 |
|
|
|||||
When Nicholas Bloom, the William Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University in California, started studying working from home in 2004, it was hard to get anyone engaged, he says. Even in 2018, no one had any interest whatsoever. In 2025, thats hard to fathom. Between the pandemic and technological advancements, WFH has become a norm among white collar workers. Not only has it normalized; its also destigmatized. The act that used to generate memes of Homer Simpson on the couch, prodding a distant computer with a stick has gained positive connotations, says Bloom. Working from home is seen as a privilege. Its also here to stay. For their latest study, Working from Home in 2025, Bloom and his collaborators analyzed responses from 16,000 college graduates across 40 countries and discovered that WFH levels appear to have stabilized as of 2025, but its embrace hasnt been universal. WFH rates vary by location: highest in English speaking regionsthe U.S., UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealandthe rate dips a little across continental Europe, then dips a lot across Africa and Central and South Americas. WFH is least prevalent in Asia. To be clear, when Bloom says WFH, hes mostly talking about those on hybrid work schedules. Sixty percent of people work fully in-person, 30% are hybrid, and 10% are fully remote, he says of those countries where the policy has stuck. Hybrid typically means Tuesday through Thursdays in the officea schedule Blooms values at about 8% more paybecause it saves two to three hours a week of commuting [and] enables people to live further away from their offices, often to where real estate is cheaper. Companies also benefit from hybrid policies, Blooms study found, since fewer employees tend to quit. With all these advantages, youd think bosses would have embraced WFH worldwide. Why on earth does, say, Japan have a third the work from home rates of the U.S.? Bloom says. After looking at factors including development (Japan is about as developed as the U.S.), population density, industrial structure, and connectivity (no big differences there), it left Bloom and fellow researchers with one notable variable. The big factor is cultural, he says, and it’s around individualism. In conversation with Fast Company, which has been edited for length and clarity, Bloom elaborated on how individualism drives working from home, how much the pandemic really increased at-home work rates, and why people still tend to think were returning to the office even though the data says otherwise. Fast Company: What inspired you to look globally for your latest study? Nicholas Bloom: If you look at the data, there was clearly a return to office movement from summer 2020 onwards after the lockdown in the U.S. But from Spring 2023 onwards, the return to office seems to slow down. People seem surprised by that. They’re like, Isn’t the media full of stories of Zoom canceling [WFH], Amazon canceling [WFH]? Yes, there are a bunch of high-profile firms canceling or reducing work from home. Turns out there are just as many on the other side, because their leases expire. If youre Goliath National Bank and your lease expires, it’s a perfect opportunity to reduce days in the office and save a chunk of money. What we’ve seen over the last couple of years in the U.S. is like a war, and it’s been fought to a standstill. That sparked the big question for us: What on earth does this look like globally? We last collected global data in 2023, so I really didn’t know. It turns out, globally, work from home has also stalled out. There has been no change since 2023. Globally, we’re in a new norm. Folks saying when we return to the office at this point are dreaming. This is the future. One of your findings I found particularly interesting was that WFH rates are higher in individualistic societies than in collectivist ones. Can you unpack that? In individualistic societies, managers typically aren’t micromanaging their employees. The U.S. setup is: A manager tells an employee what to do and gives them strong incentives, like performance evaluations and bonuses. In Japan, theres much more micromanaging, because there’s much less hiring, firing, and bonuses. Managers want to see employees there. In Japan, you can’t leave the office until the boss has left. This long-hours culture exists for everyone. When the boss leaves, their junior leaves, then their junior leaves, etcetera. That is very problematic for work from home. If you talk to folks working for American firms in Japan, they’re typically on a hybrid setup. If they work for Japanese firms in Japan, often doing the same job, they’re required to come into the office every day. Culture seems to have a huge explanation for this difference across countries. To what extent do you think this comes down to bosses trusting their workers, or not? It is kind of trust, although in the U.S., it’s trust but verify. Bosses don’t just trust workersthey trust them, but then they monitor. Should companies without a WFH policy reconsider? The big selling point is that it’s profitable. In my paper in Nature in June 2024, we did a massive, randomized control trial at a big company called Trip.com. They’re a publicly listed company worth about $40 billion. They randomized whether you got to work from home two days a week or come in all five daysthe former if your birthday fell on an odd day, the latter if it fell on an even day. For 24 months, we tracked 1,600 employees working in finance, marketing, computer engineeringprofessionals with college degrees. There was no effect on performance. However, quit rates fell by 35% for people allowed to work from home two days a week. For Trip.com, every person that quits costs about $50,000. If someone quits, you have to advertise, re-interview, re-recruit, get them up to speed, and take managers off activity to train them. By reducing quit rates by 35% with no effect on productivity, that’s increasing business profits by like $20 million a year. That is ultimately why work from home has stuck. On the flipside, an Economist article that mentions your study cited JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimons worry that the young generation is being damaged by increased working from home. To what extent do you agree or disagree with that statement, and why? I advise my Stanford undergrads, particularly in their first five years of work, that it’s a good idea to go into the office four days a week, because Jamie Dimon is exactly right. It is easier to mentor, learn, and build connections in person. Typically, when I poll students, that’s what they wantthey want to socialize, be mentored, and they don’t have a lot of space at home. As people get to their 30s and 40s, they’ve moved up that learning curve, but they still benefit from coming in, maybe three even two days a week. Another interesting data point from your study was the similar WFH rates for men and women across regions. What do you think accounts for that? They want to. You see a slightly higher preference for women to work from home. The main decider in the U.S. is: Do you have kid? A man with children under the age of 12 has a higher preference to work from home than a woman without kids, for example. Having a disability is also a huge driver, but gender doesn’t matter that much. What you see in countries like India is gender matters a lot more, because for women, there’s assault risk and massive sexism in the workplace. In lower income countries, the gender gap grows. What was the most surprising takeaway from your study? Working from home has stabilized globally. I did an online presentation for Australia last week, and people there are under the same view as in the U.S., that big companies were banning it. We just don’t see that in any data set. Fact and opinion are about as divergent as people’s views on crimethey always think crime is rising. On average, its tending to decline. Everyone thinks work from home is ending, but you don’t see it globally.
Category:
E-Commerce
Like most humans, I generally prefer to surround myself with people who like, value, and respect me. You know, its quite a nice and simple way to boost my self-esteem.And yet, after studying human behavior for many years, I am fully aware that the tendency to indulge in this self-enhancing habit is intellectually debilitating: while it feels nice to hang out with people who appreciate you, it is also a way to develop blind spots and ignore opportunities to get better, improve, and develop new skills and ideas. Montaigne warned of this in his Essays, cautioning against surrounding oneself with flattering mirrors that reflect only our vanity, not our flaws. Shakespeare dramatizes this danger repeatedlythink of King Lear, who banishes the only daughter who speaks honestly, choosing instead the empty praise of those who tell him what he wants to hear. In The Iliad, Achilles withdraws from battle in part because his ego isnt sufficiently stroked, with devastating consequences. And Orwell, in 1984, shows us a world where intellectual isolationbeing surrounded by only one narrativebecomes the ultimate mechanism of control. Growing Divided Beyond the personal level, this habit fuels tribalism and polarization: when we curate our social and intellectual circles to exclude dissent or difference, we don’t just grow more complacentwe grow more divided. What begins as a harmless preference for affirmation becomes a breeding ground for intellectual stagnation and collective delusion. Conversely, increasing the time you spend with people who dont like or value you, particularly when they think different from you, may sound like a masochistic activity, but it can reveal important gaps between the person you are and who you would like to be. Indeed, even when people underestimate you, they can be an important source of negative or critical feedback that alerts you to the possibility that you may actually not be as good as you thinkand especially not as good as your inner circle thinks. This is an essential ingredient of self-awareness: coming to terms with your limitations, knowing what you dont know, and accepting the fact that other people may not see you as positively as you see yourself, or as your close friends and fans do.But first, lets understand the likely reasons other people may underestimate you: 1) It is a way to protect their own self-esteem Bringing other people down is the most common way to feel good about yourself (pathetic, I knowbut very human). This phenomenon is often referred to as the Crab Barrel Syndrome, the psychological process where individuals attempt to hinder the progress of others perceived as competitors. When people feel threatened, envious, or insecure, they often cope by diminishing the value of others. Its less effortful than self-improvement and more immediately gratifying. So, when someone underestimates you, it may say more about their fragile ego than your actual potential. In other words, their low opinion of your talents might just be a defense mechanism theyre using to avoid facing their own inadequaciesa mix of jealousy, insecure narcissism, and self-pity that is expressed as a derogatory view of you. In Joseph Mankiewiczs All About Eve, the aging stage actress Margo Channing becomes increasingly threatened by the seemingly innocent and adoring Eve Harrington, a young fan who slowly infiltrates her life and career. Margos initial condescension gives way to paranoia and defensiveness, while Eve’s ascent is lubricated by subtle manipulation and strategic modesty. Here, the envy runs in both directionsEve envies Margos fame and legacy; Margo resents Eves youth and promise. Each woman underestimates the other as a means of preserving her own sense of value, which makes the film a masterclass in how admiration curdles into rivalry when identity feels fragile. 2) You may actually be a high performerbut surrounded by other high performers If you’re consistently underestimated despite strong output, consider the context. Being in an environment full of exceptional peoplelike elite academic programs, competitive companies, or high-performing teamscan distort perceptions. Just watch Damien Chazelles Whiplash, where gifted jazz drummer Andrew Neiman is pushed to his limits at a prestigious music conservatory. In that hypercompetitive setting, even brilliance isnt enoughevery success is met with silence or scorn, because greatness is simply expected. When excellence becomes the baseline, even impressive contributions may be overlooked. Meanwhile, others who are objectively less capable may shine simply because they operate in low-stakes environments where mediocrity passes for brilliance, and enjoy being a big fish in a small pond. So being underestimated may be a function of your high-performing context, not your low ability. 3) You may not be as good as you think Self-enhancement bias is real. Research shows that most people overestimate their abilities, especially in ambiguous domains. Even if you’re talented, that doesnt guarantee youre making your value visible. Are you communicating clearly, aligning your work with others goals, or just expecting people to get it? Being underestimated might be your cue to refine how you showcase your strengthsclarify your contributions, seek feedback, and build a brand that matches your actual impact. (And yes, that means leaving the Dunning-Kruger zone.)So, what are the best strategies for winning your critics over? 1) Focus on them, not you Dale Carnegie 101: take a genuine interest in others. The irony is that people who underestimate you often care more about being seen than about seeing you. So, just play the game: ask them about their work, their opinions, their ideasconvincingly faking appreciation for them. Make them feel important. To be sure, flattery works best when its believable, which means you need to pay attention, listen, and reflect their values back to them. Call it effective impression management, strategic empathy, or just good politics: contrary to popular belief, its one of the key ingredients of career success. 2) Quantify your achievements People are less likely to ignore results when theyre staring at hard numbers. Share outcomes, metrics, and results that demonstrate your impact. Be specific: revenue increased, error rates decreased, engagement improved. You dont have to bragjust document. Some people may still dismiss the data because they favor charisma over competence, but those arent the people you should be trying to impress anyway. Let the results speak, and if they dont listen, speak louder with your results. 3) Change your behavior Maybe theyre right. Or at least not entirely wrong. Being underestimated can be a gift disguised as insult: a wake-up call that motivates you to adapt, grow, and become harder to ignore. If youve been coasting, this is your cue to sprint. If youve been misaligned, recalibrate. The good news is that people revise their judgments when they see genuine effort and improvement. Theres nothing more satisfying than disproving someones low expectationsespecially when you do it without gloating (at least not outwardly). A final consideration: at times, the most effective way to win over the people who underestimate you may require you to care less about whether you actually win them overespecially if your goal is merely to inflate your ego. Focus instead on learning from them. Just as failure is a better teacher than success, critics and adversaries often teach us more than friends and fans. Nietzsche, for instance, argued that we owe our greatest growth to resistance and struggle, not comfort: What does not kill me makes me stronger is not just a gym slogan, but a blueprint for character development. Similarly, in The Republic, Plato has Socrates sharpen his thinking through constant dialectical combat with hostile interlocutorsbecause truth, like steel, is forged through friction. Even in literature, consider Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice: it is precisely through misunderstanding, misjudgment, and critical feedback that Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy evolve into better versions of themselves. In the end, you cannot expect everybody to appreciate your talentsbut those who dont may be more valuable than your supporters. Their underestimation can sting, yes, but it also serves as a psychological spur to refine, improve, and provenot just to them, but to yourselfwhat you’re truly capable of becoming.
Category:
E-Commerce
Branded is a weekly column devoted to the intersection of marketing, business, design, and culture. With economic uncertainty, inflation, and high interest rates lingering, consumers who cant decide whether to spend now or hold off until later are increasingly doing some of each. And thats good news for the buy now, pay later business. Buy now, pay later (BNPL) optionsincluding those facilitated by major BNPL services like Klarna, Afterpay, and Affirmhave been growing increasingly commonplace. According to an April survey from LendingTree, for example, 25% of BNPL users have spent the loans on groceries, up from 14% last year. And the services are becoming more widely known through linkups with familiar brands. Klarnawhich filed IPO paperwork in March but reportedly put those plans on hold when the markets swooned last monthrecently announced a partnership with DoorDash to enable customers to pay for deliveries in installments. And Affirm has a new deal with Costco that will give approved customers monthly payment options. Interest in BNPL is likely to grow as tariffs cause prices to rise (Walmart, for instance, just warned of price hikes). This builds on a steady rise of BNPL spending that goes back several years. This past holiday season, such spending hit an all-time high of $18.2 billion, up nearly 10% over the prior year, according to data from Adobe, which listed popular categories such as electronics, apparel, and video games. Research from EMarketer found that the per user spend on BNPL services topped $1,000 in 2024, and forecast the category will make up 1.4% of all retail sales this year. BNPL firms position their steady move into everyday spending categories as a matter of convenience and household budgeting flexibility. The loans are generally interest-free to consumers, with the services charging merchants a small percentage (ranging from an estimated 1.5% to 7%) of the total transaction. The merchant benefits from increased sales from consumers who presumably feel more open to spending if they can spread out the impact, and avoid adding to credit card debt. Of course theres a flip side to that. Critics argue that the services exploit consumer psychology, underscoring the instant gratification of buying something new at just a fraction of the total price nowa temptation that overwhelms the reality of continuing to pay it off for months. While BNPL offerings are fundamentally similar to old-school layaway plans and the like, theyre much easier to qualify for, and often pop up as seamless options on e-commerce sites. Moreover, the services make money from late fees if an overextended consumer falls behind. Roughly 41% of BNPL users copped to paying late in the past year, compared to 34% a year ago. Most were only a week or so late, and many of the laggards were in higher-income categories, but thats a notable trend at a time when total consumer debt stands at a record $18.2 trillion. Either way, the expanding popularity of BNPL options for quotidian purposes like takeout and groceries is seen by many as a bad economic indicator: Surely an increased interest in alternative payment schemes to fund pizza night sounds like a sign of a skittish consumer. And while the use of BNPL options has been growing for some time, it has done so at a somewhat slower pace in the relatively positive economy of the past few years; by comparison, adoption spiked during and in the aftermath of the pandemic downturn. And theres no question that services like Affirm and Klarna are becoming an increasingly routine part of the consumer-spending landscape. Recent fears of tariff-fueled inflation, shortages in some retail and grocery categories, and perhaps even a recession actually make the idea of buying nowbefore things get even worsesound particularly appealing, and rational. Ultimately, both assessments of BNPL can be true at the same time: Its a convenient and potentially sensible option, and a worrisome trend. Discussing his firms latest data, Matt Schulz, LendingTrees chief consumer finance analyst, told CNBC that the popularity of BNPL reflects economic headwinds and uncertainty that has lots of consumers struggling and looking for ways to extend their budgets. For an awful lot of people, thats going to mean leaning on buy now, pay later loans, he said, for better or for worse.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||