Remote Work: A (Possibly) Hurtful Convenience

These days going to the university campus has a feeling that we have not experienced in more than two years: there are people, movement, and activities everywhere. While K-12 schools tried to remain open for in-person learning during the pandemic (as much as they could), universities were among many other workplaces that were almost fully virtual. Going back to in-person work and study certainly feels strange and brings many positive and negative feelings (getting stuck in traffic is only one of them). 

With the COVID restrictions being gradually removed, many workers are leaving the home offices they established throughout the pandemic and returning to their traditional work environments. Many are negotiating the continuation of remote work or some mixed arrangement, while others are happy to be back to in-person work (and study). The debate involves workers and employers (and in universities, the students) and includes topics such as productivity and collaboration on one side and flexibility and efficiency on the other. While some argue that working from home can actually be more productive, others go as far as announcing a war against backward bosses who are asking for a return to the office despite the advantages of remote work. These advantages could include increased productivity and cost-saving, but mental health and work-life balance seem to be among the top ones for employers.

The academic research on the subject of remote work (a.k.a. working from/at home) dates back to the pre-COVID pandemic time. A study by Fores (2019) found that a “majority of the respondents chose to have more flexible hours as the most beneficial factor when working remotely. In contrast, more than half find collaborating/communicating with others as the most challenging contributing factor of remote working and finally, separating work and home life was selected to be the most difficult part of being a remote worker.” Oakman et al. (2020) reviewed the literature on the subject of Work At Home (WAH). “Ten health outcomes were reported: pain, self-reported health, safety, well-being, stress, depression, fatigue, quality of life, strain and happiness. The impact on health outcomes was strongly influenced by the degree of organisational support available to employees, colleague support, social connectedness (outside of work), and levels of work to family conflict.” Noting that the outcomes can be positive or negative based on the organizational policies and structures, they suggested that “organisations will need to implement formalised WAH policies that consider work-home boundary management support, role clarity, workload, performance indicators, technical support, facilitation of co-worker networking, and training for managers,” and warned about the effect of employment patterns and move towards “office jobs” that can be done at home.

As expected, more research was conducted during the pandemic on the subject of remote work, and much more public discussion. In a recent review of the literature, Felstead (2022) discusses the growing trend of working at home, describing its potential for cost-saving, productivity, and flexibility. He also mentions the effect of “paid work being done in the private sphere of the home where childcare, cooking, and cleaning were also carried out.” The conflicting pressures of the world of work and home need to be managed and accommodated. Ferreira et al. (2021) performed 129 qualitative interviews of remote workers. They found that cost-reduction and flexibility to promote work-life balance are the most positive outcomes of remote work, and communication and technical problems, as well as management issues, are the most negative ones.

In an article published by the Association for Psychological Science, the authors summarize the benefits of remote and flexible work into physiological (such as more sleep, shorter commute, more exercise, healthier food, and more time with family), psychological (such as less stress, more positive outlook, and general emotional calm), and work-related (such increased job satisfaction, motivation, and productivity). While these claims are backed or partially supported by some studies, there are other studies that show a different picture. For example, a recent survey by Microsoft showed a significant increase in the number of meetings with drawbacks such as the need to multi-task and spread the work throughout a wider time range. A study by American Psychiatric Association showed some other negative mental health problems with remote work, such as isolation and lack of employer support. ​​Increased isolation and workload, decreased support, and fatigue caused by many virtual meetings are commonly mentioned as how remote work is negatively affecting our mental health, suggesting a more balanced option may be more suitable, not to mention various suggestions on how to deal with those negative effects.

In light of all the above discussions, it seems that a key point in favour of remote work is the flexibility and convenience it offers to employees. While there are various discussions on positive and negative outcomes, the assumption is somewhat implied that convenience is a positive point making the work more enjoyable and helping with a more balanced lifestyle as the workers now have the choice and flexibility to engage in work activities when, where, and how they see fit (even if it includes working in pajamas). But research shows that such convenience may come at a cost that may even be hidden from the workers or unnoticed by them. Social isolation and lack of peer support can happen to many newer employees without them noticing, and many good habits such as better food and exercise may soon be replaced with staying home and having a less diverse diet. The truth is convenience can be hurtful, and another past work trend is a good example.

Work at Home vs. Live at Work

Back in the early years of the new millennium, started by companies such as Google, we saw a trend to make work environments super friendly and attractive with many facilities for food, relaxation, and entertainment. The trend seemed popular and successful in attracting employees, especially younger ones in high-tech. It offered flexible, enjoyable, and supportive work environments and allegedly increased productivity and motivation. But the flip side of having all your necessities at work was the implied encouragement to stay longer there (live-at-work), which meant assuming work is the main part of the employer’s life, a mentality that could be dangerously hurtful to mental health and work-life balance, not to mention that it can be considered exploitative. The architect behind Googleplex, Clive Wilkinson, discussed this in a recent interview with NPR, and later another with CBC. 

The live-at-work model was attractive as it was convenient. But it was hurtful to employees and their communities in the long run. Work-at-home is a new convenient model. For sure, flexibility has advantages, and a mixed model may be the optimal solution for many workers. Work-at-home may be attractive, however, it can also be hurtful. It is easier to stay home, wear comfortable clothes, and do meetings on Zoom while cooking dinner. But it may be better for our health to have fewer meetings, walk between offices, chat at the water cooler, and go out for lunch with colleagues. What’s convenient is not necessarily good.

Further Reading

• Cappelli, P. (2021). The Future of the Office: Work from Home, Remote Work, and the Hard Choices We All Face. Wharton School Press.

• Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 63(7), e426.

• Nobles, C., Nichols, K. W., Burrell, D. N., & Reaves, A. (2022). The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Remote Work During COVID-19: A Qualitative Study. International Journal of Smart Education and Urban Society (IJSEUS), 13(1), 1-18.

• Wheatley, D., Hardill, I., & Buglass, S. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of Research on Remote Work and Worker Well-Being in the Post-COVID-19 Era. IGI Global.