Since COVID, many of us, particularly professionals, have started working from home. Having at least a couple of days a week at home has value; it saves us commuting time and gives us time for household tasks. So far, many of us have noticed no productivity reduction, and in some cases we may have increased our productivity; however, some economists are starting to wonder whether working from home has a long-term cost. This came up in a podcast conversation that I had on my Economics Explored podcast with Harvard-trained economists, Natalia Emmanuel and Emma Harrington.
Natalia and Emma are the authors of the new book In Person: How Working Together Fuels Creativity, Productivity, and Growth. Based on their review of rigorous studies on working from home in recent years, they argue that too much remote work can reduce work quality. People miss out on the benefits of co-location; they are less likely to collaborate and share ideas and information. This particularly costs younger workers, who need to learn from older employees. With the rise of remote work, younger employees miss out on valuable mentoring opportunities, which can reduce the organisation’s capacity over time.
I know how much working in the office benefited me early in my career. I learned a lot from more senior employees, and in a recent article, Career Advice for Economics Students and Graduates, I discussed how being located across the hall from a high-performing policy unit meant some major opportunities came my way. I also remember how much I learned from bumping into more experienced Treasury folks, such as David Gruen, whom I’d run into on lunchtime walks in Canberra’s Parliamentary Triangle. David would set me straight on the latest thinking on monetary policy, among other things.
Natalia and Emma quote Paul Graham, a founder of Y Combinator, on the idea that organisations may have relied on ways of doing things built before COVID. They have employees who previously worked together in person, collaborated, and learned from each other. Because of this experience, they have been able to work from home without suffering as much as younger employees who have missed these experiences. There is a concern that, as working from home persists, organisations will not develop teams of collaborative and innovative employees as they once did when people were mostly in the office. Additionally, mentoring and training opportunities are being lost, along with the benefits of sharing information. The water-cooler effect is also missing; if people don’t bump into each other, they may miss spontaneous conversations where important information is shared, and ideas develop. We may not see a productivity problem today because of working from home, but the real costs may come later through lower innovation.
The solution isn’t to force everyone back into the office five days a week. Hybrid arrangements, a mix of office and working from home days, can suit many businesses and employees. Natalia and Emma provide a checklist that can help businesses to determine how many days employees need to be back in the office. In rare cases, they may need to be back five days, but in many cases they don’t. A hybrid approach has benefits: days in the office foster mentoring, training, collaboration, and potential innovation. A couple of days working from home can also help people do deep work, focus on important tasks without office distractions, and avoid the lost time and stress of commuting.
One point that Natalia and Emma emphasise is that it’s important to synchronise days in the office; it’s not about coming into the office, but rather being in person. The key is collaborating and working together in person, so people need to be in the office at the same time.
I found this an extraordinary book; it’s one of the best books I’ve seen in years for analysing an important public policy issue, objectively assessing the evidence, and producing practical insights. Natalia and Emma are very familiar with the different studies and understand their implications. One fact that stunned me was that younger employees value time in the office more than older employees. Many younger employees realise they are missing out on valuable training and collaboration opportunities. Often, the work-from-home policy is driven by older, more senior employees who have already developed their skills and have not appreciated the cost to junior employees of working from home.
I suspect you will enjoy this book and find it highly informative. I can certainly recommend my conversation with Natalia and Emma; please listen and let me know what you think. You can contact me via the email address at the bottom of this article.
Gene Tunny, Director, Adept Economics
Published on 9 November 2026. For further information, please get in touch with us via contact@adepteconomics.com.au or by calling us on 1300 169 870.