case study on work from home

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Case Study: Should Some Employees Be Allowed to Work Remotely Even If Others Can’t?

• Mark C. Bolino
• Corey Phelps

An Oklahoma-based energy company grapples with its return-to-office plan.

More than 3,000 office workers at an oil and gas company in Oklahoma City have been telecommuting since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Many of them love the arrangement, and the freedom to work remotely is also a big draw for new hires. But there are downsides: Employees who have to be on-site in the oil fields and on drilling rigs are resentful; collaboration and knowledge transfer are more challenging; costly office space is going unused; and local businesses are suffering because of the emptiness of the downtown core. The company’s CEO must decide: Should we mandate a return to the office for everyone? This fictional case study features expert commentary by Logitech’s Bracken Darrell and Spotify’s Katarina Berg.

Sean Lewis, the CEO of Vallia Energy, stared at the message screen on his phone and prayed for three little dots.

• Mark C. Bolino is the David L. Boren Professor and the Michael F. Price Chair in International Business at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research focuses on understanding how an organization can inspire its employees to go the extra mile without compromising their personal well-being.
• CP Corey Phelps is the dean, the Fred E. Brown Chair of Business, and a professor of entrepreneurship and strategy at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business. His research explores how organizations innovate, grow, and adapt to changing competitive conditions.

Partner Center

More From Forbes

3 new studies end debate over effectiveness of hybrid and remote work.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Experts say hybrid and remote working are signs of the future, and new science-backed studies show ... [+] mental health benefits to "the new normal."

The debate over remote and hybrid work continues to grow. Some companies resisted, and iron-fisted leaders pulled the old hat trick (“It’s your job to work hard and deal with stress, so grin and bear it.”), arguing against the concept of remote work. Others cited productivity concerns and tactical problems that limited a supervisor’s ability to observe and coach employees. A handful of business leaders pushed back. Josh Feast, CEO of Cognito Corporation, argued that supervisors could find innovative ways to connect with and manage workers from afar “by ensuring their colleagues feel heard and know they are not alone. Exhibiting heightened sensitivity to emotional intelligence—particularly in a time where physical isolation has become a necessity—is vital.” Alice Hricak, managing principal of corporate interiors at Perkins and Will, said working from home showcases new approaches and debunks old ideas that it leads to low productivity, less visibility and little opportunity for collaboration.

What Does The Scientific Data Show?

To resolve the debate, it’s time to go beyond subjective opinion and look at the objective science. David Powell, president of Prodoscore said their data showed that if an employee was highly productive in-office, they’ll be productive at home; if an employee slacked off at the office, they’ll do the same a home. “After evaluating over 105 million data points from 30,000 U.S.-based Prodoscore users, we discovered a five percent increase in productivity during the pandemic work from home period,” he said. “Although, as we know, any variant of the Covid-19 virus is unpredictable, employee productivity is not.”

Two studies in early 2022 validated the views of remote/hybrid work advocates. Research from Owl Labs found that remote and hybrid employees were 22% happier than workers in an onsite office environment and stayed in their jobs longer. Plus, remote workers had less stress, more focus and were more productive than when they toiled in the office. Working from home led to better work/life balance and was more beneficial for the physical and mental well-being of employees.

A study from Ergotron sampled 1,000 full-time workers. It found that as workers become more acclimated to hybrid and remote office environments since the onset of Covid-19, the hybrid workplace model has empowered employees to reclaim physical health, and they are seeing mental health benefits, too.   A total of 56% of employees cited mental health improvements, better work-life balance and more physical activity. Key highlights from the study include:

• Job Satisfaction. Continuing to embrace flexibility is essential. Most employees (88%) agree that the flexibility to work from home or the office has increased their job satisfaction.
• Physical health. The hybrid workplace has empowered employees to reclaim physical health. Three-quarters of respondents (75%) stated that they move more frequently and have a more active work style when working remotely.
• Work-life balance . Three quarters of respondents say their work-life balance has improved as a result of hybrid or remote working. Even though some employees are dedicating more time to their work, if they’re able to fit it in and around other aspects of their lives, they say they feel the positive effects of a better work-life balance.
• Comfortable work environments. Of the workers surveyed, 62% said improved workspaces with comfortable, ergonomic furniture are important and improve company culture. 
• Wellness programs. More than three-quarters of respondents (76%) revealed that their employers implemented wellness programs to support mental and physical health, with 30% of those being brand new since the onset of the pandemic.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

“Promoting health and wellness among employees can improve well-being and productivity,” said Chad Severson, CEO of Ergotron. “Over the past two years, employees have adapted to the hybrid and remote work landscape—and they now prefer it. As employers look to attract and retain talent, focusing on practices that promote well-being and help employees thrive wherever they work will be critical.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Here’s What We Do and Don’t Know About the Effects of Remote Work

Three years into a mass workplace experiment, we are beginning to understand more about how work from home is reshaping workers’ lives and the economy.

By Emma Goldberg

When workplaces are remade by a tectonic shift — women flooding into the work force, the rise of computing — it typically takes some time for economists, psychologists, sociologists and other scholars to gather data on its effects.

So when employers moved suddenly to adopt remote work during the pandemic, with the share of employed Americans working exclusively from home rising to 54 percent in 2020 from 4 percent in 2019, researchers leaped to examine the effects of remote work on employees and the economy at large. Now the early results are emerging. They reveal a mixed economic picture, in which many workers and businesses have made real gains under remote work arrangements, and many have also had to bear costs.

Broadly, the portrait that emerges is this: Brick-and-mortar businesses suffered in urban downtowns, as many people stopped commuting. Still, some kinds of businesses, like grocery stores, have been able to gain a foothold in the suburbs. At the same time, rents rose in affordable markets as remote and hybrid workers left expensive urban housing.

Working mothers have generally benefited from the flexibility of being able to work remotely — more of them were able to stay in the work force. But remote work also seems to bring some steep penalties when it comes to career advancement for women.

Studies of productivity in work-from-home arrangements are all over the map. Some papers have linked remote work with productivity declines of between 8 and 19 percent , while others find drops of 4 percent for individual workers; still other research has found productivity gains of 13 percent or even 24 percent .

Nick Bloom, an economist at Stanford and a prolific scholar on remote work, said the new set of studies showed that productivity differed among remote workplaces depending on an employer’s approach — how well trained managers are to support remote employees and whether those employees have opportunities for occasional meet-ups.

Researchers tend to agree that many workplaces have settled into a new hybrid phase, in which offices are at about half their prepandemic occupancy levels and about a quarter of American workdays are done from home. That suggests some of the effects of remote work may stick.

As Mr. Bloom put it: “This is the new normal.”

Urban Downtowns

Photos of urban downtowns in their Covid lockdowns are eerie, with silent streets, wilted office plants and dusty cubicles.

When some 50 million Americans started working from home in the early days of the pandemic, brick-and-mortar retailers clustered in urban downtowns were hurting. The number of downtown clothing stores fell 8 percent from late 2019 to late 2021, according to a study using transaction data from 70 million Chase Bank customers. General goods stores in downtowns — including anything from department stores to florists to booksellers — fell 7 percent, and grocery stores declined 2 percent.

Some of those businesses followed remote workers to the suburbs. During that period, the number of suburban grocery stores increased roughly 3 percent, slightly outpacing the urban decline , particularly in suburbs where remote work levels were high.

In the coming years, the movement of retailers from downtowns to suburbs is likely to prove difficult for low-income workers who cannot afford to live in these areas, some of them affluent, where retailers may be hiring.

This problem is already visible in the Bay Area. Take the case of Maria Cerros-Mercado , who used to work at a salad shop in San Francisco, a 20-minute walk from her home. Now she commutes by Uber to the shop’s new location in Mill Valley, a wealthy suburb in Marin County.

But some economists argue that many Americans stand to gain from the effects of remote work because rents in rural and suburban areas are likely to begin dropping. One recent study used data from postal address changes, rent changes on Zillow and the construction industry to project the potential rent effects of remote and hybrid work. The pandemic saw a temporary rent spike in previously affordable areas — think Dallas; Manchester, N.H.; and upstate New York — because many remote workers left the priciest housing markets once they gave up daily commutes. As construction catches up with that new demand, economists say, rents will fall back down.

“If you zoom out, one of the big problems in housing in the last 10 years has been affordability,” said Jack Liebersohn, an economist at the University of California, Irvine. “This could help simply because people can live in more affordable areas, where we can afford to build.”

And there could be an unexpected bonus: A study in Britain showed that burglaries declined nearly 30 percent in areas with high rates of working from home, which the researchers attributed to the increase of “eyes on the street” in those neighborhoods.

Working Women

For decades, a working mother’s schedule has felt like an equation that won’t balance. Many women are expected to still be at their desks at 5 p.m., and simultaneously at school pickup. They’re supposed to be in an office, and also available at home when their children are coughing and turned away from day care. (Ample data shows that this bind tends to constrict mothers more than fathers.)

Remote work slightly eases that conundrum, according to research using prepandemic data from economists at the University of Virginia and the University of Southern California. In fields like computer science, marketing and communications, which welcomed remote work from 2009 to 2019, working mothers’ employment rates increased. There was an almost one-to-one correlation: When remote work rose 2 percent, there was a 2 percent rise in mothers’ employment. Even so, the employment rates for working mothers lagged those of women without children, though remote work diminished that gap.

Claudia Goldin , who this week was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics, has shown that women tend to seek jobs with more flexibility so they can take care of household responsibilities. That has contributed to the gender pay gap.

While some working women, particularly mothers, may gain from being remote, women tend to see greater penalties when they do so. In a study of engineers at a Fortune 500 company, remote work had a negative effect on the amount of feedback junior employees got on their work — with the penalties more pronounced for women.

“Proximity has a bigger impact on women’s comfort with asking follow-up questions,” said Emma Harrington, an economist at the University of Virginia, who conducted both the study on remote work’s effect on feedback and the one on mothers’ work force participation.

Men appeared more comfortable asking clarifying questions even if they weren’t physically near colleagues.

Women may also face more undeserved questions about their productivity, wherever they work. In a series of studies with more than 2,000 participants, researchers in Wisconsin and Canada found that both men and women were more likely to suspect women than men of shirking work. Some of these employees worked from home, and some did not.

When study participants saw through video footage that a female employee wasn’t at her desk, this was attributed to something nonwork-related 47 percent of the time; for men, it was attributed to nonwork activities just 34 percent of the time.

“It’s possible that the study participants might be responding to the realities of the world in which women sometimes do bear more household responsibilities,” added Ms. Harrington, who wasn’t involved in this study.

Remote Productivity

Whether work-from-anywhere setups hurt productivity or help it has been a burning question for executives.

Early evidence came in a 2013 paper from Mr. Bloom and others about a call center in China that allowed some employees to be mostly remote for nine months; it found that productivity rose 13 percent. Just under 10 percent of this boost was attributed to people taking fewer breaks, and 4 percent to them doing more calls per minute because their working environments were quieter.

But during the pandemic, when millions of workers suddenly shifted to being remote, the effects were more complex. The arrangements hadn’t been figured out in advance. The move to remote work wasn’t voluntary. So the results were more scattered.

A study of an Asian information technology company’s remote employees during the pandemic showed a decline in productivity of 8 to 19 percent. Another, looking at an American call center, found that when workers went remote, they made 12 percent fewer calls. On the other hand, a study of the productivity of economic researchers in the United States during the pandemic found a roughly 24 percent increase in their output.

These disparate findings leave some questions unanswered. “How on earth can you get a more than 30 point spread between them?” Mr. Bloom asked. “It all comes down to how workers are managed. If you set up fully remote with good management and incentives, and people are meeting in person, it can work. What doesn’t seem to work is sending people home with no face time at all.”

Emma Goldberg is a business reporter covering workplace culture and the ways work is evolving in a time of social and technological change. More about Emma Goldberg

How working from home works out

Key takeaways.

• Forty-two percent of U.S. workers are now working from home full time, accounting for more than two-thirds of economic activity.
• Policymakers should ensure that broadband service is expanded so more workers can do their jobs away from a traditional office.
• As companies consider relocating from densely populated urban centers in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, cities may suffer while suburbs and rural areas benefit.
• Working from home is here to stay, but post-pandemic will be optimal at about two days a week.

Working from home (WFH) is dominating our lives. If you haven’t experienced the phenomenon directly, you’ve undoubtedly heard all about it, as U.S. media coverage of working from home jumped 12,000 percent since January 1 .

But the trend toward working from home is nothing new. In 2014 I published  a study  of a Chinese travel company, Ctrip, that looked at the benefits of its WFH policies (Bloom et al. 2014). And in the past several months as the coronavirus pandemic has forced millions of workers to set up home offices, I have been advising dozens of firms and analyzing four large surveys covering working from home. 2

The recent work has highlighted several recurring themes, each of which carries policy questions — either for businesses or public officials. But the bottom line is clear: Working from home will be very much a part of our post-COVID economy. So the sooner policymakers and business leaders think of the implications of a home-based workforce, the better our firms and communities will be positioned when the pandemic subsides.

The US economy is now a working-from-home economy

Figure 1 shows the work status of 2,500 Americans my colleagues Jose Barrero (ITAM) and Steve Davis (Chicago) and I surveyed between May 21-25. The responders were between 20 and 64, had worked full time in 2019, and earned more than $20,000. The participants were weighted to represent the U.S. by state, industry, and income.

We find that 42 percent of the U.S. labor force are now working from home full time, while another 33 percent are not working — a testament to the savage impact of the lockdown recession. The remaining 26 percent are working on their business’s premises, primarily as essential service workers. Almost twice as many employees are working from home as at a workplace.

If we weight these employees by their earnings in 2019 as an indicator of their contribution to the country’s GDP, we see that these at-home workers now account for more than two-thirds of economic activity. In a matter of weeks, we have transformed into a working-from-home economy.

Although the pandemic has battered the economy to a point where we likely won’t see a return to trend until 2022 (Baker et al. 2020), things would have been far worse without the ability to work from home. Remote working has allowed us to maintain social distancing in our fight against COVID-19. So, working from home is a not only economically essential, it is a critical weapon in combating the pandemic.

Figure 1: WFH now accounts for over 60% of US economic activity

Source:  Response to the question  “Currently (this week) what is your work status?”  Response options were  “Working on my business premises“ ,  “Working from home” ,  “Still employed and paid, but not working“ ,  “Unemployed, but expect to be recalled to my previous job“ ,  “Unemployed, and do not expect to be recalled to my previous job“ ,  and  “Not working, and not looking for work“

Data from a survey of 2,500 US residents aged 20 to 64, earning more than $20,000 per year in 2019 carried out between May 21-29, by QuestionPro on behalf of Stanford University. Sample reweighted to match current CPS.

Shares shown weighted by earnings and unweighted (share of workers)

The inequality time bomb

But it is important to understand the potential downsides of a WFH economy and take steps to mitigate them.

Figure 2 shows not everyone can work from home. Only 51 percent of our survey reported being able to WFH at an efficiency rate of 80 percent or more. These are mostly managers, professionals, and financial workers who can easily carry out their jobs on their computers by videoconference, phone, and email.

The remaining half of Americans don’t benefit from those technological workarounds — many employees in retail, health care, transportation, and business services cannot do their jobs anywhere other than a traditional workplace. They need to see customers or work with products or equipment. As such they face a nasty choice between enduring greater health risks by going to work or forgoing earnings and experience by staying at home.

Figure 2: Not all jobs can be carried out WFH

Source:  Data from a survey of 2,500 US residents aged 20 to 64, earning more than $20,000 per year in 2019 carried out between May 21-25 2020, by QuestionPro on behalf of Stanford University. Sample reweighted to match the Current Population Survey.

In Figure 3 we see that many Americans also lack the facilities to effectively work from home. Only 49 percent of responders can work privately in a room other than their bedroom. The figure displays another big challenge — online connectivity. Internet connectivity for video calls has to be 90 percent or greater, which only two-thirds of those surveyed reported having. The remaining third have such poor internet service that it prevents them effectively working from home.

Figure 3: WFH under COVID-19 is challenging for many employees

Source:   Pre-COVID data from the BLS ATUS . During COVID data from a survey of 2,500 US residents aged 20 to 64, earning more than $20,000 per year in 2019 carried out between May 21-25 2020, by QuestionPro on behalf of Stanford University. Sample reweighted to match the Current Population Survey.

In Figure 4, we see that more educated, higher-earning employees are far more likely to work from home. These employees continue to earn, develop skills, and advance careers. Those unable to work from home — either because of the nature of their jobs or because they lack suitable space or internet connections — are being left behind. They face bleak prospects if their skills erode during the shutdown.

Taken together, these findings point to a ticking inequality time bomb.

So as we move forward to restart the U.S. economy, investing in broadband expansion should be a major priority. During the last Great Depression, the U.S. government launched one of the great infrastructure projects in American history when it approved the Rural Electrification Act in 1936. Over the following 25 years, access to electricity by rural Americans increased from just 10 percent to nearly 100 percent. The long-term benefits included higher rates of growth in employment, population, income, and property values.

Today, as policymakers consider how to focus stimulus spending to revive growth, a significant increase in broadband spending is crucial to ensuring that all of the United States has a fair chance to bounce back from COVID-19.

Figure 4: WFH is much more common among educated higher-income employees

Source:  Pre-COVID data from the BLS ATUS . During COVID data from a survey of 2,500 US residents aged 20 to 64, earning more than $20,000 per year in 2019 carried out between May 21-25 2020, by QuestionPro on behalf of Stanford University. Sample reweighted to match the Current Population Survey. We code a respondent as working from home pre-COVID if they report working from home one day per week or more.

Trouble for the cities?

Understanding the lasting impacts of working from home in a post-COVID world requires taking a look back at the pre-pandemic work world. Back when people  went  to work, they typically commuted to offices in the center of cities. Our survey showed 58 percent of those who are now working from home had worked in a city before the coronavirus shutdown. And 61 percent of respondents said they worked in an office.

Since these employees also tend to be well paid, I estimate this could remove from city centers up to 50 percent of total daily spending in bars, restaurants, and shops. This is already having a depressing impact on the vitality of the downtowns of our major cities. And, as I argue below, this upsurge in working from home is largely here to stay. So I see a longer-run decline in city centers.

The largest American cities have seen incredible growth since the 1980s as younger, educated Americans have flocked into revitalized downtowns (Glaeser 2011). But it looks like 2020 will reverse that trend, with a flight of economic activity from city centers.

Of course, the upside is this will be a boom for suburbs and rural areas.

Working from home is here to stay

Working from home is a play in three parts, each totally different from the other. The first part is  pre -COVID. This was an era in which working from home was both rare and stigmatized.

A  survey of 10,000  salaried workers conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed only 15 percent of employees ever had a full day working from home. 3

Indeed, only 2 percent of workers ever worked from home full time. From talking to dozens of remote employees for my research projects over the years, I found these are mostly either lower-skilled data entry or tele-sales workers or higher-skilled employees who were able to do their jobs largely online and had often been able to keep a job despite locating to a new area.

Working from home before the pandemic was also hugely stigmatized — often mocked and ridiculed as “shirking from home” or “working remotely, remotely working.”

In a 2017  TEDx Talk , I showed the result from an online image search for the words “working from home” which pulled up hundreds of negative images of cartoons, semi-naked people or parents holding a laptop in one hand and a baby in the other.

Working from home  during the pandemic is very different. It is now extremely common, without the stigma, but under  challenging conditions . Many workers have kids at home with them. There’s a lack of quiet space, a lack of choice over having to work from home, and no option other than to do this full time. Having four kids myself I have definitely experienced this.

COVID has forced many of us to work from home under the worst circumstances.

But working from home  post- COVID should be what we look forward to. Of the dozens of firms I have talked to, the typical plan is that employees will work from home between one and three days a week and come into the office the rest of the time. This is supported by our evidence on about 1,000 firms from the  Survey of Business Uncertainty  I run with the Atlanta Fed and the University of Chicago. 4

Before COVID, 5 percent of working days were spent at home. During the pandemic, this increased eightfold to 40 percent a day. And post-pandemic, the number will likely drop to 20 percent.

But that 20 percent still represents a fourfold increase of the pre-COVID level, highlighting that working from home is here to stay. While few firms are planning to continue full time WFH after the pandemic ends, nearly every firm I have talked to about this has been positively surprised by how well it has worked.

The office will survive but it may look different

“Should we get rid of our office?” I get that question a lot.

The answer is “No. But you might want to move it.”

Although firms plan to reduce the time their employees spend at work, this will not reduce the demand for total office space given the need for social distancing. The firms I talk to are typically thinking about halving the density of offices, which is leading to an increase in the overall demand for office space. That is, the 15 percent drop in working days in the office is more than offset by the 50 percent increase in demand for space per employee.

What is happening, however, is offices are moving from skyscrapers to industrial parks. Another dominant theme of the last 40 years of American cities was the shift of office space into high-rise buildings in city centers. COVID is dramatically reversing this trend as high rises face two massive problems in a post-COVID world.

Just consider mass transit and elevators in a time of mandatory social distancing. How can you get several million workers in and out of major cities like New York, London, or Tokyo every day keeping everyone six feet apart? And think of the last elevator you were in. If we strictly enforce six feet of social distancing, the maximum capacity of elevators could fall by 90 percent 5 , making it impossible for employees working in a skyscraper to expediently reach their desks.

Of course, if social distancing disappears post-COVID, this may not matter. But given all the uncertainty, my prediction is that when a vaccine eventually comes out in a year or so, society will have become accustomed to social distancing. And given recent nearly missed pandemics like SARS, Ebola, MERS, and avian flu, many firms and employees may be preparing for another outbreak and another need for social distancing. So my guess is many firms will be reluctant to return to dense offices.

So what is the solution? Firms may be wise to turn their attention from downtown buildings to industrial park offices, or “campuses,” as hi-tech companies in Silicon Valley like to call them. These have the huge benefits of ample parking for all employees and spacious low-rise buildings that are accessible by stairs.

Two types of policies can be explored to address this challenge. First, towns and cities should be flexible on zoning, allowing struggling shopping malls, cinemas, gyms, and hotels to be converted into offices. These are almost all low-rise structures with ample parking, perfect for office development.

Second, we need to think more like economists by introducing airline-style pricing for mass transit and elevators. The challenges with social distancing arise during peak capacity, so we need to cut peak loads.

For public transportation this means steeply increasing peak-time fares and cutting off-peak fares to encourage riders to spread out through the day.

For elevator rides we need to think more radically. For example, office rents per square foot could be cut by 50 percent, but elevator use could be charged heavily during the morning and evening rush hours. Charging firms, say $10 per elevator ride between 8:45 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., would encourage firms to stagger their working days. This would move elevator traffic to off-peak periods with excess capacity. We are moving from a world where office space is in short supply to one where elevator space is in short supply, and commercial landlords should consider charging their clients accordingly.

Making a smooth transition

From all my conversations and research, I have three pieces of advice for anyone crafting WFH policies.

First, working from home should be part time.

Full-time working from home is problematic for three reasons: It is hard to be creative at a distance, it is hard to be inspired and motivated at home, and employee loyalty is strained without social interaction.

My experiment at Ctrip in China followed 250 employees working from home for four days a week for nine months and saw the challenges of isolation and loneliness this created.

For the first three months employees were happy — it was the euphoric honeymoon period. But by the time the experiment had run its full length, two-thirds of the employees requested to return to the office. They needed human company.

Currently, we are in a similar honeymoon phase of full-time WFH. But as with any relationship, things can get rocky and I see increasing numbers of firms and employees turning against this practice.

So the best advice is plan to work from home about 1 to 3 days a week. It’ll ease the stress of commuting, allow for employees to use their at-home days for quiet, thoughtful work, and let them use their in-office days for meetings and collaborations.

Second, working from home should be optional.

Figure 5 shows the choice of how many days per week our survey of 2,500 American workers preferred. While the median responder wants to work from home two days a week, there is a striking range of views. A full 20 percent of workers never want to do it while another 25 percent want to do it full time.

The remaining 55 percent all want some mix of office and home time. I saw similarly large variations in views in my China experiment, which often changed over time. Employees would try WFH and then discover after a few months it was too lonely or fell victim to one of the three enemies of the practice — the fridge, the bed, and the television — and would decide to return to the office.

So the simple advice is to let employees choose, within limits. Nobody should be forced to work from home full time, and nobody should be forced to work in the office full time. Choice is key — let employees pick their schedules and let them change as their views evolve. The two exceptions are new hires, for whom maybe one or two years full time in the office makes sense, and under-performers, who are the subject of my final tip.

Third, working from home is a privilege, not an entitlement.

For WFH to succeed, it is essential to have an effective performance review system. If you can evaluate employees based on output — what they accomplish — they can easily work from home. If they are effective and productive, great; if not, warn them, and if they continue to underperform, haul them back to the office.

This of course requires effective performance management. In firms that do not have effective employee appraisal systems management, I would caution against working from home. This was the lesson of  Yahoo in 2013 . When Marissa Mayer took over, she found there was an ineffective employee evaluation system and working from home was hard to manage. So WFH was paused while Mayer revamped Yahoo’s employee performance evaluation.

The COVID pandemic has challenged and changed our relationships with work and how many of us do our jobs. There’s no real going back, and that means policymakers and business leaders need to plan and prepare so workers and firms are not sidelined by otherwise avoidable problems. With a thoughtful approach to a post-pandemic world, working from home can be a change for good.

Figure 5: There is wide variation in employee demand for WFH post-COVID

Source:  Response to the questions: “In 2021+ (after COVID) how often would you like to have paid work days at home?“

Data from a survey of 2,500 US residents aged 20 to 64, earning more than $20,000 per year in 2019 carried out between May 21-25, by QuestionPro on behalf of Stanford University. 

Sample reweighted to match the Current Population Survey. 

1 Newsbank Access World News collection of approximately 2,000 national and local daily U.S. newspapers showing the percentage of articles mentioning “working from home” or “WFH.”

2 These are the  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics American Time Use Survey ; the  Survey of Business Uncertainty ; the  Bank of England Decision Maker Panel ; and the survey I conducted of 2,500 U.S. employees.

3   U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Flexibilities and Work Schedules News Release. Sept. 24, 2019 .

4   Firms Expect Working from Home to Triple.  May 28, 2020. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta .

5  In a packed elevator each person requires about four square feet. With six-foot spacing we need a circle of radius six-feet around each person, which is over 100 square feet. If an elevator is large enough to fit more than one person, experts have advised riders to stand in your corner, face the walls and carry toothpicks (for pushing the buttons), as explained in this  NPR report .

Baker, S.R., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J., Terry, S.J. (2020). COVID-Induced Economic Uncertainty (No. 26983). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., Zhichun, J.Y. (2014). Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier. Penguin Books.

Related Topics

• Policy Brief

More Publications

New age thinking: alternative ways of measuring age, their relationship to labor force participation, government policies and gdp, intertemporal choice and consumption mobility, the effect of foreclosures on homeowners, tenants, and landlords.

Reimagining the postpandemic workforce

As the pandemic begins to ease, many companies are planning a new combination of remote and on-site working, a hybrid virtual model in which some employees are on premises, while others work from home. The new model promises greater access to talent, increased productivity for individuals and small teams , lower costs, more individual flexibility, and improved employee experiences .

While these potential benefits are substantial, history shows that mixing virtual and on-site working might be a lot harder than it looks—despite its success during the pandemic. Consider how Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer ended that company’s remote-working experiment in 2013, observing that the company needed to become “one Yahoo!” again, or how HP Inc. did the same that year. Specific reasons may have varied. But in each case, the downsides of remote working at scale came to outweigh the positives.

These downsides arise from the organizational norms that underpin culture and performance— ways of working , as well as standards of behavior and interaction—that help create a common culture, generate social cohesion, and build shared trust. To lose sight of them during a significant shift to virtual-working arrangements is to risk an erosion over the long term of the very trust, cohesion, and shared culture that often helps remote working and virtual collaboration to be effective in the short term.

It also risks letting two organizational cultures emerge, dominated by the in-person workers and managers who continue to benefit from the positive elements of co-location and in-person collaboration, while culture and social cohesion for the virtual workforce languish. When this occurs, remote workers can soon feel isolated, disenfranchised, and unhappy, the victims of unintentional behavior in an organization that failed to build a coherent model of, and capabilities for, virtual and in-person work. The sense of belonging, common purpose, and shared identity that inspires all of us to do our best work gets lost. Organizational performance deteriorates accordingly.

Now is the time, as you reimagine the postpandemic organization , to pay careful attention to the effect of your choices on organizational norms and culture. Focus on the ties that bind your people together. Pay heed to core aspects of your own leadership and that of your broader group of leaders and managers. Your opportunity is to fashion the hybrid virtual model that best fits your company, and let it give birth to a new shared culture for all your employees that provides stability, social cohesion, identity, and belonging, whether your employees are working remotely, on premises, or in some combination of both.

Avoiding the pitfalls of remote working requires thinking carefully about leadership and management in a hybrid virtual world. Interactions between leaders and teams provide an essential locus for creating the social cohesion and the unified hybrid virtual culture that organizations need in the next normal.

Cutting the ties that bind

If you happen to believe that remote work is no threat to social ties, consider the experience of Skygear.io, a company that provides an open-source platform for app development. Several years ago, Skygear was looking to accommodate several new hires by shifting to a hybrid remote-work model for their 40-plus-person team. The company soon abandoned the idea. Team members who didn’t come to the office missed out on chances to strengthen their social ties through ad hoc team meals and discussions around interesting new tech launches. The wine and coffee tastings that built cohesion and trust had been lost. Similarly, GoNoodle employees found themselves at Zoom happy hour longing for the freshly remodeled offices they had left behind at lockdown. “We had this killer sound system,” one employee, an extrovert who yearns for time with her colleagues, told the New York Times . “You know—we’re drinking coffee, or maybe, ‘Hey, want to take a walk?’ I miss that.” 1 Clive Thompson, “What if working from home goes on … forever?,” New York Times , June 9, 2020, nytimes.com. Successful workplace cultures rely on these kinds of social interactions. That’s something Yahoo!’s Mayer recognized in 2013 when she said, “We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together,” having the “interactions and experiences that are only possible” face-to-face, such as “hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings.” 2 Kara Swisher, “‘Physically together’: Here’s the internal Yahoo no-work-from-home memo for remote workers and maybe more,” All Things Digital, February 22, 2013, allthingsd.com.

Or consider how quickly two cultures emerged recently in one of the business units of a company we know. Within this business unit, one smaller group was widely distributed in Cape Town, Los Angeles, Mumbai, Paris, and other big cities. The larger group was concentrated in Chicago, with a shared office in the downtown area. When a new global leader arrived just prior to the pandemic, the leader based herself in Chicago and quickly bonded with the in-person group that worked alongside her in the office. As the pandemic began, but before everyone was sent home to work remotely, the new leader abruptly centralized operations into a crisis nerve center made up of everyone in the on-site group. The new arrangement persisted as remote working began. Meanwhile, the smaller group, which had already been remote working in other cities, quickly lost visibility into, and participation in, the new workflows and resources that had been centralized among the on-site group, even though that on-site group was now working virtually too. Newly created and highly sought-after assignments (which were part of the business unit’s crisis response) went to members of the formerly on-site group, while those in the distributed group found many of their areas of responsibility reduced or taken away entirely. Within a matter of months, key employees in the smaller, distributed group were unhappy and underperforming.

The new global leader, in her understandable rush to address the crisis, had failed to create a level playing field and instead (perhaps unintentionally) favored one set of employees over the other. For us, it was stunning to observe how quickly, in the right circumstances, everything could go wrong. Avoiding these pitfalls requires thinking carefully about leadership and management in a hybrid virtual world, and about how smaller teams respond to new arrangements for work. Interactions between leaders and teams provide an essential locus for creating the social cohesion and the unified hybrid virtual culture that organizations need in the next normal.

Choose your model

Addressing working norms, and their effect on culture and performance, requires making a basic decision: Which part of the hybrid virtual continuum (exhibit) is right for your organization? The decision rests on the factors for which you’re optimizing. Is it real-estate cost? Employee productivity? Access to talent? The employee experience? All of these are worthy goals, but in practice it can be difficult to optimize one without considering its effect on the others. Ultimately, you’re left with a difficult problem to solve—one with a number of simultaneous factors and that defies simple formulas.

That said, we can make general points that apply across the board. These observations, which keep a careful eye on the organizational norms and ways of working that inform culture and performance, address two primary factors: the type of work your employees tend to do and the physical spaces you need to support that work.

First let’s eliminate the extremes. We’d recommend a fully virtual model to very few companies, and those that choose this model would likely operate in specific industries such as outsourced call centers, customer service, contact telesales, publishing, PR, marketing, research and information services, IT, and software development, and under specific circumstances. Be cautious if you think better access to talent or lower real-estate cost—which the all-virtual model would seem to optimize—outweigh all other considerations. On the other hand, few companies would be better off choosing an entirely on-premises model, given that at least some of their workers need flexibility because of work–life or health constraints. That leaves most companies somewhere in the middle, with a hybrid mix of remote and on-site working.

The physical spaces needed for work—or not

Being in the middle means sorting out the percentage of your employees who are working remotely and how often they are doing so. Let’s say 80 percent of your employees work remotely but do so only one day per week. In the four days they are on premises, they are likely getting all the social interaction and connection needed for collaboration, serendipitous idea generation, innovation, and social cohesiveness. In this case, you might be fine with the partially remote, large headquarters (HQ) model in the exhibit.

If, instead, a third of your employees are working remotely but doing so 90 percent of the time, the challenges to social cohesion are more pronounced. The one-third of your workforce will miss out on social interaction with the two-thirds working on-premises—and the cohesion, coherence, and cultural belonging that comes with it. One solution would be to bring those remote workers into the office more frequently, in which case multiple hubs, or multiple microhubs (as seen in the exhibit), might be the better choice. Not only is it easier to travel to regional hubs than to a central HQ, at least for employees who don’t happen to live near that HQ, but more dispersed hubs make the in-person culture less monolithic. Moreover, microhubs can often be energizing, fun, and innovative places in which to collaborate and connect with colleagues, which further benefits organizational culture.

Productivity and speed

Now let’s begin to factor in other priorities, such as employee productivity. Here the question becomes less straightforward, and the answer will be unique to your circumstances. When tackling the question, be sure to go beyond the impulse to monitor inputs and activity as a proxy for productivity. Metrics focused on inputs or volume of activity have always been a poor substitute for the true productivity that boosts outcomes and results, no matter how soothing it might be to look at the company parking lot to see all the employees who have arrived early in the day, and all those who are leaving late. Applied to a hybrid model, counting inputs might leave you grasping at the number of hours that employees are spending in front of their computers and logged into your servers. Yet the small teams  that are the lifeblood of today’s organizational success thrive with empowering, less-controlling management styles. Better to define the outcomes you expect from your small teams rather than the specific activities or the time spent on them.

Would you like to learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice ?

In addition to giving teams clear objectives, and both the accountability and autonomy for delivering them, leaders need to guide, inspire, and enable small teams, helping them overcome bureaucratic challenges that bog them down, such as organizational silos and resource inertia—all while helping to direct teams to the best opportunities, arming them with the right expertise, and giving them the tools they need to move fast. Once teams and individuals understand what they are responsible for delivering, in terms of results, leaders should focus on monitoring the outcome-based measurements. When leaders focus on outcomes and outputs, virtual workers deliver higher-quality work.

In this regard, you can take comfort in Netflix (which at the time of this writing is the 32nd largest company in the world by market capitalization), which thrives without limiting paid time off or specifying how much “face time” workers must spend in the office. Netflix measures productivity by outcomes, not inputs—and you should do the same.

No matter which model you choose for hybrid virtual work, your essential task will be to carefully manage the organizational norms that matter most when adopting any of these models. Let’s dive more deeply into those now.

Managing the transition

Organizations thrive through a sense of belonging and shared purpose that can easily get lost when two cultures emerge. When this happens, our experience—and the experience at HP, IBM, and Yahoo!—is that the in-person culture comes to dominate, disenfranchising those who are working remotely. The difficulty arises through a thousand small occurrences: when teams mishandle conference calls such that remote workers feel overlooked, and when collaborators use on-site white boards rather than online collaboration tools such as Miro. But culture can split apart in bigger ways too, as when the pattern of promotions favors on-site employees or when on-premises workers get the more highly sought-after assignments.

Some things simply become more difficult when you are working remotely. Among them are acculturating new joiners; learning via hands-on coaching and apprenticeship; undertaking ambiguous, complex, and collaborative innovations; and fostering the creative collisions through which new ideas can emerge. Addressing these boils down to leadership and management styles, and how those styles and approaches support small teams. Team experience is a critical driver of hybrid virtual culture—and managers and team leaders have an outsize impact on their teams’ experiences.

Managers and leaders

As a rule, the more geographically dispersed the team, the less effective the leadership becomes. Moreover, leaders who were effective in primarily on-site working arrangements may not necessarily prove so in a hybrid virtual approach. Many leaders will now need to “show up” differently when they are interacting with some employees face-to-face and others virtually. By defining and embracing new behaviors that are observable to all, and by deliberately making space for virtual employees to engage in informal interactions, leaders can facilitate social cohesion and trust-building in their teams.

More inspirational. There’s a reason why military commanders tour the troops rather than send emails from headquarters—hierarchical leadership thrives in person. Tom Peters  used to call the in-person approach “management by walking around”: “Looking someone in the eye, shaking their hand, laughing with them when in their physical presence creates a very different kind of bond than can be achieved [virtually].” 3 See Tom Peters blog , “The heart of MBWA,” blog entry by Shelley Dolley, February 27, 2013, tompeters.com.

But when the workforce is hybrid virtual, leaders need to rely less on hierarchical and more on inspirational forms of leadership . The dispersed employees working remotely require new leadership behaviors to compensate for the reduced socioemotional cues characteristic of digital channels.

Cultivate informal interactions. Have you ever run into a colleague in the hallway and, by doing so, learned something you didn’t know? Informal interactions and unplanned encounters foster the unexpected cross-pollination of ideas—the exchange of tacit knowledge—that are essential to healthy, innovative organizations. Informal interactions provide a starting point for collegial relationships in which people collaborate on areas of shared interest, thereby bridging organizational silos and strengthening social networks and shared trust within your company.

Informal interactions, which occur more naturally among co-located employees, don’t come about as easily in a virtual environment. Leaders need new approaches to creating them as people work both remotely and on-site. One approach is to leave a part of the meeting agenda free, as a time for employees to discuss any topic. Leaders can also establish an open-door policy and hold virtual “fireside chats,” without any structured content at all, to create a forum for less formal interactions. The goal is for employees, those working remotely and in-person, to feel like they have access to leaders and to the kind of informal interactions that happen on the way to the company cafeteria.

Many leaders will now need to “show up” differently when they are interacting with some employees face-to-face and others virtually. By defining and embracing new behaviors that are observable to all, and by deliberately making space for virtual employees to engage in informal interactions—leaders can facilitate social cohesion and trust-building in their teams.

Further approaches include virtual coffee rooms and social events, as well as virtual conferences in which group and private chat rooms and sessions complement plenary presentations. In between time, make sure you and all your team members are sending text messages to one another and that you are texting your team regularly for informal check-ins. These norms cultivate the habit of connecting informally.

Role model the right stance. It might seem obvious, but research shows that leaders consistently fail to recognize how their actions affect and will be interpreted by others. 4 Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “How to work for a boss who lacks self-awareness,” Harvard Business Review , April 3, 2018, hbr.org. Consider the location from which you choose to work. If you want to signal that you tolerate virtual work, come into the office every day and join meetings in-person with those who happen to be in the building. This will result in a cultural belief that the HQ or physical offices are the real centers of gravity, and that face time is what’s important.

Come into the office every day, though, and your remote-working employees may soon feel that their choice to work virtually leaves them fewer career opportunities, and that their capabilities and contributions are secondary. By working from home (or a non-office location) a couple days a week, leaders signal that people don’t need to be in the office to be productive or to get ahead. In a hybrid virtual world, seemingly trivial leadership decisions can have outsize effect on the rest of the organization.

Don’t rely solely on virtual interactions. By the same token, despite big technological advancements over the years, nothing can entirely replace face-to-face interactions. Why? In part because so much of communication is nonverbal (even if it’s not the 93 percent that some would assert), but also because so much communication involves equivocal, potentially contentious, or difficult-to-convey subject matter. Face-to-face interactions create significantly more opportunities for rich, informal interactions, emotional connection, and emergent “creative collision” that can be the lifeblood of trust, collaboration, innovation, and culture.

Media richness theory helps us understand the need to match the “richness” of the message with the capabilities of the medium. You wouldn’t let your nephew know of the death of his father by fax, for instance—you would do it in person, if at all possible, and, failing that, by the next richest medium, probably video call. Some communication simply proceeds better face-to-face, and it is up to the leader to match the mode of communication to the equivocality of the message they are delivering.

Reimagining the post-pandemic organization

In other cases, asynchronous communication—such as email and text—are sufficient, and even better, because it allows time for individuals to process information and compose responses after some reflection and thought. However, when developing trust (especially early on in a relationship) or discussing sensitive work-related issues, such as promotions, pay, and performance, face-to-face is preferred, followed by videoconferencing, which, compared with audio, improves the ability for participants to show understanding, anticipate responses, provide nonverbal information, enhance verbal descriptions, manage pauses, and express attitudes. However, compared with face-to-face interaction, it can be difficult in video interactions to notice peripheral cues, control the floor, have side conversations, and point to or manipulate real-world objects.

Whatever the exact mix of communication you choose in a given moment, you will want to convene everyone in person at least one or two times a year, even if the work a particular team is doing can technically be done entirely virtually. In person is where trust-based relationships develop and deepen, and where serendipitous conversations and connections can occur.

Track your informal networks. Corporate organizations consist of multiple, overlapping, and intersecting social networks. As these informal networks widen and deepen, they mobilize talent and knowledge across the enterprise, facilitating and informing cultural cohesiveness while helping to support cross-silo collaboration and knowledge sharing.

Because the hybrid virtual model reduces face-to-face interaction and the serendipitous encounters that occur between people with weak ties , social networks can lose their strength. To counter that risk, leaders should map and monitor the informal networks  in their organization with semiannual refreshes of social-network maps. Approaches include identifying the functions or activities where connectivity seems most relevant and then mapping relationships within those priority areas—and then tracking the changes in those relationships over time. Options for obtaining the necessary information include tracking email, observing employees, using existing data (such as time cards and project charge codes), and administering short (five- to 20-minute) questionnaires. It is likely that leaders will need to intervene and create connections between groups that do not naturally interact or that now interact less frequently as a result of the hybrid virtual model.

Hybrid virtual teams

Leadership is crucial, but in the hybrid virtual model, teams (and networks of teams ) also need to adopt new norms and change the way they work if they are to maintain—and improve—productivity, collaboration, and innovation. This means gathering information, devising solutions, putting new approaches into practice, and refining outcomes—and doing it all fast. The difficulty rises when the team is part virtual and part on-site. What follows are specific areas on which to focus.

Create ‘safe’ spaces to learn from mistakes and voice requests

Psychological safety matters in the workplace, obviously, and in a hybrid virtual model it requires more attention. First, because a feeling of safety can be harder to create with some people working on-site and others working remotely. And, second, because it’s often less obvious when safety erodes. Safety arises as organizations purposefully create a culture in which employees feel comfortable making mistakes, speaking up, and generating innovative ideas. Safety also requires helping employees feel supported when they request flexible operating approaches to accommodate personal needs.

Mind the time-zone gaps

The experience of a hybrid virtual team in the same time zone varies significantly from a hybrid virtual team with members in multiple time zones. Among other ills, unmanaged time-zone differences make sequencing workflows more difficult. When people work in different time zones, the default tends toward asynchronous communications (email) and a loss of real-time connectivity. Equally dysfunctional is asking or expecting team members to wake up early or stay up late for team meetings. It can work for a short period of time, but in the medium and longer run it reduces the cohesion that develops through real-time collaboration. (It also forces some team members to work when they’re tired and not at their best.) Moreover, if there is a smaller subgroup on the team in, say, Asia, while the rest are in North America, a two-culture problem can emerge, with the virtual group feeling lesser than. Better to simply build teams with at least four hours of overlap during the traditional workday to ensure time for collaboration.

Keep teams together, when possible, and hone the art of team kickoffs

Established teams, those that have been working together for longer periods of time, are more productive than newer teams that are still forming and storming. The productivity they enjoy arises from clear norms and trust-based relationships—not to mention familiarity with workflows and routines. That said, new blood often energizes a team.

In an entirely on-premises model, chances are you would swap people in and out of your small teams more frequently. The pace at which you do so will likely decline in a hybrid virtual model, in which working norms and team cohesion are more at risk. But don’t take it to an extreme. Teams need members with the appropriate expertise and backgrounds, and the right mix of those tends to evolve over time.

Meanwhile, pay close attention to team kickoffs as you add new people to teams or stand up new ones. Kickoffs should include an opportunity to align the overall goals of the team with those of team members while clarifying personal working preferences.

Keeping track

Once you have your transition to a hybrid virtual model underway, how will you know if it’s working, and whether you maintained or enhanced your organization’s performance culture? Did your access to talent increase, and are you attracting and inspiring top talent? Are you developing and deploying strong leaders? To what extent are all your employees engaged in driving performance and innovation, gathering insights, and sharing knowledge?

The right metrics will depend on your goals, of course. Be wary of trying to achieve across all parameters, though. McKinsey research  shows that winning performance cultures emerge from carefully selecting the right combinations of practices (or “recipes”) that, when applied together, create superior organizational performance. Tracking results against these combinations of practices can help indicate, over time, if you’ve managed to keep your unified performance culture intact in the transition to a new hybrid virtual model.

We’ll close by saying you don’t have to make all the decisions about your hybrid virtual model up front and in advance. See what happens. See where your best talent emerges. If you end up finding, say, 30 (or 300) employees clustered around Jakarta, and other groups in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, ask them what might help them feel a socially supported sense of belonging. To the extent that in-person interactions are important—as we guess they will be—perhaps consider a microhub in one of those cities, if you don’t have one already.

Approached in the right way, the new hybrid model can help you make the most of talent wherever it resides, while lowering costs and making your organization’s performance culture even stronger than before.

Andrea Alexander is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Houston office, where Aaron De Smet is a senior partner and Mihir Mysore is a partner.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Communications get personal: How leaders can engage employees during a return to work

Reimagining the postpandemic organization

Adapting workplace learning in the time of coronavirus

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Researchers working from home: Benefits and challenges

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary, Doctoral School of Psychology, ELTE Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

• Balazs Aczel, 
• Marton Kovacs, 
• Tanja van der Lippe, 
• Barnabas Szaszi

• Published: March 25, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The flexibility allowed by the mobilization of technology disintegrated the traditional work-life boundary for most professionals. Whether working from home is the key or impediment to academics’ efficiency and work-life balance became a daunting question for both scientists and their employers. The recent pandemic brought into focus the merits and challenges of working from home on a level of personal experience. Using a convenient sampling, we surveyed 704 academics while working from home and found that the pandemic lockdown decreased the work efficiency for almost half of the researchers but around a quarter of them were more efficient during this time compared to the time before. Based on the gathered personal experience, 70% of the researchers think that in the future they would be similarly or more efficient than before if they could spend more of their work-time at home. They indicated that in the office they are better at sharing thoughts with colleagues, keeping in touch with their team, and collecting data, whereas at home they are better at working on their manuscript, reading the literature, and analyzing their data. Taking well-being also into account, 66% of them would find it ideal to work more from home in the future than they did before the lockdown. These results draw attention to how working from home is becoming a major element of researchers’ life and that we have to learn more about its influencer factors and coping tactics in order to optimize its arrangements.

Citation: Aczel B, Kovacs M, van der Lippe T, Szaszi B (2021) Researchers working from home: Benefits and challenges. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0249127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127

Editor: Johnson Chun-Sing Cheung, The University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG

Received: September 24, 2020; Accepted: March 11, 2021; Published: March 25, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Aczel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All research materials, the collected raw and processed anonymous data, just as well the code for data management and statistical analyses are publicly shared on the OSF page of the project: OSF: https://osf.io/v97fy/ .

Funding: TVL's contribution is part of the research program Sustainable Cooperation – Roadmaps to Resilient Societies (SCOOP). She is grateful to the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) for their support in the context of its 2017 Gravitation Program (grant number 024.003.025).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Fleeing from the Great Plague that reached Cambridge in 1665, Newton retreated to his countryside home where he continued working for the next year and a half. During this time, he developed his theories on calculus, optics, and the law of gravitation—fundamentally changing the path of science for centuries. Newton himself described this period as the most productive time of his life [ 1 ]. Is working from home indeed the key to efficiency for scientists also in modern times? A solution for working without disturbance by colleagues and being able to manage a work-life balance? What personal and professional factors influence the relation between productivity and working from home? These are the main questions that the present paper aims to tackle. The Covid-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to analyze the implications of working from home in great detail.

Working away from the traditional office is increasingly an option in today’s world. The phenomenon has been studied under numerous, partially overlapping terms, such as telecommuting, telework, virtual office, remote work, location independent working, home office. In this paper, we will use ‘working from home’ (WFH), a term that typically covers working from any location other than the dedicated area provided by the employer.

The practice of WFH and its effect on job efficiency and well-being are reasonably well explored outside of academia [ 2 , 3 ]. Internet access and the increase of personal IT infrastructure made WFH a growing trend throughout the last decades [ 4 ]. In 2015, over 12% of EU workers [ 5 ] and near one-quarter of US employees [ 6 ] worked at least partly from home. A recent survey conducted among 27,500 millennials and Gen Z-s indicated that their majority would like to work remotely more frequently [ 7 ]. The literature suggests that people working from home need flexibility for different reasons. Home-working is a typical solution for those who need to look after dependent children [ 8 ] but many employees just seek a better work-life balance [ 7 ] and the comfort of an alternative work environment [ 9 ].

Non-academic areas report work-efficiency benefits for WFH but they also show some downsides of this arrangement. A good example is the broad-scale experiment in which call center employees were randomly assigned to work from home or in the office for nine months [ 10 ]. A 13% work performance increase was found in the working from home group. These workers also reported improved work satisfaction. Still, after the experiment, 50% of them preferred to go back to the office mainly because of feeling isolated at home.

Home-working has several straightforward positive aspects, such as not having to commute, easier management of household responsibilities [ 11 ] and family demands [ 12 ], along with increased autonomy over time use [ 13 , 14 ], and fewer interruptions [ 15 , 16 ]. Personal comfort is often listed as an advantage of the home environment [e.g., 15 ], though setting up a home office comes with physical and infrastructural demands [ 17 ]. People working from home consistently report greater job motivation and satisfaction [ 4 , 11 , 18 , 19 ] which is probably due to the greater work-related control and work-life flexibility [ 20 ]. A longitudinal nationally representative sample of 30,000 households in the UK revealed that homeworking is positively related with leisure time satisfaction [ 21 ], suggesting that people working from home can allocate more time for leisure activities.

Often-mentioned negative aspects of WFH include being disconnected from co-workers, experiencing isolation due to the physical and social distance to team members [ 22 , 23 ]. Also, home-working employees reported more difficulties with switching off and they worked beyond their formal working hours [ 4 ]. Working from home is especially difficult for those with small children [ 24 ], but intrusion from other family members, neighbours, and friends were also found to be major challenges of WFH [e.g., 17 ]. Moreover, being away from the office may also create a lack of visibility and increases teleworkers’ fear that being out of sight limits opportunities for promotion, rewards, and positive performance reviews [ 25 ].

Importantly, increased freedom imposes higher demands on workers to control not just the environment, but themselves too. WFH comes with the need to develop work-life boundary control tactics [ 26 ] and to be skilled at self-discipline, self-motivation, and good time management [ 27 ]. Increased flexibility can easily lead to multitasking and work-family role blurring [ 28 ]. Table 1 provides non-comprehensive lists of mostly positive and mostly negative consequences of WFH, based on the literature reviewed here.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127.t001

Compared to the private sector, our knowledge is scarce about how academics experience working from home. Researchers in higher education institutes work in very similar arrangements. Typically, they are expected to personally attend their workplace, if not for teaching or supervision, then for meetings or to confer with colleagues. In the remaining worktime, they work in their lab or, if allowed, they may choose to do some of their tasks remotely. Along with the benefits on productivity when working from home, academics have already experienced some of its drawbacks at the start of the popularity of personal computers. As Snizek observed in the ‘80s, “(f)aculty who work long hours at home using their microcomputers indicate feelings of isolation and often lament the loss of collegial feedback and reinforcement” [page 622, 29 ].

Until now, the academics whose WFH experience had been given attention were mostly those participating in online distance education [e.g., 30 , 31 ]. They experienced increased autonomy, flexibility in workday schedule, the elimination of unwanted distractions [ 32 ], along with high levels of work productivity and satisfaction [ 33 ], but they also observed inadequate communication and the lack of opportunities for skill development [ 34 ]. The Covid-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to study the WFH experience of a greater spectrum of academics, since at one point most of them had to do all their work from home.

We have only fragmented knowledge about the moderators of WFH success. We know that control over time is limited by the domestic tasks one has while working from home. The view that women’s work is more influenced by family obligations than men’s is consistently shown in the literature [e.g., 35 – 37 ]. Sullivan and Lewis [ 38 ] argued that women who work from home are able to fulfil their domestic role better and manage their family duties more to their satisfaction, but that comes at the expense of higher perceived work–family conflict [see also 39 ]. Not surprisingly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, female scientists suffered a greater disruption than men in their academic productivity and time spent on research, most likely due to demands of childcare [ 40 , 41 ].

In summary, until recently, the effect of WFH on academics’ life and productivity received limited attention. However, during the recent pandemic lockdown, scientists, on an unprecedented scale, had to find solutions to continue their research from home. The situation unavoidably brought into focus the merits and challenges of WFH on a level of personal experience. Institutions were compelled to support WFH arrangements by adequate regulations, services, and infrastructure. Some researchers and institutions might have found benefits in the new arrangements and may wish to continue WFH in some form; for others WFH brought disproportionately larger challenges. The present study aims to facilitate the systematic exploration and support of researchers’ efficiency and work-life balance when working from home.

Materials and methods

Our study procedure and analysis plan were preregistered at https://osf.io/jg5bz (all deviations from the plan are listed in S1 File ). The survey included questions on research work efficiency, work-life balance, demographics, professional and personal background information. The study protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board from Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary (approval number: 2020/131). The Transparency Report of the study, the complete text of the questionnaire items and the instructions are shared at our OSF repository: https://osf.io/v97fy/ .

As the objective of this study was to gain insight about researchers’ experience of WFH, we aimed to increase the size and diversity of our sample rather than ascertaining the representativeness of our sample. Therefore, we distributed our online survey link among researchers in professional newsletters, university mailing lists, on social media, and by sending group-emails to authors (additional details about sampling are in S1 File ). As a result of the nature of our sampling strategy, it is not known how many researchers have seen our participation request. Additionally, we did not collect the country of residence of the respondents. Responses analyzed in this study were collected between 2020-04-24 and 2020-07-13. Overall, 858 individuals started the survey and 154 were excluded because they did not continue the survey beyond the first question. As a result, 704 respondents were included in the analysis.

We sent the questionnaire individually to each of the respondents through the Qualtrics Mailer service. Written informed consent and access to the preregistration of the research was provided to every respondent before starting the survey. Then, respondents who agreed to participate in the study could fill out the questionnaire. To encourage participation, we offered that upon completion they can enter a lottery to win a 100 USD voucher.

This is a general description of the survey items. The full survey with the display logic and exact phrasing of the items is transported from Qualtrics and uploaded to the projects’ OSF page: https://osf.io/8ze2g/ .

Efficiency of research work.

The respondents were asked to compare the efficiency of their research work during the lockdown to their work before the lockdown. They were also asked to use their present and previous experience to indicate whether working more from home in the future would change the efficiency of their research work compared to the time before the lockdown. For both questions, they could choose among three options: “less efficient”; “more efficient”, and “similarly efficient”.

Comparing working from home to working in the office.

Participants were asked to compare working from home to working from the office. For this question they could indicate their preference on a 7-point dimension (1: At home; 7: In the office), along 15 efficiency or well-being related aspects of research work (e.g., working on the manuscript, maintaining work-life balance). These aspects were collected in a pilot study conducted with 55 researchers who were asked to indicate in free text responses the areas in which their work benefits/suffers when working from home. More details of the pilot study are provided in S1 File .

Actual and ideal time spent working from home.

To study the actual and ideal time spent working from home, researcher were asked to indicate on a 0–100% scale (1) what percentage of their work time they spent working from home before the pandemic and (2) how much would be ideal for them working from home in the future concerning both research efficiency and work-life balance.

Feasibility of working more from home.

With simple Yes/No options, we asked the respondents to indicate whether they think that working more from home would be feasible considering all their other duties (education, administration, etc.) and the given circumstances at home (infrastructure, level of disturbance).

Background information.

Background questions were asked by providing preset lists concerning their academic position (e.g., full professor), area of research (e.g., social sciences), type of workplace (e.g., purely research institute), gender, age group, living situation (e.g., single-parent with non-adult child(ren)), and the age and the number of their children.

The respondents were also asked to select one of the offered options to indicate: whether or not they worked more from home during the coronavirus lockdown than before; whether it is possible for them to collect data remotely; whether they have education duties at work; if their research requires intensive team-work; whether their home office is fully equipped; whether their partner was also working from home during the pandemic; how far their office is from home; whether they had to do home-schooling during the pandemic; whether there was someone else looking after their child(ren) during their work from home in lockdown. When the question did not apply to them, they could select the ‘NA’ option as well.

Data preprocessing and analyses

All the data preprocessing and analyses were conducted in R [ 42 ], with the use of the tidyverse packages [ 43 ]. Before the analysis of the survey responses, we read all the free-text comments to ascertain that they do not contain personal information and they are in line with the respondent’s answers. We found that for 5 items the respondents’ comments contradicted their survey choices (e.g., whether they have children), therefore, we excluded the responses of the corresponding items from further analyses (see S1 File ). Following the preregistration, we only conducted descriptive statistics of the survey results.

Background information

The summary of the key demographic information of the 704 complete responses is presented in Table 2 . A full summary of all the collected background information of the respondents are available in S1 File .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127.t002

Efficiency of research work

The results showed that 94% (n = 662) of the surveyed researchers worked more from home during the COVID-19 lockdown compared to the time before. Of these researchers, 47% found that due to working more from home their research became, in general, less efficient, 23% found it more efficient, and 30% found no difference compared to working before the lockdown. Within this database, we also explored the effect of the lockdown on the efficiency of people living with children (n = 290). Here, we found that 58% of them experienced that due to working more from home their research became, in general, less efficient, 20% found it more efficient, and 22% found no difference compared to working before the lockdown. Of those researchers who live with children, we found that 71% of the 21 single parents and 57% of the 269 partnered parents found working less efficient when working from home compared to the time before the lockdown.

When asking about how working more from home would affect the efficiency of their research after the lockdown, of those who have not already been working from home full time (n = 684), 29% assumed that it could make their research, in general, less efficient, 29% said that it would be more efficient, and 41% assumed no difference compared to the time before the lockdown ( Fig 1 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127.g001

Focusing on the efficiency of the subgroup of people who live with children (n = 295), we found that for 32% their research work would be less efficient, for 30% it would be no different, and for 38% it would be more efficient to work from home after the lockdown, compared to the time before the lockdown.

Comparing working from home to working in the office

When comparing working from home to working in the office in general, people found that they can better achieve certain aspects of the research in one place than the other. They indicated that in the office they are better at sharing thoughts with colleagues, keeping in touch with their team, and collecting data, whereas at home they are better at working on their manuscript, reading the literature, and analyzing their data ( Fig 2 ).

The bars represent response averages of the given aspects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127.g002

Actual and ideal time spent working from home

We also asked the researchers how much of their work time they spent working from home in the past, and how much it would be ideal for them to work from home in the future concerning both research efficiency and well-being. Fig 3 shows the distribution of percentages of time working from home in the past and in an ideal future. Comparing these values for each researcher, we found that 66% of them want to work more from home in the future than they did before the lockdown, whereas 16% of them want to work less from home, and 18% of them want to spend the same percentage of their work time at home in the future as before. (These latter calculations were not preregistered).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127.g003

Feasibility of working more from home

Taken all their other duties (education, administration, etc.) and provided circumstances at home (infrastructure, level of disturbance), of researchers who would like to work more from home in the future (n = 461), 86% think that it would be possible to do so. Even among those who have teaching duties at work (n = 376), 84% think that more working from home would be ideal and possible.

Researchers’ work and life have radically changed in recent times. The flexibility allowed by the mobilization of technology and the continuous access to the internet disintegrated the traditional work-life boundary. Where, when, and how we work depends more and more on our own arrangements. The recent pandemic only highlighted an already existing task: researchers’ worklife has to be redefined. The key challenge in a new work-life model is to find strategies to balance the demands of work and personal life. As a first step, the present paper explored how working from home affects researchers’ efficiency and well-being.

Our results showed that while the pandemic-related lockdown decreased the work efficiency for almost half of the researchers (47%), around a quarter (23%) of them experienced that they were more efficient during this time compared to the time before. Based on personal experience, 70% of the researchers think that after the lockdown they would be similarly (41%) or more efficient (29%) than before if they could spend more of their work-time at home. The remaining 30% thought that after the lockdown their work efficiency would decrease if they worked from home, which is noticeably lower than the 47% who claimed the same for the lockdown period. From these values we speculate that some of the obstacles of their work efficiency were specific to the pandemic lockdown. Such obstacles could have been the need to learn new methods to teach online [ 44 ] or the trouble adapting to the new lifestyle [ 45 ]. Furthermore, we found that working from the office and working from home support different aspects of research. Not surprisingly, activities that involve colleagues or team members are better bound to the office, but tasks that need focused attention, such as working on the manuscript or analyzing the data are better achieved from home.

A central motivation of our study was to explore what proportion of their worktime researchers would find ideal to work from home, concerning both research efficiency and work-life balance. Two thirds of the researchers indicated that it would be better to work more from home in the future. It seemed that sharing work somewhat equally between the two venues is the most preferred arrangement. A great majority (86%) of those who would like to work more from home in the future, think that it would be possible to do so. As a conclusion, both the work and non-work life of researchers would take benefits should more WFH be allowed and neither workplace duties, nor their domestic circumstances are limits of such a change. That researchers have a preference to work more from home, might be due to the fact that they are more and more pressured by their work. Finishing manuscripts, and reading literature is easier to find time for when working from home.

A main message of the results of our present survey is that although almost half of the respondents reported reduced work efficiency during the lockdown, the majority of them would prefer the current remote work setting to some extent in the future. It is important to stress, however, that working from home is not equally advantageous for researchers. Several external and personal factors must play a role in researchers’ work efficiency and work-life balance. In this analysis, we concentrated only on family status, but further dedicated studies will be required to gain a deeper understanding of the complex interaction of professional, institutional, personal, and domestic factors in this matter. While our study could only initiate the exploration of academics’ WFH benefits and challenges, we can already discuss a few relevant aspects regarding the work-life interface.

Our data show that researchers who live with dependent children can exploit the advantages of working from home less than those who do not have childcare duties, irrespective of the pandemic lockdown. Looking after children is clearly a main source of people’s task overload and, as a result, work-family conflict [ 46 , 47 ]. As an implication, employers should pay special respect to employees’ childcare situations when defining work arrangements. It should be clear, however, that other caring responsibilities should also be respected such as looking after elderly or disabled relatives [ 48 ]. Furthermore, to avoid equating non-work life with family-life, a broader diversity of life circumstances, such as those who live alone, should be taken into consideration [ 49 ].

It seems likely that after the pandemic significantly more work will be supplied from home [ 50 ]. The more of the researchers’ work will be done from home in the future, the greater the challenge will grow to integrate their work and non-work life. The extensive research on work-life conflict, should help us examine the issue and to develop coping strategies applicable for academics’ life. The Boundary Theory [ 26 , 51 , 52 ] proved to be a useful framework to understand the work-home interface. According to this theory, individuals utilize different tactics to create and maintain an ideal level of work-home segmentation. These boundaries often serve as “mental fences” to simplify the environment into domains, such as work or home, to help us attend our roles, such as being an employee or a parent. These boundaries are more or less permeable, depending on how much the individual attending one role can be influenced by another role. Individuals differ in the degree to which they prefer and are able to segment their roles, but each boundary crossing requires a cognitive “leap” between these categories [ 53 ]. The source of conflict is the demands of the different roles and responsibilities competing for one’s physical and mental resources. Working from home can easily blur the boundary between work and non-work domains. The conflict caused by the intrusion of the home world to one’s work time, just as well the intrusion of work tasks to one’s personal life are definite sources of weakened ability to concentrate on one’s tasks [ 54 ], exhaustion [ 55 ], and negative job satisfaction [ 56 ].

What can researchers do to mitigate this challenge? Various tactics have been identified for controlling one’s borders between work and non-work. One can separate the two domains by temporal, physical, behavioral, and communicative segmentation [ 26 ]. Professionals often have preferences and self-developed tactics for boundary management. People who prefer tighter boundary management apply strong segmentation between work and home [ 57 , 58 ]. For instance, they don’t do domestic tasks in worktime (temporal segmentation), close their door when working from home (physical segmentation), don’t read work emails at weekends (behavioral segmentation), or negotiate strict boundary rules with family members (communicative segmentation). People on the other on one side of the segmentation-integration continuum, might not mind, or cannot avoid, ad-hoc boundary-crossings and integrate the two domains by letting private space and time be mixed with their work.

Researchers, just like other workers, need to develop new arrangements and skills to cope with the disintegration of the traditional work-life boundaries. To know how research and education institutes could best support this change would require a comprehensive exploration of the factors in researchers’ WFH life. There is probably no one-size-fits-all approach to promote employees’ efficiency and well-being. Life circumstances often limit how much control people can have over their work-life boundaries when working from home [ 59 ]. Our results strongly indicate that some can boost work efficiency and wellbeing when working from home, others need external solutions, such as the office, to provide boundaries between their life domains. Until we gain comprehensive insight about the topic, individuals are probably the best judges of their own situation and of what arrangements may be beneficial for them in different times [ 60 ]. The more autonomy the employers provide to researchers in distributing their work between the office and home (while not lowering their expectations), the more they let them optimize this arrangement to their circumstances.

Our study has several limitations: to investigate how factors such as research domain, seniority, or geographic location contribute to WFH efficiency and well-being would have needed a much greater sample. Moreover, the country of residence of the respondents was not collected in our survey and this factor could potentially alter the perception of WFH due to differing social and infrastructural factors. Whereas the world-wide lockdown has provided a general experience to WFH to academics, the special circumstances just as well biased their judgment of the arrangement. With this exploratory research, we could only scratch the surface of the topic, the reader can probably generate a number of testable hypotheses that would be relevant to the topic but we could not analyze in this exploration.

Newton working in lockdown became the idealized image of the home-working scientist. Unquestionably, he was a genius, but his success probably needed a fortunate work-life boundary. Should he had noisy neighbours, or taunting domestic duties, he might have achieved much less while working from home. With this paper, we aim to draw attention to how WFH is becoming a major element of researchers’ life and that we have to be prepared for this change. We hope that personal experience or the topic’s relevance to the future of science will invite researchers to continue this work.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127.s001

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Szonja Horvath, Matyas Sarudi, and Zsuzsa Szekely for their help with reviewing the free text responses.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 5. Parent-Thirion A, Biletta I, Cabrita J, Vargas O, Vermeylen G, Wilczynska A, et al. Sixth European working conditions survey: Overview report. Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working …; 2016.
• 6. US Department of Labor B of LS. American time use survey—2015 results. 2016;
• 7. Deloitte. The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey 2020: Millennials and Gen Zs hold the key to creating a “better normal” [Internet]. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 5]. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html
• PubMed/NCBI
• 23. Pinsonneault A, Boisvert M. The impacts of telecommuting on organizations and individuals: A review of the literature. In: Telecommuting and virtual offices: Issues and opportunities. IGI Global; 2001. p. 163–85.
• 40. Frederickson M. COVID-19’s gendered impact on academic productivity [Internet]. GitHub. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 15]. https://github.com/drfreder/pandemic-pub-bias
• 50. Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ. Why Working From Home Will Stick. Univ Chic Becker Friedman Inst Econ Work Pap. 2020;(2020–174).
• 53. Zerubavel E. The fine line. University of Chicago Press; 1993.
• 58. Nippert-Eng C. Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work”. In: Sociological Forum. Springer; 1996. p. 563–82.

How does working from home affect developer productivity? — A case study of Baidu during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Research Paper
• Published: 14 March 2022
• Volume 65 , article number  142102 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Lingfeng Bao 1 ,
• Xin Xia 3 ,
• Kaiyu Zhu 2 ,
• Hui Li 2 &
• Xiaohu Yang 1  

8352 Accesses

28 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Nowadays, working from home (WFH) has become a popular work arrangement due to its many potential benefits for both companies and employees (e.g., increasing job satisfaction and retention of employees). Many previous studies have investigated the impact of WFH on the productivity of employees. However, most of these studies usually use a qualitative analysis method such as surveys and interviews, and the studied participants do not work from home for a long continuing time. Due to the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a large number of companies asked their employees to work from home, which provides us an opportunity to investigate whether WFH affects their productivity. In this study, to investigate the difference in developer productivity between WFH and working onsite, we conduct a quantitative analysis based on a dataset of developers’ daily activities from Baidu Inc., one of the largest IT companies in China. In total, we collected approximately four thousand records of 139 developers’ activities of 138 working days. Out of these records, 1103 records are submitted when developers work from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that WFH has both positive and negative impacts on developer productivity in terms of different metrics, e.g., the number of builds/commits/code reviews. We also notice that WFH has different impacts on projects with different characteristics including programming language, project type/age/size. For example, WFH has a negative impact on developer productivity for large projects. Additionally, we find that productivity varies for different developers. Based on these findings, we get some feedback from developers of Baidu and understand some reasons why WFH has different impacts on developer productivity. We also conclude several implications for both companies and developers.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Satisfaction and performance of software developers during enforced work from home in the COVID-19 pandemic

Daniel Russo, Paul H. P. Hanel, … Niels van Berkel

To Work from Home (WFH) or Not to Work from Home? Lessons Learned by Software Engineers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Working Conditions for Software Developers in Colombia: An Effort-Reward-Imbalance-Based Study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Shin B, El Sawy O A, Sheng O R L, et al. Telework: existing research and future directions. J Organ Comput Electron Commer, 2000, 10: 85–101

Article   Google Scholar  

Spark R. Accessibility to work from home for the disabled: the need for a shift in management style. In: Proceedings of the 14th Web for All Conference on the Future of Accessible Work, 2017. 1–4

Hill E J, Ferris M, Märtinson V. Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. J Vocat Behav, 2003, 63: 220–241

Meyer A N, Barton L E, Murphy G C, et al. The work life of developers: activities, switches and perceived productivity. IIEEE Trans Softw Eng, 2017, 43: 1178–1193

Wolf T, Schroter A, Damian D, et al. Predicting build failures using social network analysis on developer communication. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, 2009. 1–11

Neufeld D J, Fang Y. Predicting telecommuter productivity. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004

Neufeld D J, Fang Y. Individual, social and situational determinants of telecommuter productivity. Inf Manage, 2005, 42: 1037–1049

Baker E, Avery G C, Crawford J. Satisfaction and perceived productivity when professionals work from home. Res Practice Human Resour Manag, 2007, 15: 37–62

Google Scholar  

Laihonen H, Jääskeläinen A, Lönnqvist A, et al. Measuring the productivity impacts of new ways of working. J Facil Manage, 2012, 10: 102–113

Campbell K M. Flexible work schedules, virtual work programs, and employee productivity. Dissertation for Ph.D. Degree. Minneapolis: Walden University, 2015

Kamei Y, Shihab E, Adams B, et al. A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 2013, 39: 757–773

Walston C E, Felix C P. A method of programming measurement and estimation. IBM Syst J, 1977, 16: 54–73

Devanbu P, Karstu S, Melo W, et al. Analytical and empirical evaluation of software reuse metrics. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1996. 189–199

Nguyen V, Huang L, Boehm B. An analysis of trends in productivity and cost drivers over years. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering, 2011. 1–10

Xia X, Bao L F, Lo D, et al. Measuring program comprehension: a large-scale field study with professionals. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 2018, 44: 951–976

von Krogh G, Spaeth S, Lakhani K R. Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Res Policy, 2003, 32: 1217–1241

Bao L F, Xia X, Lo D, et al. A large scale study of long-time contributor prediction for GitHub projects. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 2021, 47: 1277–1298

Melo C, Cruzes D S, Kon F, et al. Agile team perceptions of productivity factors. In: Proceedings of AGILE Conference, 2011. 57–66

Meyer A N, Fritz T, Murphy G C, et al. Software developers’ perceptions of productivity. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, 2014. 19–29

Paiva E, Barbosa D, Lima R, et al. Factors that influence the productivity of software developers in a developer view. In: Proceedings of Innovations in Computing Sciences and Software Engineering, 2010. 99–104

Zhou Y M, Leung H, Xu B W. Examining the potentially confounding effect of class size on the associations between object-oriented metrics and change-proneness. IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 2009, 35: 607–623

Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull, 1945, 1: 80–83

Cliff N. Ordinal Methods for Behavioral Data Analysis. London: Psychology Press, 2014

Book   Google Scholar  

Coenen M, Kok R A W. Workplace flexibility and new product development performance: the role of telework and flexible work schedules. Eur Manage J, 2014, 32: 564–576

Kazekami S. Mechanisms to improve labor productivity by performing telework. TeleCommun Policy, 2020, 44: 101868

Yan M, Xia X, Lo D, et al. Characterizing and identifying reverted commits. Empir Softw Eng, 2019, 24: 2171–2208

Nilles J M. Making Telecommuting Happen: A Guide for Telemanagers and Telecommuters. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994

Kurkland N B, Bailey D E. The advantages and challenges of working here, there anywhere, and anytime. Organ Dyn, 1999, 28: 53–68

Pérez M P, Sánchez A M, de Luis Carnicer M P. Benefits and barriers of telework: perception differences of human resources managers according to company’s operations strategy. Technovation, 2002, 22: 775–783

Felstead A, Henseke G. Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance. New Tech Work Employ, 2017, 32: 195–212

Aguilera A, Lethiais V, Rallet A, et al. Home-based telework in France: characteristics, barriers and perspectives. Transpation Res Part A-Policy Practice, 2016, 92: 1–11

Ford D, Milewicz R, Serebrenik A. How remote work can foster a more inclusive environment for transgender developers. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE), 2019. 9–12

Perry D E, Staudenmayer N A, Votta L G. People, organizations, and process improvement. IEEE Softw, 1994, 11: 36–45

Bailey B P, Konstan J A, Carlis J V. The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In: Proceedings of INTERACT, 2001. 593–601

Chong J, Siino R. Interruptions on software teams: a comparison of paired and solo programmers. In: Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2006. 29–38

Czerwinski M, Horvitz E, Wilhite S. A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2004. 175–182

Horvitz E C M C E. Notification, disruption, and memory: effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. In: Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT, 2001

Parnin C, DeLine R. Evaluating cues for resuming interrupted programming tasks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2010. 93–102

van Solingen R, Berghout E, van Latum F. Interrupts: just a minute never is. IEEE Softw, 1998, 15: 97–103

Sanchez H, Robbes R, Gonzalez V M. An empirical study of work fragmentation in software evolution tasks. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), 2015. 251–260

Albrecht A J. Measuring application development productivity. In: Proceedings of IBM Applications Development Joint SHARE/GUIDE Symposium, 1979

Minelli R, Mocci A, Lanza M. I know what you did last summer-an investigation of how developers spend their time. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2015. 25–35

Cataldo M, Herbsleb J D, Carley K M. Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2008. 2–11

DeMarco T, Lister T. Programmer performance and the effects of the workplace. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1985. 268–272

Boehm B W. Improving software productivity. Computer, 1987, 20: 43–57

Vasilescu B, Blincoe K, Xuan Q, et al. The sky is not the limit: multitasking across github projects. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2016. 994–1005

Khan I A, Brinkman W P, Hierons R M. Do moods affect programmers’ debug performance? Cogn Technol Work, 2011, 13: 245–258

Meyer A N, Zimmermann T, Fritz T. Characterizing software developers by perceptions of productivity. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 2017. 105–110

Ralph P, Baltes S, Adisaputri G, et al. Pandemic programming: how COVID-19 affects software developers and how their organizations can help. 2020. ArXiv:2005.01127

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFB1003904), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. U20A20173, 61902344), and Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. LY21F020011).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Computer Science and Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, China

Lingfeng Bao & Xiaohu Yang

Baidu Inc., Beijing, 100085, China

Tao Li, Kaiyu Zhu & Hui Li

Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, 3800, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Xia .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bao, L., Li, T., Xia, X. et al. How does working from home affect developer productivity? — A case study of Baidu during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 65 , 142102 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-3278-4

Download citation

Received : 18 December 2020

Revised : 10 March 2021

Accepted : 19 May 2021

Published : 14 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-3278-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• developer productivity
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Two court cases about working from home. Two startling decisions

It's not just one room that's the workplace.

Technology has eroded the separation between work and, well, life.

ZDNET Recommends

The best video conferencing software.

Which video conferencing platform is right for your business? We've gathered details about 10 leading services.

Working from home has, for many, created a situation where, thanks to computers, wifi and Zoom, work has entirely taken over life.

Many employers, of course, haven't minded this at all. Think of all the money they've saved on office space. Think of the long hours people are now working  as they toil in the confines of their bedrooms, living rooms, or tiny home offices.

But have you ever thought about what happens when, say, an accident occurs? At home. While you're working at home.

I've been moved by two recent legal cases that have mined the realities of your home being your office.

In Germany, a man got out of bed and walked down a spiral staircase toward his home office. He slipped and broke his back.

His employer's insurance company declined to honor his claim for compensation.

Yet, as the Guardian reported , a court declared that the man was technically commuting, so he could claim workplace accident insurance. This, it concluded, was his first trip that day from the "home" of his bed to his office. Ergo, a commute.

The court added: "If the insured activity is carried out in the household of the insured person or at another location, insurance cover is provided to the same extent as when the activity is carried out at the company premises."

You might think this would make one or two employers around the world take notice and not, perhaps, consider themselves so very lucky to have their employees in their own homes, with their own insurance policies.

But then, another court case.

An Air Canada employee worked her call center job from home, as so many call center employees have been forced to over the last two years.

While at home, and during office hours, she, too, slipped down the stairs and sustained injuries.

The airline didn't believe she qualified for workers' compensation.

The Vancouver Sun related the judge's words like this: "Air Canada argues that this fall on the stairs did not occur during work, since Ms. Gentile-Patti was no longer in her professional sphere, but rather in her personal sphere, because the fall occurs as she heads out to eat."

That hurts. Yes, you're working from home. But if you're going downstairs to get lunch, you're off the clock and not at work?

The judge wasn't moved by the airline's attempt to suggest that only the home office counts as a place of work. He added that the only reason Gentile-Patti was going down the stairs at the time she did was to take the lunchtime designated by her employer.

In the judge's words: "Ms. Gentile-Patti's fall, which occurred moments after disconnecting from her workstation to go to dinner, is an unforeseen and sudden event that occurs during work. She therefore suffered an occupational injury."

I'm sure lawyers all over the world will pore over the nuances and debate the legalities and limitations with verve.

I prefer to focus on a more human notion. At least some courts are beginning to recognize that employers can't take all the advantages of having their employees work from home, without accepting responsibility for some of the disadvantages.

I can only wonder how many more cases will be brought, in which the blurring of workplace and home will be tested.

Surely one or two might just cover employers' new remote surveillance software .

I found the most customizable smart home accessory ever, and it's quite the looker

I've tested 25+ robot vacuum mops. these are my favorites., the best galaxy z fold 5 cases to protect your phone.

Research Shows Working From Home Doesn’t Work. Here’s How Employers Should Tackle the Problem

W e followed the science on COVID-19. Now, as the end of the pandemic draws closer, it’s time to follow the science on working from home.

The verdict is clear: For many jobs—particularly collaborative, high skill level, high-value roles—working from home simply doesn’t work, and we shouldn’t confuse a temporary abnormal with a new normal.

The pandemic will not be ‘the death of the office,’ as some have suggested, but working from home also won’t become entirely a thing of the past. Many workers wouldn’t want it that way because they enjoy the freedom and flexibility it gives them. The solution for the future is a structured hybrid model, acknowledging that working from home doesn’t work long-term for most jobs, while still giving workers flexibility. One way to do that would be to allocate time slots—perhaps specific days—of in-office working for all employees to maintain workplace productivity and collaboration, while also allowing working from home to continue outside those hours.

Professor Tom Eisenmann of Harvard Business School told me in March that, because remote work is going to become a much bigger part of our lives, we need to solve the problem of maintaining a culture when people are “scattered all over the world.”

That problem explains why it took a pandemic for working from home to become mainstream, despite it being an old idea. As long ago as 1970, Alvin Toffler predicted a shift to working from home, as opposed to working in offices and factories.

Half a century later, his prediction came true. Before the pandemic, 20% of workers did all or most of their work from home, an analysis by the Pew Research Center found. That figure rose to more than 70% during the pandemic, the analysis—based on 5,858 U.S. adults—found.

Read more: The Coronavirus Is Making Us See That It’s Hard to Make Remote Work Actually Work

For some, remote work leads to increased productivity, as well as job satisfaction, particularly for those working in technical jobs that require minimal teamwork. In certain industries, this has been the case for some time. Stack Overflow, a New York-based community website for computer programmers, found in 2017 that 53% of 64,000 developers surveyed ranked remote work as one of their five most-valued work benefits.

But the science tells us that workers like them are in a minority and, however topical their case is, we should be cautious about applying such a drastic change across our economies.

Since before the pandemic began I have been assessing multi-disciplinary collaboration in a work-from-home environment for my PhD research at Imperial College, London. Individuals employed on creative projects in virtual teams reported feeling more like a ‘worker’, and less like a member of a family. One respondent said of employers: “They don’t see how early you show up in front of your computer…They don’t see how hard I’m working.”

But more damaging than the effects of working from home on individuals, is what it does to teams. Remote work often breaks the mechanisms that allow a team to work together creatively. Studies have found that the best creative work occurs when a team is in a state of flow, or focuses its collective attention on a single problem together, known as ‘team flow’. But remote work makes it harder to keep everyone engaged in solving that problem. In my study, many respondents said it was hard to gauge when a team member had zoned out during a Zoom call.

Read more: How to Work from Home Without Burning Out

There is currently no digital technology that can reliably create ‘flow’ remotely, and we shouldn’t pretend there is. If it did exist, it wouldn’t have taken the necessity of pandemic restrictions for us to work remotely—managers and employees would have already embraced it.

There’s other evidence that points to this problem. Utah-based virtual whiteboard app Lucidspark found that 75% of 1,000 respondents surveyed in September last year said collaboration was the thing that suffered most when working remotely.

HR departments are now paying the price for this isolation and lack of collaboration, with 2021 already being called the year of the ‘Great Resignation.’ The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that the annual quit rate was 25.5% in 2020 and millions of workers have resigned in 2021.

If employers want to hang on to their staff, they need to find ways to maintain the work-life balance employees enjoyed while working from home. This needs to happen while reintegrating them back into the office, since it is clear from my research that fully autonomous working from home across all industries is neither desirable nor sustainable.

That’s why we need to carve out a third way, where teams that thrive on collaboration are given mandatory times each week when everyone is expected to be in the office. This structured hybrid model is different to hybrid working, whereby employees can come and go to the office as they please.

By combining flexible hours with time slots for compulsory office attendance, we can grant the freedom that white-collar workers have enjoyed so much over the pandemic. It would also prevent the rise of a two-tier model, where those who are present in the office get ahead, while those who prefer to work from home get left behind.

This doesn’t mean a return to the misery of daily commutes. Structured hybrid work could allow workers to travel outside of peak times—removing much of the pain of commuting—as long as they are present for the compulsory time slot for collective in-office working.

The evidence is clear that, for the majority of workers in most industries, working from home doesn’t work. But we can still take the lessons we have learned about what today’s—and tomorrow’s—employees want, and make that part of the new normal in offices post-pandemic.

More Must-Reads From TIME

• Exclusive: Google Workers Revolt Over $1.2 Billion Contract With Israel
• Jane Fonda Champions Climate Action for Every Generation
• Stop Looking for Your Forever Home
• The Sympathizer Counters 50 Years of Hollywood Vietnam War Narratives
• The Bliss of Seeing the Eclipse From Cleveland
• Hormonal Birth Control Doesn’t Deserve Its Bad Reputation
• The Best TV Shows to Watch on Peacock
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Contact us at [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Working from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic, its effects on health, and recommendations: The pandemic and beyond

Canan birimoglu okuyan.

1 Gait and Brain Lab, Parkwood Institute, Western University, London Canada

2 Department of Nursing, Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, Sakarya Turkey

Mehmet A. Begen

3 Ivey Business School, Western University, London Ontario, Canada

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

We provide an overview of how to work from home during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic and what measures should be taken to minimize the negative effects of working from during this time.

Conclusions

The COVID‐19 pandemic has forced an adaptation process for the whole world and working life. One of the most adaptation measures is working from home. Working from home comes with challenges and concerns but it also has favorable aspects.

Practice Implications

It is crucial to develop and implement best practices for working from home to maintain a good level of productivity, achieve the right level of work and life balance and maintain a good level of physical and mental health.

• A discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) effects on our daily and work lives;
• An overview of working from home, especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic;
• Recommendations for working from home during COVID‐19.

1. INTRODUCTION

Until the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic is under control (and its subsequent waves are over), millions of people from all over the world have entered into an adaptation process and are following physical distancing requirements, stay home calls and lockdown orders to minimize contact with others, reduce the spread of the disease and flatten the curve. 1 Lockdown orders or stay home calls cover at least one‐third of the global population 2 and it has been the case for most Americans. 3 The COVID‐19 pandemic in general and especially these lockdowns, stay home calls and physical distancing have had a significant impact on our daily lives, from work to traveling, from schools to social life and more. Furthermore, the pandemic has affected the physical and mental health of many people. The results of a recent study done during the pandemic revealed that 37% of individuals experienced posttraumatic stress, 20.8% experienced anxiety, 17.3% had depression symptoms, 7.3% had sleep problems, 21.8% experienced a high level of perceived stress, and 22.9% had adjustment disorder, and one of the biggest challenges of the pandemic adaptation process has been the switch to working from home. 4

Working from home has been one of the most important and visible changes during the pandemic, it has gained even more significance, and more people have started (or had to start) working from due to lock‐downs orders and stay home calls. Even before the pandemic, working from home was getting traction. 5 For example, some JetBlue employees had been working from home since early 2000s. 6 In a research conducted in the United States 7 and several European countries, it was stated that 40% of all work activities could be done from home. 8 , 9 Another study revealed that the annual rate of working from home in the United States increased to 37% in 2015 while it was 9% in 1995. 10 Also, 7% of employees in the United States have an allowance for “flexible workplace” or telecommuting access. However, these employees are mostly managers, white‐collar staff, and high‐paid professionals. 11 In Europe, 5.2% of people aged 15–64 regularly worked from home in 2018, and this rate was higher in some of the countries, for example, 14% in the Netherlands, 13.3% in Finland, 11% in Luxembourg, 10% in Austria. 12 , 13

The pandemic has caused 46% of the businesses in the United States to implement telecommuting policies as of February 2020. 14 In another example, Canadian Bank of Montreal has announced that 80% of its employees can and will most likely continue working from home even after the pandemic. 15 Some occupational groups can easily adapt to working from home, whereas it is a much more difficult experience for others. For example, while academics and interpreters adapt more easily to working from home, other groups, such as teachers, have had difficulty working from home. This could be partly explained by the nature of occupation (e.g., individual vs. need to work with others in real‐time), previous experiences, the suitability of home for work (e.g., physical space availability, caregiver responsibilities, Internet connection accessibility) and other reasons. 16 , 17 A recent study shows that the rate of working from home is lower in developing countries (22%) compared to developed ones (37%). 18 This suggests that financial conditions and challenges of work environment can be two critical interrelated factors. While one always tries to adapt their lifestyles to their work, it is not possible to do this most of the time. Although mobile and Internet‐based technologies are gradually diminishing the importance of physical work requirements, conditions and facilities of the work environments are still critical. As long as home can provide a suitable and feasible working environment, many people may choose working from home option if or when available. And as mentioned above working from home was already getting popular before the pandemic and now with the pandemic it has become even more popular and sometimes necessary in most of the world, in developed and developing countries. Before the pandemic, some jobs' delivery was never considered to be possible or feasible as an online or remote option, such as doctor appointments via phone/Internet in Canada. However, now it seems telehealth is the new normal for Canada and many other countries and it is here to stay even after the pandemic.

Like anything else, working from home is a tradeoff and it has disadvantages as well as advantages. 19

The positive aspects of working from home include freedom of work schedule, 20 more time for and with family and increased leisure time, 21 lower stress and improved efficiency, 22 and cost and time savings on commuting to work. 20 Besides all the benefits and advantages of working from home, there are adverse factors that can lead to loss of control and reduced productivity while working from home. 23 Such factors are managing work and family obligations in the same environment and at the same time, 24 having a nervous and tense mood due to prolonged stay at home while working, spending too much time at home, risk of obesity (due to easy access and excessive eating/drinking), lack of working transparency, difficulty in accessing relevant technology and important documents from home securely, difficulty in controlling the balance between work and life, difficulty in communication and coordination, social isolation, and disruption of children's educational processes due to schools and nurseries' being closed during the pandemic. 25 , 26

Minimizing the negative effects of working from home and generating solutions to decrease adverse factors associated with the disadvantages of working from home are critical for maintaining the productivity and well‐being of individuals at all times but especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Adverse effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic has been an active area of research in countries such as Italy and Spain, where the effects of the pandemic have been severe, and in China where the disease first appeared. 4 , 27 , 28 In this article, we aim to provide an overview of how to work from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic, and what measures should be taken to minimize the negative effects of working from during the pandemic.

2. WORKING FROM HOME DURING THE PANDEMIC: BENEFITS, CHALLENGES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Working from home is not the most common practice since the usual working environment can be an office space, a factory, a school, an airport, a restaurant or somewhere else but home. Although working from home has many benefits (e.g., more flexibility, less commute, ability to continue to work during a pandemic), it also has its challenges (e.g., life and work balance, need to set up a proper workplace at home, caregiving responsibilities, mental well‐being, risk of obesity), especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic. How can we balance the benefits and disadvantages to have a better, healthier and more productive working experience for working from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic?

2.1. Working environment, ergonomics, and recommended equipment

Previous research shows that there is a strong relationship between a well‐ergonomically arranged working environment and working efficiency and health, 29 , 30 which can also be considered as non‐deteriorating health and job satisfaction. 29 An ergonomic working environment and well‐arranged physical conditions, such as appropriate temperature and low noise levels, increase employee job satisfaction and productivity. 31 It is important to use the right and ergonomic equipment, tools, and methods to prevent possible fatigue or long‐term injuries in the working environment. 32 One important factor for preventing health problems arising from the working environment is to ensure the correct posture during work. 33 Occupational musculoskeletal disorders are leading injuries arising from improper ergonomic working environments, and such disorders can have serious adverse effects on the performance and well‐being of individuals. 34 , 35 These disorders can affect the shoulder, neck, and upper extremities. 36 , 37 In addition, such disorders are traumas that do not suddenly emerge but develop gradually, and while they can disappear with short rests in early stages, it may not be possible to get rid of them in later stages even with long rests. 30 Therefore, for staying healthy and productive, it is crucial to adopt an agronomical approach while setting up the working space at home and working from home.

The most important piece of the working equipment is the ones which we spend considerable time while working. Furthermore, it may be useful to create the working environment at home as similar to the environment at the workplace as possible and to make sure that working materials, especially computers, are placed close to eye level. 36 , 38 In particular, one needs to pay attention to correctly place a computer/laptop screen to have a constant balance between head/neck and hand/wrist postures. 38 Laptops are lightweight, portable, and convenient. Besides these advantages, laptops can have cause serious health problems by allowing users to sit in poor posture positions with their compact design with an integrated display and keyboard. For example, if the screen is at the correct height, then the keyboard position becomes heightened, and when the keyboard is placed correctly, then the screen is too low. Another important component of working home is the sitting arrangement. For example, working or sitting on soft tissue areas, such as a sofa or bed, for a long‐time during working can cause individuals to feel tension and pain. An ergonomic, adjustable work chair and study desk are essential parts of office work and important for health. Pillows, towels, or cushions can be used while sitting to adjust the arms position and raise the elbow height to the tabletop level, and this would also help reducing the pressure on the hip and waist. It is also important to adjust the seat height to create a proper hip angle and achieve a “flat feet” position. If needed, proper equipment should be used to raise feet. Some new generation of desks allow height adjustment and this opens for new and more dynamic posture change possibilities during work. 38 , 39

2.2. Sleep, rest, and exercise

There is a need for adequate sleep and rest to resume working and maintaining a healthy body. 40 Sleep plays a crucial role in the physical and mental health and well‐being, and there is no better daily rest than a good night's sleep. 41 In addition, small breaks during the working day are needed to reduce fatigue, stress and tension occurred while sitting and working. 42 These will also increase productivity and affect the mood of the person positively. 42 One big disadvantage of working from home, especially with stay home calls or lockdown orders during the pandemic, is the reduction of movements of the individuals. For this reason, regular exercise becomes even more important than before during this pandemic. Regular exercise keeps the body fit and help keeping it healthy. 43 Furthermore, regular exercise helps the person to get better sleep overnight and wake‐up well rested and clearheaded. 44 At the same time, doing regular exercise helps to reduce fatigue and tension of muscles makes it easier to get ready to work. 44 , 45 Although many people have a substantial awareness of the importance of exercise in most countries, most people do not exercise. 46 Studies show that the percentage of those who do sufficient physical activity is low. 46 , 47 Therefore, family members and colleagues should encourage each other to have a sufficient sleep, to do regular exercise and to take breaks during the workday for increased productivity, improved physical health and better mental well‐being, especially during this COVID‐19 pandemic.

2.3. Work and life balance

Getting the right work and life balance is crucial and challenging not only during a pandemic but also at regular times. The COVID‐19 pandemic made it extremely difficult to attain and maintain the right level of work and life balance by forcing many employees to work from home while maintaining their family and other commitments at the same time. One challenging aspect of working from home is to separate and balance work and personal time. This is especially challenging for working parents who care for their children at the same time. These families make a significant portion of the population. In the United States, the proportion of children in the population (Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 48 ) and the proportion of both working parents are on the rise. 49 The closure of schools and childcare centers due to COVID‐19 brought an additional burden to working mothers and fathers during the pandemic. Working parents need to coordinate their working time and work activities according to their children and family life. One idea is to establish a routine for the kids and parents so that parents can get some uninterrupted amount of time for their work. Parents can take turns and schedule their time with their kids separately while giving the other parent an opportunity to focus on their work, and at the same time, they can care for their children. When possible, parents can schedule to spend more time with their kids when the kids are active and can provide their kids activities that they can do on their own at kids' quieter times. Some parents find it easier and more efficient to work very early in the mornings (before kids wake up) or late at night (after children go to bed). However, this may not be possible or even feasible for everyone due to the working hours requirement of the parents' jobs. Virtual caregivers, a new concept that many parents are not familiar with, can be a useful and important facilitator to increase productivity and efficiency for working from home. Virtual caregivers cannot change diapers or feed a baby, but they can be great for school‐age children for their education and keeping them occupied for a period of time.

One of the other challenges of maintaining a good work and life balance while working from home is to control for environmental factors and distractions at home. Making plans to prevent interruption of the working process and determining a start and end time for work is crucial. Ideally, one must separate work and personal time during the day to achieve higher work efficiency and to allocate sufficient time for personal and family matters. Although working from home make these more challenging, additional time gained by not commuting to work can be used either for work and life matters when needed. Last but not least, choosing a specific place to work at home can be useful in creating an effective and organized working environment and may help to decrease distractions.

2.4. Maintaining a good health

Maintaining good physical and mental health is crucial for one's well‐being not only during a pandemic but at all times. The pandemic situation brings additional challenges to keep physically and mentally healthy for especially those who are working from home.

The risk of obesity, hence hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, increases due to overeating when people spend an excessive amount of time at home without going out. 50 , 51 Obesity is an important public health problem in the United States, and more than 60% of the US population is overweight or obese. 52 The pandemic, less mobility and spending more time at home with easier and constant access to food may worsen this situation. To prevent gaining weight one can eliminate trans‐fatty acids in their diet and limit the consumption of sugary sodas and high‐calorie drinks. 52 In addition, one must make the necessary lifestyle changes to have a healthy and nutritious diet, and sufficient physical activity. 50 Available opportunities at home environment can be utilized in this sense. For example, a sports area, a walking area, or a hobby garden can be created, as well as activities such as cycling and walking (with physical distance requirements) can be done.

While the complete elimination of anxiety and fear is not a realistic expectation during the COVID‐19 pandemic, one needs to recognize the importance of protecting mental health and avoiding infection. The pandemic has caused fear, helplessness and anxiety in most individuals, and these emotions adversely have affected their behaviors. 53 One can be optimistic and productive under normal working conditions at regular times but they can be tired, unmotivated and nervous during a pandemic such as COVID‐19. It may be possible to reduce or eliminate such adverse effects with help of social interactions and bonds. 54 It is important to maintain daily routines while working at home such as taking a shower, getting dressed formally and having breakfast as if one leaves their home for work. Furthermore, it is essential to detach from work and not to work all the time to prevent burnout. 55 , 56 Taking virtual and real coffee breaks during work with colleagues, friends and family may be the best social activities to boost morale and refresh.

Unfavorable physical conditions, such as high temperature, high humidity, dust and noise at home can also adversely affect both the working performance and health of individuals working from home. 57 , 58 However, such risks can be reduced significantly with simple and effective measures, such as regular cleaning and ventilation of the working environment, use of noise‐canceling earbuds. 57

Waking up in the morning and going from one room to another may not drive sleep away and definitely not the best way to start a day, but walking outside, doing breathing exercises with fresh air, listening to music for a short time, having breakfast, and drinking coffee will make it easier to get ready to work.

3. POSSIBLE WORKPLACE CHANGES AFTER COVID‐19

The COVID‐19 pandemic has affected our lives profoundly in almost every aspect. Although certain companies and countries have been trying to get back to normal to reduce the economic burden of the pandemic, no one really knows what the future will bring, especially for work life. First of all, it may not be possible for people to return to their workplaces for a long time due to COVID‐19. Even if so, companies or employees may not want to work in offices due to various factors, such as profitability, productivity and comfort. Therefore, the pandemic may actually be the beginning of a change for work life. One certain change is that workplaces will not be as before. The pandemic has changed and will reshape working styles, work hours and workplace furniture by requiring and bringing the concept of social/physical distancing. Organizations should plan how to adapt to physical distancing rules and requirements and train their people accordingly. For instance, Cushman & Wakefield, 59  a real estate company, has designed an office space where employees can work two meters apart from each other. Another example is that Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, CapitalOne, Microsoft, Zillow and others have announced that they have allowed almost all of their employees to work from home for good (Twitter) or for a long time (others). 60 Furthermore, some workplaces may require their employees to work in shifts to maintain social distancing rules. Some schools have started implementing alternate day strategy for their students to have smaller class sizes and enable physical distancing rules for face to face classes as well as allowing fully remote education options for students who prefer to stay home. 61

More warning signs and symbols for physical distancing and recommended practices to reduce the spread of the Coronavirus have already been part of our lives since the beginning of the pandemic at most public spaces such as grocery stores. Now with the reopening of schools and workplaces, we will see these signs and symbols more often and especially in workplaces, government offices and almost all public spaces. Visual instructions are (and will be) placed on floors, walls, and even equipment at workplaces to remind and encourage people and employees to practice social distancing, for example, to walk at designated lanes, to prevent overcrowding at workstations and, most importantly, to maintain one‐way flow among people while walking.

In addition to signs to regulate and encourage physical distancing, we also see companies are using a greater number of products with contactless technology such as smart doors, no‐touch scanning, and facial recognition to limit employees to touch somewhere at the workplace and to reduce the potential risk of infection or spreading infection during the pandemic. We further expect most workplaces do renovations to enlarge corridors and working spaces, develop new and more strict cleaning guidelines of workplaces and to invest on new technology and equipment to decrease the spread of COVID‐19 such as proper ventilation systems, protective screens for their employees and customers, virtual meetings and work when possible.

4. CONCLUSION

The COVID‐19 outbreak continues to affect all aspects of human life such as workforce, lifestyle and life plan. 24 One of them is work from home. Working from home can provide a great level of flexibility and opportunity during a pandemic, such as COVID‐19, for those who are able to do so. Furthermore, it also helps to reduce the spread of the disease by keeping most people at home to practice physical distancing. Although working from home has many advantages, it also has its challenges. In this paper, we discuss how to reduce the negative effects and disadvantages of working from home required by the COVID‐19 pandemic, how to improve working conditions from home so that individuals are more productive and feel better by working from home, and how to decrease health issues due to working from home during the pandemic.

Many employees cannot go to workplaces during a pandemic, such as COVID‐19, and need to work from home. In such circumstances, it is crucial to develop and implement best practices for working from home to maintain a good level of productivity, achieve the right level of work and life balance and maintain a good level for physical and mental health. Also, the COVID‐19 pandemic showed that the strong infrastructure for remote work is important. Preventive studies will also need to be carried out against the problems that may arise in cybersecurity, reliability and digitalization during the pandemic. 62 Furthermore, it is expected that the world will focus on the forces of digitalization and technology after the pandemic. 63 Based on this anticipation, qualitative studies can contribute to identifying the challenges associated with working from home and the potential offer of solutions to these.

We believe that our paper is one of the first to examine the problems of an overview of working from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic, its effects on health, and recommendations to make it healthier, more productive and easier.

5. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

COVID‐19 has been one of the biggest public health and economic challenges that our world has faced. The pandemic has changed our lives in many ways significantly. One of these changes is working from home. If people can work from home productively and happily that would not only help to reduce the spread of the disease but also reduce the need for mental health services. This has a direct effect on the healthcare systems and also nursing practice. In this review, we discuss how to reduce negative effects and disadvantages of working from home during the COVID‐19 pandemic, how to improve working conditions from home so that individuals are more productive and feel better by working from home, and how to decrease health issues due to working from home during the pandemic.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

The study was conceived by Canan Birimoglu Okuyan and Mehmet A. Begen. Both Canan Birimoglu Okuyan and Mehmet A. Begen wrote and edited the manuscript.

Birimoglu Okuyan C, Begen MA. Practice Implications . Perspect Psychiatr Care . 2022; 58 :173‐179. 10.1111/ppc.12847 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Client Services
• Small Business

WFH Case Study: A Closer Look At Working Remote

By: amanda young.

Work From Home Case Study:  50% of the US workforce is employed with a job that is compatible with at least partial telework. 

80% to 90% of the US workforce says they would like to work remotely at least part time (2-3 days a week).

Fortune 1000 companies around the globe are entirely reinventing their workspace around the fact that employees are already working remotely. studies have shown that these employees are not at their desk 50-60% of the time..

Moving a company to work completely remote is financially and mentally unburdening. Here are the pros and cons of ditching an HQ:

Pros: Work From Home

• Increased productivity
• Flexible hours
• Time saving
• Money saving
• Increased talent pool

Con: Work From Home

• Less collaboration
• Harder to climb the company ladder
• Cyber security  
• Possible communication difficulties
• Lack of discipline

Some amazing companies at scale with no HQ: 

Automattic .

At Automattic employees get to pick their place of work.  In fact, the company is spread out across 70 countries.  To give employees a chance to meet in person, Automattic holds an event for a whole week for employees to meet up. This meeting lets employees meet in their teams to brainstorm and bond. Automattic provides employees parental leave, career coaching, an open vacation policy, paid-for home office setup, wellness opportunities, and other perks. 

GitLab in San Francisco 

GitLab hires employees all over the world rather than hire employees to work all from one location. 

For the past 10 years, Clevertech has been allowing employees to work from anywhere in the world. Clevertech works to make their employees feel like they have a purpose while also encouraging employees to meet one unifying goal. Clevertech believes in flexible work spaces; flexible work time; not judging employees on how long it takes to do something, but rather the actual results; and building a strong international community.

43% of remote workers feel that it is important to work for a company where all employees are remote

38% of remote workers saw lack of commute as a top benefit, with that time instead spent with family (43%), working (35%), resting (36%), and exercising (34%)

86% of respondents believe remote work is the future

52% of remote workers believed they have increased their productivity and 48% believe that they have increased efficiency. 

Chris has led brand campaigns across creative and technical landscapes for British Telecommunications & Toni & Guy.

He’s helped build creative agencies from the ground up with to his universal design acumen and ability to manage creative talent!

At J. Arthur & Co, he is a key pillar to our team due to his innate ability to connect brand vision with user interface/experience concepts, finished with stellar execution.

When things need to happen behind the scenes — He’s our guy.

Having started his career in finance, Tom has been working in Ecom going on 5 years now.

Although he changed industries, he really values his time in finance picking up a lot of valuable and transferable skills.

Tom’s passion is the customers and the relationships he’s built with them over the years.

He’s been extremely effective for us in balancing many tasks, strategic planning, logistics management and always coming up with ways to thrill customers.

Having studied Music Production & Music Business at Point Blank Music School in London, when he’s not working hard, Tom runs a small record label with a group friends.

“Be it expediting orders, overseeing our ambassadors program, or assisting with marketing needs, I’m a jack of all trades (master of none).

My ethos has always been to keep things fun & light hearted, but professional at the heart of it.

You’ll even sometimes catch me in the gym…

Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.

What’s up guys, I’m Jeff and I started this shop in 2014 out of my bedroom.

I had moved into an apt with a buddy, lived on $200/mo rent and got going.

You had to walk through my room to get to the kitchen and that room became sort of a hybrid br/office.

It took me a couple failed ideas before gaining traction with J. Arthur and for a period of almost two years I slept on a couch to get the company off the ground.

First in that room and then the back of our first (real) office. Both times a couch.

I love delivering results for clients, working with our team here and growing this co (obviously), which now has a humble but global base of both team and customers.

We have just barely started and I know the sky is the limit.

Admittedly I don’t have that many hobbies, But I enjoy all types of physical training and you can usually catch me doing things like: expounding on the pitfalls of fractional reserve banking, discussing the standards of American liberty, or eating unreasonable quantities of food.

I also like to read.

Love spending time with family.

Thanks to Lensa for tightening up my hairline in exchange for my facial dna in some Orwellian database 🙂

Jo has worked in the advertising and design industry since 2015 and has over 8 years of experience with visual communication and design.

Product is her passion with a deep focus in sportswear design and creative direction.

Her key expertise combines many years in both retail and manufacturing with a proactive vision of creating new products and driving them successfully to market.

“I believe in keeping things simple, having honest intentions, and making things fun. Working in an ego-less manner, I bring my whole self to every project, always aiming to exceed expectations and create work that is well thought through and commercially compelling.”

And exceeding expectations she does. We’re very lucky to have Jo’s rare combination of marketing creative, outstanding product design, ambitious strategy and true dedication to her craft.

In Joanna’s free time her hobbies include yoga & aerial fitness, functional training at the gym and occasionally snowboarding.

You can catch much more of her branding magic at @physiqapparel 💪

Aish graduated with a bachelor of engineering in computer science, freelancing for several years before joining J. Arthur as a Junior Web Developer. She’s now been with the company for 3 years.

Aish has the intangible qualities that make a fantastic developer: the desire for continual learning, a “whatever it takes” mentality, and an intense focus on the (ever-changing) task at hand.

She meets every obstacle with optimism and has grown to become a core member of our team who we’re all grateful to work alongside everyday.

In her off time she likes to get outside and go for a much needed walk. She also loves reading books + daily news to learn something new every day. And of course, watching movies 🍿

Shortly after getting a marketing degree from Clemson University, Denton amassed a large following on Twitter after creating several viral, funny tweets that touched on everything from pop culture to music and sports 📲

Realizing he had a knack for creative writing and social media, he decided to continue developing his talents even further.

As a content manager at J. Arthur, he’s has been able to show off his creativity and bring unique ideas to the table.

He’s currently based in Raleigh, NC with his fiancé and their two cats (Nova & Bean).

In his free time you’ll find him playing tennis, listening to music, or knee deep in a good book.

We appreciate his creative adaptability, consistency & steadfast commitment to deliver success on every account.

Dhan is a multidisciplinary solution architect who helps people translate ideas from words and visuals into prototypes and applications, using code that helps organizations address business challenges.

He motivates people to think positively through the power of technology by helping solve a large number of critical situations quickly.

Having been involved in both collaborative and independently-driven roles, he is a forward-thinking leader with refined analytical and critical thinking skills, with deep experience in translating business priorities to IT roadmaps and fine-tuned IT Operating models.

In his spare time, he enjoys traveling playing (and building) video games, watching movies and listening to music.

Dhan is responsible for making our critical IT and technology decisions and has been with J. Arthur for 5 years and we greatly value his leadership.

He’s a grandmaster in complex problem solving, rapid analysis and delivery, high level infrastructure planning, and full stack engineering.

His character is proven time and again by always working in our clients best interests and never failing to deliver a solution to even the most brain busting and urgent issues, with a coolness and poise to be admired 🙌

He studied Computer Science in Brazil before coming to the States four years ago and now works out of our Newport office.

If you’re a J. Arthur client you’ve probably been in contact before, as he works directly with the team and clients to bring projects to completion.

But if you’re within his close friends, you probably know him for playing (very loud) guitar!

Paulo is responsible for tracking an often high paced workflow between project management, design, development and vendors to ensure successful delivery to customers.

We admire his patience, agile ability to learn new skills, and laser focused commitment to problem solving 👏

Based in Chicago, she loves work from home days alongside her furry co-workers. Ralphie likes his personal space, but Murray prefers to sit on mom’s keyboard to help with important emails – and he never misses a team meeting.

What keeps her motivated throughout the day? A combination of matcha lattes, espresso, and Liquid IV (often consuming all of them at the same time).

Outside of work, Hannah likes to unwind with yoga, check out local coffee shops, and spend time outside in the sunshine.

We value her outstanding communication, marketing savvy, ability to bring positivity to every situation and too many other traits to list 🙌

• We'll send you examples of some full stack solutions we're delivering for clients.

Working from home now has another powerful benefit

Want to work fewer days from the office? You could be doing the planet a favor.

Fully remote workers could produce less than half the climate-warming emissions of people who spend their days in offices, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In an analysis of various work scenarios, people’s behaviors and sources of emissions, researchers found that switching from working onsite to working from home full time may reduce a person’s carbon footprint by more than 50 percent. Hybrid schedules where people work remotely for two to four days a week could also cut emissions by 11 to 29 percent, according to the study.

The findings help shed more light on the factors that can influence the environmental and climate effects of different work models , said Longqi Yang, an applied research manager at Microsoft and one of the paper’s authors.

“The remote work has to be significant in order to realize these kind of benefits,” Yang said. “This study provides a very important data point for a dimension that people care a lot about when deciding remote work policy.”

The benefits of remote work

To conduct the analysis, the study’s authors drew on multiple data sets, including the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey and Microsoft’s employee data on commuting and teleworking behaviors. The researchers, several of whom are Microsoft employees, modeled greenhouse gas emissions of U.S.-based employees working entirely remote, on hybrid schedules and fully onsite. The analysis focused on emissions from a variety of sources, including residential and office energy use, commuting, non-commute-related travel and IT usage.

The study found that working remotely more than one day per week could cut emissions, mainly driven by less office energy use and commuting. But the researchers cautioned against assuming that any amount of remote work could be good for the planet.

“This is a very complicated system,” said Fengqi You, a professor of energy systems engineering at Cornell University and another author of the paper.

For instance, the results suggest that a hybrid model allowing employees to only work one day from home produces a negligible reduction in emissions because the benefits would likely be offset by factors such as more non-work-related travel and home energy use.

“Realizing the environmental benefits of remote work requires careful configurations of lifestyle, home and office, and coordinated sustainable practices and incentives across individuals, companies, and policymakers,” the authors wrote in the study.

A ‘piece of the puzzle’

Yang said the research helps characterize what the major sources of emissions related to work are and where they come from. The paper’s findings could give people and organizations a better idea of where to focus efforts if they want to reduce their footprint, he said, adding that emissions associated with commuting and office energy use are clear targets.

The paper also adds to the understanding of the role individual behaviors can play, said Joe O’Connor, director and co-founder of the Work Time Reduction Center of Excellence, who was not involved in the new research.

“This study really emphasizes the importance of lifestyle and the choices that we make ... when we’re working remotely as being really key to realizing the kinds of potential benefits that can be unlocked,” O’Connor said.

John Trougakos, a professor of management at the University of Toronto Scarborough, who has studied remote and hybrid work models, said the research is “another bit of information that we can utilize to help us make more informed decisions.”

“It’s one interesting piece of the puzzle, but not the whole story,” said Trougakos, who was not involved in the study. “To have a comprehensive plan for something like this, you’re looking at more than just the workplace, and obviously the other choices that people make in their life will also impact the emissions that they create and that organizations might create as well.”

The study’s analysis focused on the United States and largely reflects behaviors of office workers who live in a large city. Additionally, You, one of researchers, said the environmental benefits and costs of different work models could shift in the future as the country moves toward greater adoption of electric vehicles and clean energy sources.

“Things will change over time,” You said. “This is a study for now.”

Making work greener

Maximizing the environmental benefits of remote work depends on multiple factors, including vehicle choice, commuting behavior and energy efficiency in homes and offices, the researchers found. For example, the study reported that if hybrid workers shared desks at the office instead of having their own, that could reduce emissions by 28 percent.

The results suggest that fully remote and flexible work options have environmental benefits, Yang said. But he said workplaces should go beyond just addressing their work policies if they want to reduce emissions. He suggested taking steps to power offices with renewable energy or providing cleaner transportation options for commuters, such as electric shuttles.

“We’re not trying to predict the future, but I think the future is all up to us,” Yang said. “This study tells people, if we want to be more carbon neutral in the future, what can we do now?”

10 Undeniable Benefits Of Working From Home, According To Science

Senior Lifestyle Reporter, HuffPost

Four years since the COVID-19 pandemic forced businesses to shut down office spaces around the world, remote and hybrid work seems here to stay.

About a third of U.S. workers who can work from home now do so all the time, according to a Pew Research Center survey from March 2023 . (The majority of U.S. workers ― 61% ― do not have jobs that can be done from home, Pew notes.)

Still, there are a lot of work-from-home skeptics out there ― most of them C-level business executives . Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has remarked that engineers “get more done” in-office, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said that remote work “doesn’t work for those who want to hustle” while calling all U.S.-based employees back into the offices in May 2021.

Companies that insist on mandatory full-time attendance at the office do so at their own peril; today’s employees value the autonomy that comes with remote or hybrid work and are increasingly leaving workplaces that forget they have lives outside their 9-to-5 .

In March 2022, Microsoft’s second annual Worker Trend Index found that 53% of respondents prioritize their health and well-being over work, “and if unhappy, more than half of Gen Z and millennial respondents said [they’d] seriously consider switching employers over the next year.”

Of course, working from home is not without its drawbacks. Many working women say they feel greater conflicts between their job and family roles while teleworking, and studies have shown increased rates of depression and anxiety during remote work . (Though it’s worth noting, most of the research was conducted while respondents were living through an active pandemic ― stressful in its own right.)

Still, with increased social support and systems put in place by managers and organizations trained in managing hybrid teams, research also suggests there’s plenty of benefits to working from home. Below, 10 studies and surveys that quantify just how game-changing remote work can be for employees and companies.

Remote workers experience a better work-life balance.

Prior to the remote work era, a healthy work-life balance often felt like a pie-in-the-sky goal for workers: nice to idly dream about but never quite attainable. Now, it’s more in reach: Among hybrid workers who are not self-employed, 71% say working for home at least partially helps them balance their work and personal lives, according to the Pew Research survey.

They don’t feel micromanaged, either, despite being out of the office and outside the eyeline of their bosses. The same Pew survey found that employees who work from home at least some of the time (71%) say their manager or supervisor trusts them a “great deal” to get their work done when they’re out of the office.

Working remotely can halve an office worker’s carbon footprint.

Working from home isn’t just good for your morale, it’s also pretty good for the planet. According to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year, people who work remotely all the time produce less than half the greenhouse gas emissions of on-site employees.

Hybrid work arrangements help some, too. Working remotely two or four days a week reduced an individual’s emissions by up to 29% compared with office workers.

In 2015, Xerox reported that its teleworkers drove 92 million fewer miles, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 41,000 metric tons.

Remote workers tend to eat more healthy ― up to a point.

Research on remote work can be a little contradictory ― is it good for your mental health or does it lead to depression? ― so in December 2023, British researchers set out to interpret over 1,930 academic papers on teleworking and hybrid work arrangements.

What they found was that people working from home tend to feel lower rates of stress, eat healthier meals and have lower blood pressure.

The study, funded in part by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, pointed out some negatives, too. One of the studies reviewed found that 46.9% of employees working from home had put on weight. Another study put that number around 41%. Remote workers also tended to drink and smoke more.

A downside for workers: Remote employees work longer hours.

Though working from home is often equated with laziness and low productivity, the aforementioned British study found that remote workers tend to work longer hours and that their work is more likely to bleed into evenings and weekends. Regrettably, they’re also less likely to take sick time.

Another study ― this one tracking more than 60,000 Microsoft employees over the first half of 2020 ― found that remote work led to a 10% boost in weekly hours.

One drawback was less collaboration. The Microsoft study, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, found that cross-group collaboration dropped by about 25% of the pre-pandemic level.

Less commuting time means more time for work.

Remote employees are working more because they’re spending less time stuck in traffic. One 2023 University of Chicago study looked at data from 27 countries and found that remote workers saved 72 minutes in daily commuting time. On average, employees spent about half an hour of that extra time engaged in daily work, which comes out to more than two hours a week.

Since the pandemic, some social scientists have highlighted the downside to eliminating the daily commute: In one 2022 study published in the Organizational Psychology Review, researchers argued that commutes are a source of healthy “liminal space” — a time free of constraints from work and home that gives people a chance to recover from the workday and mentally prepare for reentering the home.

“Without the ability to mentally shift gears, people experience role blurring, which can lead to stress,” the study’s co-authors wrote in The Conversation . “Without mentally disengaging from work, people can experience burnout.”

Remote or hybrid work options may help with employee retention.

Worried about losing your employees to more enticing offers? Give them the chance to work from home. In 2019, video conferencing company Owl Labs surveyed 1,200 U.S. workers between the ages of 22 and 65 and found that remote workers were 13% more likely to stay in their current job for the next five years than on-site workers .

When asked if the opportunity to work remotely would make them happier, 83% of the survey respondents agreed, while 80% agreed that working remotely would make them feel like their employer cares.

People of color say they’re able to manage stress better working from home.

More Black professionals want flexible work policies than their white, Asian and Latino colleagues, according to a 2021 study conducted by The Future Forum, a research consortium organized by Slack.

Black workers reported a 50% increase in their sense of workplace belonging and a 64% increase in their ability to manage stress when they began working from home.

In the wake of the pandemic and office closures, many Black Americans spoke of how draining microaggressions in their office environments can be.

“Most of my interactions with my co-workers are very focused on the work that we’re doing, and for me, I appreciate that,” Christina, a Black software engineer, told HuffPost in 2021 after switching to remote work. “Sometimes hearing your co-worker’s opinions on current events are not really the most inclusive opinion. It’s nice that I don’t have to delve into that with them.“

Mothers and caregivers report higher rates of well-being with hybrid work.

A March 2023 study out of the University of Melbourne found that women ― especially mothers and caregivers ― reported improved well-being when they’re given the option to work from home. The researchers posited that such flexibility helps women balance paid employment with unpaid caregiving and household duties, which women disproportionately bear the brunt of .

Remote work has been a benefit for people with disabilities, too.

Workers with disabilities appreciate the option to work from home because it reduces transportation and accessibility challenges they face going into the office every day. It also allows them to better manage chronic health conditions.

“Before COVID-19, work from home was generally not popular, and disabled people had to try hard to get these accommodations,” Meenakshi Das, a software engineer focused on accessibility, told HuffPost in 2021 . “It took a pandemic for people to realize how accommodations are low-cost and totally doable, and I hope it stays that way.”

There’s benefits for employers, too. Almost two-thirds of disabled employees believe they were more productive when working from home than at an office or external workplace, according to a 2023 study out of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

Employees with flexible schedules tend to have better mental health.

Employees at workplaces that prioritize flexibility and higher job security are less likely to experience serious psychological distress or anxiety, according to a March 2024 study published in JAMA Network Open. The study, which polled more than 18,000 U.S. workers, defined “job flexibility” as the ability to adjust their own work schedule to meet personal demands.

Workers with flexible schedules were 13% less likely to experience daily anxiety, 11% less likely to experience weekly anxiety and 9% less likely to experience anxiety several times a year. The researchers also found that increased flexibility and job security led to reduced absenteeism ― a win for everyone involved.

Before You Go

From our partner, huffpost shopping’s best finds, more in life.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Enhanced right to ask for flexible working comes into force

Employees in England, Scotland and Wales can now request flexible working from first day in new job

Employees will have the legal right from Saturday to request flexible working from their first day in a new job.

Previously, it applied only when someone had worked for their employer for 26 weeks or more.

Peter Cheese, the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), said the new right could benefit millions of workers.

He added: “Flexibility around time, scheduling and place of work can be transformative in opening up opportunities for people to get into and stay in work, especially those who have health conditions, caring responsibilities, or other life choices they want to make.

“With an ageing population, and rising levels of economically inactive people due to ill health, flexible working is more important than ever, and has been shown to support better wellbeing, making it good for individuals as well as organisations.

“The pandemic accelerated the understanding of flexible working, and the demand for it, and many organisations have responded positively by introducing more flexible working policies.”

The conciliation service Acas published a new statutory code of practice on requests for flexible working alongside guidance.

The Acas chief executive, Susan Clews, said: “There has been a global shift to flexible working following the pandemic, which has allowed more people to better balance their working lives, and employers have also benefited from being an attractive place to work.

“Our new code aims to foster flexible working further and covers the new law changes. It sets out good practice on flexible working requests and will help employers and employees avoid any pitfalls.

“There are many types of flexible working such as part-time working, flexitime, job sharing, staggered hours, hybrid and home working.

“The starting position for businesses should be to consider what may be possible.”

A study of 4,000 workers by campaign group Timewise found that half would consider asking for a flexible pattern of work using the day-one right to request in a new job.

The Timewise chief executive, Claire Campbell, said: “The new legislation will help job hunters feel entitled to ask about flexible working options and requests could start coming thick and fast.

“Flexible working and diversity and inclusion are interwoven, and businesses that make the most of the opportunity could really open some doors to new and exciting talent.”

Research by campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed found that mothers were twice as likely as fathers to ask for flexible working after parental leave.

Joeli Brearley, the chief executive of the group, said: “Mothers are more likely to shoulder the lion’s share of the unpaid labour required to care for children and manage a household. As a result, they are more likely to need flexible working. Just three in 10 job adverts offer flexibility, limiting the progression opportunities and earning potential of mothers.

“Then we wonder why the gender pay gap widens when couples have children and continues to widen further over the subsequent decades.”

• Employment law
• Work & careers

More on this story

How women and younger UK workers are being hit by ‘underemployment’

Nationwide rescinds ‘work anywhere’ policy and tells staff to come to office

Flexible working can significantly improve heart health, study shows

Ministers warn English councils not to adopt four-day working weeks

Two-thirds of CEOs think staff will return to office five days a week, survey finds

‘We feel we’ve earned it’: UK over-50s on switching to part-time work

Burnt-out from work? Try following Hugh Jackman’s 85% rule

Britons least likely to say work is important to them, world study finds

Most viewed.

Repeat COVID testing may be better strategy than quarantine, daycare study finds

Serial COVID-19 testing of 50,000 children in 714 German daycare facilities over 1 year didn't result in increased infections and averted 7 to 20 days of post-exposure quarantine per child, according to a  study published today in Pediatrics .

University Hospital Cologne researchers led the study, which linked polymerase chain reaction (PCR) COVID-19 test results with data on reported infections to evaluate the change in infection frequency with serial testing ("test-to-stay" approach) versus quarantine among children aged 2 to 6 years from March 2021 to April 2022.

From weeks 11 to 36 in 2021, daycares quarantined exposed children for up to 14 days, switching to the test-to-stay strategy from week 37 in 2021 to week 14 in 2022. Under test-to-stay, COVID-exposed children were tested with single PCRs for 5 days. 

The study period spanned the Alpha, Beta, and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants. The 7-day incidence of COVID-19 in Cologne ranged from about 9 per 100,000 people in week 25 of 2021 to 2,573 per 100,000 in week 9 of 2022. 

While quarantine reduces COVID spread, it can lead to impaired cognitive development, executive functions, and mental and physical health.

"Furthermore, quarantine was shown to negatively impact parents, increasing negative mood or likelihood of losing temper and punishment," the study authors wrote. "Additionally, high-frequent and unexpected disruption of daycare attendance impacts workforce participation of parents because of the necessity of at-home childcare."

Test-to-stay appears safe, effective

Of the 219,885 pooled PCRs performed, 2.9% were positive for COVID-19, and 17,208 infections were reported. 

This approach offers a promising option to avoid use of quarantine after exposure to respiratory pathogens in daycare settings.

The test-to-stay strategy avoided an estimated 7 to 20 days of quarantine per child, with no significant increase in infections. A regression-discontinuity-in-time analysis suggested a 26% reduction in COVID-19 cases. The results held true regardless of 7-day incidence, season, variant, or socioeconomic status.

"Our analyses provide evidence that suggest safety of the test-to-stay approach compared with quarantine measures," the researchers wrote. "This approach offers a promising option to avoid use of quarantine after exposure to respiratory pathogens in daycare settings."

Labcorp gets FDA nod for at-home mpox PCR test

Labcorp, a lab services company based in North Carolina, today announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for its PCR Test Home Collection Kit for mpox, the first at-home sample collection kit of its kind for the virus.

In a statement, the company said the test is available for physicians to order for use in adults who have suspected mpox infections.

Brian Caveney, MD, JD, MPH, Labcorp's chief medical and scientific officer, said the EUA authorization allows the company to play a key role in early detection and management of mpox. "The collection kit reflects our ongoing commitment to providing critical diagnostic tools to physicians and accessible and convenient testing options to patients."

Available via physician order

Doctors order the test through Labcorp's provider interface, and the company sends the testing kit to the patient's home. The kit contains detailed instruction on how to correctly collect a lesion swab, secure the sample in the collection tube, and prepare the package for return to the lab.

Testing is done by Labcorp-authorized labs, with results delivered to the prescribing physician and made available to the patient through the company's patient portal.

The FDA's EUA for the test comes as US mpox cases outpace activity reported last year at this time. So far, 664 cases have been reported this year as of the week ending March 30, more than double the 307 cases reported during the same period last year, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Study shows offering mpox vaccine leads to high uptake

An online survey of UK men who have sex with men (MSM) in late 2022 reveals that, among mpox vaccine-eligible respondents, uptake was 69% overall but 92% among those offered the vaccine, and 53% reported behavior modification to avoid mpox. The survey results are published in Emerging Infectious Diseases .  

The United Kingdom was the first epicenter of a global mpox outbreak that began in the spring of 2022 and quickly spread across continents, fueled largely by sexual transmission among MSM. According to the study authors, UK case numbers peaked in July 2022 and topped 3,500 cases by the end of 2022.

Beginning in the summer of 2022, an mpox vaccine was available to UK citizens who were at risk of mpox, which was estimated to be 111,000 people, including 103,000 MSM and 8,000 healthcare workers.  

Bisexual men, unemployed less likely vaccinated  

A survey of 1,333 MSM recruited from websites showed that 875 surveyed were considered vaccine eligible; 655 (75%) were offered a vaccine, and 601 received vaccination. Vaccination uptake was 69% (95% CI, 65% to 72%) for vaccine-eligible respondents but 92% (95% CI, 89% to 94%) for those who were offered a vaccine. But only 42% of those who started the vaccine series reported receipt of a second dose.  

Bisexual men were less likely to report mpox vaccination than gay men (32% vs 54%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.62), as were participants with below college degree–level education qualifications (40% vs 59% in degree-level or higher; aOR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.63), and unemployed participants (37% vs. 55% of employed participants; aOR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.80).

Completion of the vaccination course among those receiving a first dose must be urgently prioritized.

"To reduce the likelihood of future mpox outbreaks, given threats of resurgence, provision of first mpox vaccine doses and completion of the vaccination course among those receiving a first dose must be urgently prioritized," the authors said.  

Carriage of multidrug-resistant bacteria linked to increased death risk for transplant recipients

A systematic review and meta-analysis shows that colonization with multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms is associated with increased risk of death and infection in solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients, researchers reported yesterday in Clinical Microbiology and Infection.

The review by researchers at the University of Alberta identified 39 studies that reported on outcomes in adult SOT recipients who were colonized by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE), extended-spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL)–producing or carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and MDR Pseudomonas and compared them to outcomes in non-colonized SOT recipients. Outcomes included mortality, infection, and graft-loss.

Increased risk of death, infections

The 39 studies included 15,202 SOT recipients, of whom 4,077 (27%) were colonized with MDR bacteria. Nearly half of the patients received liver transplants. MDR colonization was associated with significantly increased post-transplant 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63 to 3.38) and mixed infections (OR, 10.47; 95% CI, 7.56 to 12.26) across transplant types, but there was no detected impact on graft loss (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.69). 

Subgroup analyses found that the highest mortality risk was in SOT recipients colonized by CRE (OR, 3.94; 95% CI, 1.86 to 8.37), followed by VRE (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.17 to 6.11) and MRSA (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.25 to 4.05). The highest risk for infection was in patients colonized by CRE (OR, 19.57; 95% CI, 7.78 to 49.28) and ESBL (OR, 9.09; 95% CI, 5.59 to 14.78).

The study authors acknowledge that SOT recipients with MDR colonization may be more ill, which could explain the increased risk of death. But they say the findings could contribute to development of guidelines for MDR-colonized SOT candidates.

"Our study highlights the burden of MDR colonization in SOT and can aid in stratifying the recipient's risk of infection and mortality according to type of MDR colonization," they wrote. "Whether pre-transplant decolonization strategies may improve the prognosis of SOT patients should be evaluated in prospective studies."

FDA approves new fluoroquinolone antibiotic for use in cattle, swine

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) yesterday approved the antibiotic pradofloxacin for treating respiratory diseases in cattle and swine.

Marketed under the name Pradelex, pradofloxacin is a third-generation fluoroquinolone, which is considered a medically important antibiotic class. It was approved for use in cats and dogs by the European Medicines Agency in 2011.

The approval is for the treatment of bovine respiratory diseases caused by  Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni , and  Mycoplasma bovis , and for use in swine to treat respiratory diseases caused by  Bordetella bronchiseptica, Glaesserella (Haemophilus) parasuis, Pasteurella multocida, Streptococcus suis , and  Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae .

Veterinary prescription only

The FDA says that, like other medically important antibiotics used in food-producing animals, pradofloxacin may be prescribed by a licensed veterinarian only. 

"All medically important antimicrobials for animals require the authorization of a licensed veterinarian because the FDA believes that, given their specialized training and experience, veterinarians play a critical role in antimicrobial stewardship and can help reduce the risks of antimicrobial resistance," the agency said in  a press release .

The drug's label includes a statement that it should be used only after considering other, non-fluoroquinolone options.

In case you missed it

This week's top reads, cdc sequencing of h5n1 avian flu samples from patient yields new clinical clues.

The nasopharyngeal swab didn't suggest upper respiratory involvement, and virus sequencing of the eye sample showed one change that isn't linked to transmission.

Among fully vaccinated, study shows Paxlovid does not shorten symptoms

The antiviral drug likely has a gradient of benefit, with those at highest risk most likely to see the greatest benefit, experts say in an editorial.

Officials warn of H5N1 avian flu reassortant circulating in parts of Asia

The virus is a reassortant between the older H5N1 clade (2.3.2.1c), still circulating in parts of Asia, and a newer H5N1 clade (2.3.4.4b) that began circulating globally in 2021.

Vietnam reports its first human infection from H9 avian flu virus

The patient lived adjacent to a poultry market, but there were no reports of bird illnesses or deaths.

Wastewater testing near homeless camps shows COVID-19 viral mutations

Analysis of viral sequences uncovered 3 novel viral spike protein mutations.

Avian flu detected in North Carolina dairy herd

Seven states have now reported the virus in dairy herds, with detections at 21 facilities.

Blood donor study finds 21% incidence of long-term symptoms attributed to COVID-19

Among blood donors with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 23.6% reported long-term neurologic symptoms.

Study links air quality improvements to fewer school COVID cases

The study took place at a school that serves vulnerable students in a setting where air quality improvements were made and then monitored.

No need to avoid exercise with long-COVID diagnosis, researchers say

Participants with long COVID   had a 21% lower peak volume of oxygen consumption at baseline.

Study identifies inflammation and symptom patterns in long COVID

Inflammation of myeloid cells and activation of immune proteins that are part of the complement system stood out blood from long COVID patients, but it's not clear if that applies to all types of long COVID.

Our underwriters

Unrestricted financial support provided by.

• Antimicrobial Resistance
• Chronic Wasting Disease
• All Topics A-Z
• Resilient Drug Supply
• Influenza Vaccines Roadmap
• CIDRAP Leadership Forum
• Roadmap Development
• Coronavirus Vaccines Roadmap
• Antimicrobial Stewardship
• Osterholm Update
• Newsletters
• About CIDRAP
• CIDRAP in the News
• Our Director
• Osterholm in the Press
• Shop Merchandise