu. In 2022, 42 percent were one-to-one, and 66 percent were spontaneous. Vyopta speculates these meetings could be replicating frequent-but-brief in-person interactions in offices.

The study also showed that employees who eventually left companies were less engaged in remote meetings. They participated in 67 percent fewer spontaneous one-on-one interactions, 22 percent fewer scheduled one-on-one meetings, and 20 percent fewer group gatherings.

The data indicates that remote engagement is vital to employee retention for companies with many remote workers. Vyopta suggests that companies should try to strengthen interactions with workers who seem to be drifting away, ideally through open conversations about why they are disengaging.

The main limitation of Vyopta's analysis is that it only sees remote interactions. Therefore, it can't account for the return to the office or the emergence of hybrid work for a fair comparison. The study also can't prove or disprove how many remote workers feigned engagement to look busy.

The company used its data to offer some suggestions to improve teleconferencing. Vyopta said companies with remote workers should ensure employee schedule overlapping, though within reason since some employees could be in significantly different time zones. They also shouldn't mandate video conferencing, as audio-only interactions can improve social bonds and prevent "Zoom fatigue."

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/96943-study-shows-remote-workers-becoming-more-not-less.html

 

[psycros]

"The main limitation of Vyopta's analysis is that it only sees remote interactions. Therefore, it can't account for the return to the office or the emergence of hybrid work for a fair comparison. The study also can't prove or disprove how many remote workers feigned engagement to look busy."

So its a worthless study..but we all knew that, because literally nobody engages with coworkers more than they absolutely have to unless their also friends off-the-job.

 

[Puiu]

Wait... more but shorter meetings means only 1 thing: people have a much harder time understanding what to do and productivity drops. Instead of using 5 seconds to ask a colleague next to them they need to do meetings.

This is a worthless study.

 

[Hexic]

Depends on how work is managed. The WFH theory will always work, and has benefits and detriments to the environment. Most desk jobs don't need an office, end of story. The fact that companies don't know how to effectively manage remote employees doesn't mean that it hasn't been a success for a long time, and education is much needed on this subject.

These studies are useless indeed, because WFH has been actively working for 15 years already. The rest of the world just woke up to it.

 

[Mike Tolliver]

A huge thanks to TECHSPOT for covering this, much appreciated. I wanted to point out that the primary factor in overall meeting length decreasing is due to the disproportionate increase in 1:1 meetings – which tend to be shorter in duration (although group meetings did get slightly shorter on their own). Those 1:1s also represented the biggest gap between employees who would later leave their company and those who stayed, and in my opinion it’s reasonable to infer a certain level of importance, especially for the spontaneous interactions. We felt it was necessary to mention the narrative of feigning engagement given the media interest around that in recent months. While studies like this aren’t intended to provide complete, definitive conclusions, it does offer a solid data point on the matter. And that’s largely the goal of publishing the content – providing solid data points that thoughtful organizational leaders can use to make iterative improvements.

 

[waclark]

The analysis showed that over those three years, companies generally transitioned to holding a higher number of short meetings with smaller numbers of employees.

I don't know how you get a headline that says employees are more engaged from this data. It appears they are less engaged in the big meetings requiring a follow up, one-on-one, to cover topics likely already covered. When it comes to remote work, it really depends on what you are doing as to whether it's effective or not. I have been working remote for years, pre-pandemic. A lot of what I do is interact with customers all over the world so face-to-face meetings are impractical. For the most part it's worked well but I can say that we do rehash topics in a second meeting that was covered in the preliminary call. I also do training videos and doing them at home is less effective than doing them in an office set up for that kind of work. You get the odd dog barking outside, or the landscaper running the leaf blower at all the wrong times.

I do miss the camaraderie of working in the office, but I sure don't miss the commute.

 

[BadThad]

I'd say a lot of this depends on the job. I've been working hybrid with 3 days at home - I am WAY more productive from home, it's not even close. Being a senior person I get bombarded at the office with questions, at home they send me an email and I can answer at my leisure. My "engagement" is exactly the same from home, it's just more on my terms. I love it because I don't have people knocking on my door every few minutes!

 

[p51d007]

WFH opponents? MIDDLE management...their jobs are threatened.

 

[Hodor]

Working from home is worse than working in office. Typing messages and using Zoom calls is not even close to talking to colleagues in person. It makes the work more stressful. After several months the stress accumulates and one can just snap.

Another thing. If you're not in the same time zone as the rest of the team, but you still work as if you're in the same zone, you can suffer from sleep disorders. Which can cause psychological and dietary problems (because you eat at time that is unnatural for your stomach).

Finally, people that work remotely are more likely to smoke weed. Probably because of the reasons above. Which reduces their efficiency to basically zero.

 

[m3tavision]

Depends on how work is managed. The WFH theory will always work, and has benefits and detriments to the environment. Most desk jobs don't need an office, end of story. The fact that companies don't know how to effectively manage remote employees doesn't mean that it hasn't been a success for a long time, and education is much needed on this subject.

These studies are useless indeed, because WFH has been actively working for 15 years already. The rest of the world just woke up to it.

Imagine a call, or teleconference, that last 8 hours... like, with co-workers who are within a glance of each other, able to converse normally and quickly and fluidly...!

Imagine thinking at conference call is remotely as good as a conference room... then making a chart based on that failed assumption.

 

[Hexic]

Imagine a call, or teleconference, that last 8 hours... like, with co-workers who are within a glance of each other, able to converse normally and quickly and fluidly...!

Imagine thinking at conference call is remotely as good as a conference room... then making a chart based on that failed assumption.

It was a little amusing in 2020 when the company I was consulting for was going through the stages of desperation to try and keep some IT/analysts on-site.

So they did, and just as you said - it was 3-6 hours a day for them at their desks, looking at (and easily hearing) their coworkers chat... in the same meetings, all day. So much for driving to work to sit on the same meetings you can take from home for 8 hours.

8 times out of 10 (because there are exceptions), I'll take a virtual conference room where they're sharing & discussing the same content remotely as they would in person anyways.

 

[m3tavision]

It was a little amusing in 2020 when the company I was consulting for was going through the stages of desperation to try and keep some IT/analysts on-site.

So they did, and just as you said - it was 3-6 hours a day for them at their desks, looking at (and easily hearing) their coworkers chat... in the same meetings, all day. So much for driving to work to sit on the same meetings you can take from home for 8 hours.

8 times out of 10 (because there are exceptions), I'll take a virtual conference room where they're sharing & discussing the same content remotely as they would in person anyways.

How do you leave the board room, oversee your work force..? What metric is being used for work..? Conversation is quality, it's not productivity... in the end you have to have a product you deliver to your boss.

 

[Hexic]

How do you leave the board room, oversee your work force..? What metric is being used for work..? Conversation is quality, it's not productivity... in the end you have to have a product you deliver to your boss.

There are certain systems and processes in place to gauge rough metrics of 'activity' for our remote employees - but ultimately these tools don't paint a picture that's complete.

To fully answer your question, we simply employ self sufficient human beings who can manage their own schedules to a degree, and can be trusted that "X" will be routed for review by "Y" timeframe. Everyone still reports to a boss, the normal hierarchy is there.

The bottom line is we judge productivity through work output, not paranoia of what "could" happen if we give our people independence.

And I'm convinced after years of physical board room meetings (and then converted remote) - I'm convinced the best board room to meet in, is one that can be anywhere, anytime, and for as long as you would like.

 

[m3tavision]

There are certain systems and processes in place to gauge rough metrics of 'activity' for our remote employees - but ultimately these tools don't paint a picture that's complete.

To fully answer your question, we simply employ self sufficient human beings who can manage their own schedules to a degree, and can be trusted that "X" will be routed for review by "Y" timeframe. Everyone still reports to a boss, the normal hierarchy is there.

The bottom line is we judge productivity through work output, not paranoia of what "could" happen if we give our people independence.

And I'm convinced after years of physical board room meetings (and then converted remote) - I'm convinced the best board room to meet in, is one that can be anywhere, anytime, and for as long as you would like.

... in ur business.

The metric didn't include all types of offices. It's casual business sectors moving in that direction.

 

[Hexic]

... in ur business.

The metric didn't include all types of offices. It's casual business sectors moving in that direction.

Not the case - I consult for one of the largest firms in the world, 350,000 employees+, we're the opposite of casual business sectors; we wrote some of the book of how to "business".

 

[m3tavision]

Not the case - I consult for one of the largest firms in the world, 350,000 employees+, we're the opposite of casual business sectors; we wrote some of the book of how to "business".

No, it's the casual business sector that is moving in that direction...

Sales & contact sales is so much different than an actual office environment, where the product is not on the other end of a phone. Sales is casual work... it's not research, or group collaborations, or even teamwork. It's outcome based work... based on sales metrics.

Obviously, sales & marketing people can work from their car.... don't need an office and don't need others. They don't even need to know who their co-workers are. (They don't even need a boss, whom Only exists to register their performance.)

Similarly if you are a social justice warrior at twitter... u never need to come into work, because you produce nothing... u are service sector. U can 100% do that from home, or subway... Warranty work... u can do that from home, because it's service sector and it's customer service... again, the product is the phone.

Phone jobs can be done nearly anywhere... nobody is denying that.

 

[zulu53]

Depends on how work is managed. The WFH theory will always work, and has benefits and detriments to the environment. Most desk jobs don't need an office, end of story. The fact that companies don't know how to effectively manage remote employees doesn't mean that it hasn't been a success for a long time, and education is much needed on this subject.

These studies are useless indeed, because WFH has been actively working for 15 years already. The rest of the world just woke up to it.

WFH has been going on for at least most of my industrial plant design career going back to the mid 1980's; so at least 35 years already. As you say a useless study - like the number of interactions between humans has any relationship to the output quality of the interaction.

 

[zulu53]

No, it's the casual business sector that is moving in that direction...

Sales & contact sales is so much different than an actual office environment, where the product is not on the other end of a phone. Sales is casual work... it's not research, or group collaborations, or even teamwork. It's outcome based work... based on sales metrics.

Obviously, sales & marketing people can work from their car.... don't need an office and don't need others. They don't even need to know who their co-workers are. (They don't even need a boss, whom Only exists to register their performance.)

Similarly if you are a social justice warrior at twitter... u never need to come into work, because you produce nothing... u are service sector. U can 100% do that from home, or subway... Warranty work... u can do that from home, because it's service sector and it's customer service... again, the product is the phone.

Phone jobs can be done nearly anywhere... nobody is denying that.

Raises that question: is "sales" really work?

 

[zulu53]

Depends on how work is managed. The WFH theory will always work, and has benefits and detriments to the environment. Most desk jobs don't need an office, end of story. The fact that companies don't know how to effectively manage remote employees doesn't mean that it hasn't been a success for a long time, and education is much needed on this subject.

These studies are useless indeed, because WFH has been actively working for 15 years already. The rest of the world just woke up to it.

WFH works in only fairly small niches in any collabrative business (one involving teams) where the productivity of the team is paramount for the good performance of the business (say all business sectors where there is competition between separate organizations). I read some information from the 1940's in the UK (it was called "Operational Reseach" at that time) that showed how much WFH could be allowed before productivity dropped; and it wasn't much. At that time they had, of course, the ultimate incentive since if they could have more WFH workers they would not have to "clump" them in an office and have the whole team disapear under one of Hitlers bombs. Human activites require human engagement in person to be the most productive in a team activity. Technology and human evolution through 2-3 generations has not changed that, based on my experience over the last 40 years.; the hubris of youth be damned.

 

[m3tavision]

Raises that question: is "sales" really work?

Well... you have different sectors of the economy.. manufacturing, service, military, educational, financial, agriculture... etc.

But the service sector is the least productive (by nature) and have the least amount of educational needs and sole service is to cater to people.

 

[Hexic]

No, it's the casual business sector that is moving in that direction...

Sales & contact sales is so much different than an actual office environment, where the product is not on the other end of a phone. Sales is casual work... it's not research, or group collaborations, or even teamwork. It's outcome based work... based on sales metrics.

Obviously, sales & marketing people can work from their car.... don't need an office and don't need others. They don't even need to know who their co-workers are. (They don't even need a boss, whom Only exists to register their performance.)

Similarly if you are a social justice warrior at twitter... u never need to come into work, because you produce nothing... u are service sector. U can 100% do that from home, or subway... Warranty work... u can do that from home, because it's service sector and it's customer service... again, the product is the phone.

Phone jobs can be done nearly anywhere... nobody is denying that.

You misunderstand the breadth of the work from home industry - because you've proven you aren't apart of it.

Almost every sector of industry is currently taking apart in, and benefitting from WFH. Software development, software/electrical/mechanical engineering, project management, accounting, HR and IT are just a few of the large departments of industry that are (successfully) relying in WFH in heavy capacities.

I'm not sure what you've heard, or what you read - but it's flat out incorrect.

 

[Hexic]

WFH works in only fairly small niches in any collabrative business (one involving teams) where the productivity of the team is paramount for the good performance of the business (say all business sectors where there is competition between separate organizations). I read some information from the 1940's in the UK (it was called "Operational Reseach" at that time) that showed how much WFH could be allowed before productivity dropped; and it wasn't much. At that time they had, of course, the ultimate incentive since if they could have more WFH workers they would not have to "clump" them in an office and have the whole team disapear under one of Hitlers bombs. Human activites require human engagement in person to be the most productive in a team activity. Technology and human evolution through 2-3 generations has not changed that, based on my experience over the last 40 years.; the hubris of youth be damned.

WFH absolutely works in large-scale corporate collaboration environments, not just small teams. It's done every day by the largest companies & firms in the world.. mine being one of them.

A study in the 1940s about work from home is irrelevant 80 years later. Technology and human evolution have absolutely changed in 2-3 generations - we don't use the DSM-II for the 2022 classification of mental disorders... we're on DSM-5-TR. Furthermore, nor was the concept of "WFH" contextually the same then as it is now.

The facts speak for themselves, but feel free to hold on to a dying relic of what "work" should subjectively look like.

 

[m3tavision]

You misunderstand the breadth of the work from home industry - because you've proven you aren't apart of it.

Almost every sector of industry is currently taking apart in, and benefitting from WFH. Software development, software/electrical/mechanical engineering, project management, accounting, HR and IT are just a few of the large departments of industry that are (successfully) relying in WFH in heavy capacities.

I'm not sure what you've heard, or what you read - but it's flat out incorrect.

Nobody isn't saying they can't work from home. It a lie top suggest they work more productively....

People who have a PhD in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences will tell you, you are wrong. People work HARDER and stronger when they conform. It's the idea behind skunkworks, or live music. Piecemeal.. is never as organic.