And even though they grew faster, the attrition for Office was higher.
>> BTW, Nick Bloom at Stanford and others have done extensive research with thousands of people on remote and hybrid work here, and here…
^ from the article
> Home working led to a 13% performance increase, of which about 9% was from working more minutes per shift (fewer breaks and sick-days) and 4% from more calls per minute (attributed to a quieter working environment). Home workers also reported improved work satisfaction and experienced less turnover, but their promotion rate conditional on performance fell.
^ from the linked paper.
…but hey, go the statistically irrelevant one to share with people if you want a cool link to prove whatever point you want to make with it.
> The survey sample size was 37 companies from the Reach Capital portfolio. That’s large enough to see patterns, but not large enough to generalize across all startups. Next, Reach Capital’s portfolio of companies are in education and the future of work. The revenue results by workplace configuration may be different in other markets.
But the subtitle of the article is:
> Data shows that pre-seed and seed startups with employees showing up in a physical office have 3½ times higher revenue growth than those that are solely remote.
There is no world where "data shows" or "have" is the correct presentation of this size of a sample. Hopefully the HN mods caveat the title of the post here.
And too small a data set.