Worklytics

AI adoption is now the clearest driver of team performance. Engineering, sales, and product teams are leading the curve. Developers using AI tools push up to 30% more code. Sales teams using AI connect with 25% more customers each week. Employees using AI scheduling tools cut fragmented time by 20%. But the biggest difference isn’t the tools. It’s the people leading the change. Teams with managers who use AI adopt 75% faster. New hires ramp quickly while tenured employees lag without guidance. The real unlock is leadership alignment, not software access. You can’t scale what you can’t see. Benchmarking AI usage is where performance starts. So here’s the question. Do you know how your teams are actually using AI?

Most meetings could have been an email. But even emails are stealing focus. Our research at Worklytics shows why employees feel less productive today. 1. Meeting overload is real. Almost 2/3 of meeting time is in formats linked to slower velocity. Non-manager 1:1s and 25+ person meetings add up to nearly a full day weekly. Large meetings and redundancy slow decisions instead of speeding them. 2. Focus time is disappearing. Employees average less than 3 hours of uninterrupted focus per day. Fragmented calendars create constant context switching. Teams with low focus time report feeling unproductive. 3. Slack and email pile on. High DM use and fast Slack response times drive constant interruption. Chat and email during meetings show disengagement and distraction. Sync-heavy teams lose time for deep work, hurting productivity. 4. Managers set the tone. A small number of roles create most meetings for engineers. Encouraging better scheduling design can double daily focus time. Teams that limit large meetings and sync usage get more done. The takeaway is simple. Meetings are essential, but effectiveness is broken. Focus is the new productivity metric. How many of your meetings this week actually moved work forward?

The only thing harder than booking a flight is booking a meeting room. That’s the reality most companies are facing. Our research shows how space is really being used. 1. Meeting rooms don’t match demand. 1-person rooms are in highest demand, but often unavailable. Larger rooms sit empty while smaller ones are overbooked. In some offices, 1 in 5 meetings has no room at all. 2. Occupancy planning is broken. Most seating charts are based on HR data, not work data. Teams don’t actually sit near the people they collaborate with. Better planning can turn office days from frustrating to valuable. 3. Space is wasted. Many zones show peak occupancy under 30%. Some teams barely use their assigned areas. Others spill over because seating plans don’t reflect real patterns. 4. Real estate is expensive. Offices cost millions even when rarely used for collaboration. Teams spending less than 5% of time together locally may not need them. Divestment decisions save money without hurting connection. The problem is not office size. It’s how space is planned, allocated, and actually used. What’s the biggest mismatch you’ve seen between design and real work?

We measure bandwidth at work. But not human connection. In hybrid and remote models, connection is the challenge. Too many employees commute in, only to find no one there. Too many remote workers feel busy, but isolated. Our research shows how to fix this. 1. Overlap drives value. Only 35% of employees see close collaborators on in-office days. When overlap is low, employees call office days “not valuable.” Coordinating anchor days improves connection without increasing office time. 2. One day goes far. Just a single office day a week builds 70% of cross-functional ties. Additional days have steep diminishing returns. Quality of overlap matters more than quantity of visits. 3. Managers set the tone. Many employees go 180+ days without seeing their manager in person. Regular 1:1s in-office or via video build trust and alignment. Manager facetime correlates with stronger digital connection as well. 4. Leadership visibility matters. Employees with regular executive facetime show higher belief in mission. Executive absence erodes connectivity across the org. Leaders must be seen, not just heard, to reinforce culture. Hybrid and remote work are not just about flexibility. They are about connection, overlap, and access to leaders. Do your hybrid days build connection or just fill calendars?

Your company says it’s “AI-first.” Compared to who? Our research shows it isn’t random. Certain factors make teams far more likely to embrace AI. 1. Managers set the tone. Heavy AI use by managers increases adoption by 75%. When managers never touch AI, team adoption drops 12%. Leadership behavior is the single strongest predictor of uptake. 2. Tenure matters. Employees with less than 2 years tenure are 19% more likely to adopt. Tenure beyond 5 years lowers probability of AI use by 22%. Newer employees drive change, while veterans often resist it. 3. Teammates influence each other. Having just one AI power user boosts team adoption by 15%. Performance leaders in the top 25% are 12% more likely to use AI. Peer influence spreads AI faster than mandates. 4. Tools unlock usage. Domain-specific AI tools increase adoption by 11%. Slack bots raise adoption likelihood by 8%. No access means no usage, regardless of intent. The lesson is clear. AI adoption is less about access, and more about leadership, tenure, peers, and tools. So where does your team stand? Are you driving adoption or blocking it?

Nothing says work-life balance like a midnight Slack notification. That’s not collaboration. That’s burnout in disguise. Our data shows the impact is bigger than people think. 1. After-hours Slack is a leading stress signal. More than 15 late-night messages per week predicts burnout. Direct manager pings are the most damaging for balance. Employees report lower satisfaction when boundaries are broken. 2. Managers set the tone. Teams with low after-hours activity score higher on support. Weekly 1:1s during work hours build trust without overreach. Over involved managers create stress instead of removing it. 3. Async done wrong feels like chaos. High DM use fractures focus across the day. Fast response norms erode deep work and productivity. Public channels and schedule send protect focus and balance. 4.Focus time is fragile. Fragmented schedules cut focus hours in half. Grouping meetings doubles the time available for deep work. Without boundaries, both productivity and wellbeing decline. The real lesson: async should extend focus time, not invade downtime. So here’s the question. Are after-hours messages at your company building trust or burning people out?