"Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned to work from home or in the office for 9 months. 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. "
This is a bad idea. Sure, p-test is pretty flawed, but this is like going without an antivirus because the one you have has bad detection rates.
The researchers are not the only ones who could game the system. A bigger problem is the editorial staff. Replacing an objective test, however bad, with a nonspecific 'case by case' criteria opens the door for nepotism and political agenda pushing. Psychology is an especially dangerous field for this, with the potential to label entire groups of people with opposing views as mentally ill.
The cynic in me sees this as a power-grab.
What they should have done is specify Bayesianism as the new test, period. None of this case-by-case BS.
"Call center employees who volunteered to WFH were randomly assigned to work from home or in the office for 9 months. 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. "
Pay attention to the last sentence.