Remote work

"Work from home" and "WFH" redirect here. For other uses, see Work from Home (disambiguation) and WFH (disambiguation).

Percentage of workforce that was home-based in 2019

Most respondents to the same climate survey in 2021–2022 believe that most of us will be working from home in 20 years to help save the planet.

The United States Marine Corps began allowing remote work in 2010.

Remote work (also called telecommuting, telework, work from or at home, WFH as an initialism, hybrid work, and other terms) is the practice of working at or from one's home or another space rather than from an office or workplace.

The practice of working at home has been documented for centuries, but remote work for large employers began on a small scale in the 1970s, when technology was developed which could link satellite offices to downtown mainframes through dumb terminals using telephone lines as a network bridge. It became more common in the 1990s and 2000s, facilitated by internet technologies such as collaborative software on cloud computing and conference calling via videotelephony. In 2020, workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 catalyzed a rapid transition to remote work for white-collar workers around the world, which largely persisted even after restrictions were lifted.

Proponents of having a geographically distributed workforce argue that it reduces costs associated with maintaining an office, grants employees autonomy and flexibility that improves their motivation and job satisfaction, eliminates environmental harms from commuting, allows employers to draw from a more geographically diverse pool of applicants, and allows employees to relocate to a place they would prefer to live.

Opponents of remote work argue that remote telecommunications technology has been unable to replicate the advantages of face-to-face interaction, that employees may be more easily distracted and may struggle to maintain work–life balance without the physical separation, and that the reduced social interaction may lead to feelings of isolation.

History

The practice of working at home has been documented for centuries. Management had to rely on trust and control to successfully manage distributed work. In addition to dispersed operations that relied heavily on a combination of explicit information and detailed record-keeping, more tacit and situated knowledge developed through socialization. For example, the Hudson's Bay Company showed a variety of control mechanisms including selection techniques, information requirements, and direct local oversight through its distributed practices of socialization, communication, and participation. Managers found that "common sense" was not enough to encourage everyone to comply.

The England and Wales census of 1911 included a question about each resident person's employment (if any) and included a question about whether they worked "at home".

In the early 1970s, technology was developed that linked satellite offices to downtown mainframes through dumb terminals using telephone lines as a network bridge. The terms telecommuting and telework were coined by Jack Nilles in 1973. In 1979, five IBM employees were allowed to work from home as an experiment. By 1983, the experiment was expanded to 2,000 people. By the early 1980s, branch offices and home workers were able to connect to organizational mainframes using personal computers and terminal emulators.

In 1995, the motto that "work is something you do, not something you travel to" was coined. Variations of this motto include: "Work is what we do, not where we are."

Since the 1980s, the normalization of remote work has been on a steady incline. For example, the number of Americans working from home grew by 4 million from 2003 to 2006, and by 1983 academics were beginning to experiment with online conferencing.

In the 1990s and 2000s, remote work became facilitated by technology such as collaborative software, virtual private networks, conference calling, videotelephony, internet access, cloud computing, voice over IP (VoIP), mobile telecommunications technology such as a Wi-Fi-equipped laptop or tablet computers, smartphones, and desktop computers, using software such as Zoom, Webex, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Slack, and WhatsApp.

In his 1992 travelogue Exploring the Internet, Carl Malamud described a "digital nomad" as a person who "travels the world with a laptop, setting up FidoNet nodes." In 1993, Random House published the Digital Nomad's Guide series of guidebooks by Mitch Ratcliffe and Andrew Gore. The guidebooks, PowerBook, AT&T EO Personal Communicator, and Newton's Law, used the term "digital nomad" to refer to the increased mobility and more powerful communication and productivity technologies that facilitated remote work.

European hacker spaces of the 1990s led to coworking; the first such space opened in 2005. The new economy production no longer requires people to work together in the same physical space to access the tools and resources they need to produce their work and allows for distributed work.

In 2010, the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 required each executive agency in the United States to establish policy allowing remote work to the maximum extent possible, so long as employee performance is not diminished.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of workers began remote work for the first time. Cities in which the population of remote workers increased significantly were referred to as Zoom towns. According to a U.S. Labor Department study published, millions of Americans ceased working from home by 2022, and the number of employers reporting teleworking decreasing to the level before pandemic levels. From August to September 2022, approximately 72 percent of private-sector businesses reported little to no telework among workers, compared to roughly 60 percent from July to September 2021. During the Information Age, many startups were founded in the homes of entrepreneurs who lacked financial resources.

Remote work during COVID-19

A 2020 study of the COVID-19 pandemic estimated that 93% of world workers lived in countries with some sort of workplace closure. This figure was composed of: 32% living in countries with required closures for all but essential workplaces; 42% in countries where specific firms or worker categories had been closed; and 19% in countries with only recommended workplace closures.

The extensive use of remote work under COVID-19 constituted a major organizational transformation. However, the implementation of remote work during COVID-19 was hurried, and new technologies and operating systems had to be implemented without previous testing or training. Organizations reported concerns about losses in culture and productivity whilst workers were more concerned about declines in social interactions, internet connectivity and increased workload. Additionally, 25% of remote-working Americans were resistant to employer mandates to return to in-office work.

The abrupt transition to remote work during the pandemic led to an increase in both physical and mental health issues among workers; a lack of dedicated workspaces and distractions from others in the home were common negative influences on health and well-being, while effective communication with coworkers was supportive of health and well-being. The transition also increased the amount of time that individuals spent sitting at a workstation by up to two hours more per day, yet, most workers indicated being as productive working remotely as compared to office work before the pandemic. Supporting workers to identify effective approaches for boundary management between home and work across physical spaces, social interactions, and use of time are critical.

The transition to remote work during the pandemic highlighted the importance of access and equity among individual workers to support productivity and well-being. The remote work arrangement during COVID-19 was better for higher-paid and higher-management personnel in terms of productivity and reported well-being; whereas individuals at the bottom end of the earning spectrum experience reduced remuneration. Utility bills also increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in an inconsistent manner. Utility bills for minorities and lower income individuals were more likely to increase because they lived in housing that was older, with less effective insulation and without energy-efficient appliances. The increase in electricity also came due to the people using their utilities at different times of the day.

A 2024 PNAS study found that remote work dispersed economic activity away from city centers, in particular in cities with high levels of remote work.

Statistics

36% of Europeans interviewed by the European Investment Bank Climate Survey supported remote work to be favoured to fight climate change.

In 2020, 12.3% of employed persons, including 13.2% of women and 11.5% of men, in the European Union who were aged 15–64, usually worked from home. By country, the percentage of workers that worked from home was highest in Finland (25.1%), Luxembourg (23.1%), Ireland (21.5%), Austria (18.1%), and the Netherlands (17.8%) and lowest in Bulgaria (1.2%), Romania (2.5%), Croatia (3.1%), Hungary (3.6%), and Latvia (4.5%).

In 2023, economist and telework expert Nicholas Bloom said about a third of all working days are remote, slashing corporate real estate expenditures, and up from 5% before the pandemic. Bloom believes quickly progressing technology has facilitated and will continue the trend, but drawbacks for some kinds of positions will remain.

A September 2022 study surveyed workers from 26 countries in mid-2021 and early 2022. Its respondents work from home an average of 1.5 days per week.

United States

According to a Gallup poll in September 2021, 45% of full-time U.S. employees worked from home, including 25% who worked from home all of the time and 20% who worked from home part of the time. 91% of those who work remotely (fully or partially) hoped to continue to do so after the pandemic. Among all workers, 54% believed that their company's culture would be unchanged by remote work, while 12% believed it would improve and 33% predicted it would deteriorate.

Gallup found in February 2023 that, among remote-capable employees in the U.S., 20% worked on-site, 28% exclusively remote and 52% hybrid.

According to the United States Office of Personnel Management, 50% of all U.S. federal workers were eligible to work remotely and agencies saved more than $180 million because of remote work in fiscal 2020.

A September 2022 study surveyed workers in mid-2021 and early 2022. Its 2,079 US subjects worked from home on average 1.6 days per week, similar to the global average of 1.5 days per week.

United Kingdom

These results may vary based on the type of sample collected. Certain groups may have fewer office-workers, e.g., in more urban locations or industries requiring more manual labour. As such groups may find remote working impossible, their presence or absence in these samples may affect the analysis.

A June 2022 survey of 56 offices found that 51% had no policy requiring office attendance, 18% requiring two days per week, 11% requiring three days per week, and 20% had policy set at team-level.

A September 2022 study surveyed workers in mid-2021 and early 2022. Its 1,501 UK subjects worked from home on average two days per week – above the global average of 1.5 days per week.

An April 2023 survey of 558 central London workers' requirements for onsite working found the most common response was two and three days per week at 26% and 21% of responses respectively. Fewer cited one, four, and five days, each making 8–11% of responses. Having no requirement was second-most common at 25% of responses. It also found that about 18% of vacancies listed by London companies in February 2023 were hybrid or remote, up from about 4% in February 2020.

An early 2023 survey of 2,049 workers found that 35% must work onsite for two days, 33% for three days, and 33% always work from home. In a separate question, 7% said their employer does not allow hybrid working.

A March 2023 survey of 2,016 adults found a roughly even distribution of required onsite days per week peaking at two and three days at about 16% each. However, it found a large spike in five days per week, the most common response at over 35%. About 13% were required to work fewer than one day per week.

Countering the above results suggesting a peak around 2–3 days per week, an April 2023 survey of 1,000 office workers found a peak of five days per week required onsite. Requirements for fewer days were progressively rarer, culminating in 0% saying they must work onsite less than once per month.

A May 2022 survey by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that 14% of working arrangements were fully remote, 24% were hybrid, and 46% were fully onsite.

A June 2023 survey of 2,000 full-time workers found that 6% of working arrangements were fully remote, 46% were hybrid, and 48% were fully onsite.

An Autumn Survey by ONS found that more than a quarter of working adults in Great Britain (28%) had hybrid arrangements. They found that those aged over 30, parents and managers and professionals were the most likely to log on from home.

For those able to have a hybrid arrangement, the ONS said there were significant perks, including an average of 56 minutes saved from commuting, and spending an average of 24 minutes more on sleep and rest and 15 minutes more on exercise, sports and wellbeing.

Key concepts

There are several key terms associated with collocated work and distributed work. The most important concepts are common ground, coupling in work, collaboration readiness, and technology readiness. This section will briefly define these four concepts.

Common ground refers to the knowledge that participants have in common, and they are aware that they have this information in common. Common ground is not just established from some general knowledge about the person's background, but also through specific knowledge learned from several different cues that are available at the moment, including the person's appearance and behavior during conversational interactions. The figure below, shows the characteristics that contribute to achieving common ground that are inherent in various communication media.

	Copresence	Visibility	Audibility	Contemporality	Simultaneity	Sequentiality	Reviewability	Revisability
Face to face	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Telephone			Y	Y	Y	Y
Video conference		Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Two-way chat				Y	Y	Y
Answering machine			Y				Y
Email							Y	Y
Letter							Y	Y

It is important to note that those who are remote complain about the difficulty of establishing common ground. This is because when individuals are connected by audio conferencing, it is difficult to tell who is speaking if you do not know the participant well. However, people with video can engage in the subtle negotiation that establishes local common ground- whether what was said was understood or not, whether the conversation can proceed or needs repair. Overall, the more common ground people can establish, the easier the communication will be and the greater the productivity.

Coupling refers to the extent and kind of communication required by the work. Tightly coupled work is work that strongly depends on the talents of collections of workers and is non-routine, and even ambiguous. Components of this type of work are highly interdependent, meaning that the work requires frequent, complex communication among group members, with short feedback loops and multiple streams of information. This type of communication is very difficult in remote locations, mostly because technology does not support rapid back and forth conversations or awareness and repair of ambiguity. On the other hand, loosely coupled work has fewer dependencies or is more routine. It is important that all group members establish common ground about the task, goals, and procedures before working, but this type of work overall requires less frequent or less complicated interactions.

Collaboration readiness is a groups willingness to work together and share their ideas. Using shared technology assumes that the coworkers need to share information and are rewarded for sharing it. It is important to note that one should not attempt to introduce groupware and remote technologies in organizations and communities that do not have a culture of sharing and collaboration.

Common ground is often used in collaboration, where a team is out to solve a complex problem. In order to solve a complex problem, the different skills and perspectives of members in a team must be pooled together. To do so, the team must make sure that they are on common ground in terms of knowledge and representation of the problem. Care must be taken to note that to achieve common ground when collaborating, differences are constructively managed, rather than downplayed. This is because collaboration differs from compromise.

Technology readiness is a company or groups willingness and ability to use technology. Companies require a technical infrastructure if they are going to adopt technologies in the company. In particular, they require the habits, including those of preparation, regular access, attention given to others’ need for information, in order to effectively use the necessary technology for distributed work. Researchers repeatedly see that failure of distributed work often results from attempts to introduce new technologies to organizations or communities that are not yet comfortable with technologies that are already in place. The following chart explains the order in which various collaboration technologies should be adopted in organizations to allow the employees to become familiar with and learn each new technology.

The list below shows the observed order in which various collaboration technologies were adopted and used in different organizations.

• Telephone
• Fax
• E-mail
• Audio conferencing
• Voicemail
• E-mail with attachments
• Video conferencing
• Repositories built by others (e.g., intranet sites of static information)
• Shared calendaring
• Creating repositories
• Hand-off collaboration (e.g., using the Tracking Changes option in MS Word)
• Simultaneous collaboration (e.g., NetMeeting, Exceed, or Timbuktu screen sharing)

As this chart shows, advanced technologies should be introduced in small steps.

These key concepts are important because they help differentiate between collocated and distributed work. Later on, a fifth concept of organizational management was proposed. Organizational management is the "practices by which management activities are part of shaping the fundamental premises for collaboration without proximity"

Distributed versus collocated teams

There are two types of work that explain the geographical distance between coworkers/collaborators. Collocated work is the case in which team members are at the same location. Distributed work is the term used to explain team members who are not in the same physical location when working on a project. There are many differences, similarities, benefits, and obstacles between these two types of work. In order to distinguish between collocated and distributed work, it is necessary to go into more detail.

Collocated work is the case in which the team members are at the same physical location. This may be temporary due to travel to a common location or permanent because all collaborators of the group are at the common work site. Same location means that the coworkers can get to each other's workspaces with a short walk and communicate via face-to-face interactions. Also, during meetings or small group meetings, a major advantage of collocated work is that individuals are able to move from one meeting to another, simply by overhearing a conversation, seeing what someone is working on, and being aware of how long they had worked on it with or without progress. In addition, during these meetings, coworkers can observe someone's reaction by being able to see his/her gesture or glance. This allows for one to make sure that the group has common ground prior to moving on. Also, coworkers have access to common spaces for group interactions and have mutual access to significant shared information. In a study, researchers observed an individual describe something by drawing with his hands in the air. Later, someone referred to “that idea” by pointing to the spot in the air where the first person had "drawn his idea".

Opposite of collocated work, distributed work is the case in which team members are not physically in the same location. Thus, they are forced to use different methods of technology to communicate to make progress on the project/problem they are working on. Today, the technology distributed work groups use to communicate is constantly changing because of rapid changes and because different groups have varying access to technology. Olson & Olson (2000) describe the options of communication today which include:

• Telephony in its current incarnation
• Meeting room video conferencing
• Desktop video and audio conferencing
• Chat rooms for text interactions
• File transfer
• Application sharing
• Some very primitive virtual reality options

Distributed work can be very successful, if the company or group displays technology readiness. Some of the benefits of distributed work include:

• Simultaneous access to real-time data from instruments around the world, allowing coworkers to talk while something is happening
• Cost reduction – both for the employee and the employer. While the company experience sales costs on supplies, office space rental, etc., the remote worker has the same benefit on reducing their own cost on things like meals, fuel and car maintenance.
• Microsoft NetMeeting has been a success. People who had previously driven long distances to attend a meeting in their area began attending from their offices. These individuals chose to forego the time and stress of travel in favor of remote participation
• Ongoing work – 1,000 software engineers working on the project in four sites. Has allowed numerous people at various different sites to stay in contact over email video and audio conferencing, transferred files and fax. If everyone understands the structure of the collaborative work and knows his or her role, distributed work can be a success.

Distributed work is far from perfect and there are many failures, some of which include:

• Complaints about the quality of communication over audio and video conferencing
• Hard to detect a person's motivation when you are not in the office. For example, if someone had a tough meeting you do not know this and therefore will not know that it is not the right time to send a lengthy, stern email. One important feature of collocation that is missing in remote work is awareness of the state of one's coworkers, both their presence-absence and their mental state.

Overall, people who have little common ground benefit significantly from having a video channel.

Communication technology

Effective group communication involves various nonverbal communication characteristics. Because distance limits interpersonal interaction between members of distributed groups, these characteristics often become constrained. Communication media focuses on alternative ways to achieve these qualities and promote effective communication. This section addresses communication technology in relation to the theories of grounding and mutual knowledge and discusses the costs and benefits of various communication technology tools.

Grounding and technology

Grounding in communication is the process of updating the evolving common ground, or shared information, between participants. The base of mutual knowledge is important for effective coordination and communication. Additionally, participants constantly gather various forms of verbal and nonverbal evidence to establish understanding of change and task.

The following are means of grounding and collecting evidence:

Quality	Description
Co-presence	When sharing the same physical environment, participants are able to easily and hear what the other is doing and looking at.
Visibility	The participants are able to see each other and are able to pick up non-verbal facial cues and body language.
Audibility	When the participants are able to communicate by speaking, they are able to pick up voice intonation and utterance timing.
Cotemporality	Efficiency is promoted when an utterance is produced just about when it is received and understood, without delay.
Simultaneity	Messages can be simultaneously conveyed and received by both participants.
Sequentiality	The participants speak only with each other without intervening turns from conversations with other people.
Reviewability	Participants are able to return to a physical form of the exchange at a later time.
Revisability	Participants are able to privately revise their statements before sending their message.

Different forms of communication result in the varied presence of these communication characteristics. Therefore, the nature of communication technology can either promote or inhibit grounding between participants. The absence of grounding information results in reduced ability to read and understand social cues. This increases the social distance between them.

Costs to grounding change

The lack of one of these characteristics generally forces participants to use alternative grounding techniques, because the costs associated with grounding change. There is often a trade-off between the costs: one cost will increase as another decreases. There is also often a correlation between the costs. The following table highlights several of the costs that can change as the medium of communication changes.

Cost	Description	Paid By
Formulation	Time and effort increase as utterances are created and revised and as utterances become more complicated.	Speaker
Production	Effort invested in producing a message varies depending on the medium of communication.	Speaker
Reception	Listening is generally easier than reading.	Addressee
Understanding	Costs are higher the more often that the addressee has to formulate the appropriate context of the conversation.	Addressee
Start-up	The cost of starting up a new discourse. Attention needs to be commanded, the message formulated, and the message needs to be received.	Both
Delay	The cost of delaying an utterance in order to more carefully plan, revise and execute the communication.	Both
Asynchrony	The cost associated with the work required to cue one participant to stop and another to start.	Both
Speaker change	The cost associated with the work required to cue one participant to stop and another to start.	Both
Display	The cost associated with displaying non-verbal cues.	Both
Fault	The cost associated with producing a mistaken message.	Both
Repair	The cost to repair the message and send the correct one.	Both

Examples of communication technology

Structured Management (Hinds & Kiesler)

It has been argued that work can be adapted to individual situations through task decomposition and version control. This can be applied to distributed groups by allowing groups to divide the work into manageable chunks. Group members can work autonomously and come together to produce a finished product. Many recent software developments have been built to specifically address this method.

Email

Email prevents the communication of verbal inferences, such as sarcasm and humor and, additionally, leaves email writers unaware of what their communication is lacking. When people try to anticipate the perspective of their email audience, studies suggest that they end up pulling upon their own experience and perspective instead. This often leads to inconsistencies in email conversation and chaotic communication.

Legal aspects

In 1996, the Home Work Convention, an International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention, was created to offer protection to workers who are employed in their own homes.

The UK's National Minimum Wage Act 1998 makes specific reference to home workers who "contract with a person, for the purposes of that person's business, for the execution of work to be done in a place not under the control or management of that person". In the case of James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd (2007), it was confirmed that "a home worker need not work at home, although typically he or she will do so; the only requirement is to work in a place not under the control or management of the other party".

In the Netherlands, the Flexible Working Act allows workers to submit a written request to work from home, at least partly. Employers must have a good reason for refusing worker requests.

Potential benefits

Cost reduction

Remote work can reduce costs for organizations, including the cost of office space and related expenses such as parking, computer equipment, furniture, office supplies, lighting and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. Certain employee expenses, such as office expenses, can be shifted to the remote worker, although this is the subject of lawsuits.

Remote work also reduces costs for the worker such as costs of travel/commuting and clothing. It also allows for the possibility of living in a cheaper area than that of the office.

Higher employee motivation and job satisfaction due to autonomy and flexibility

Consistent with job characteristic theory (1976), an increase in autonomy and feedback for employees leads to higher work motivation, satisfaction with personal growth opportunities, general job satisfaction, higher job performance, and lower absenteeism and turnover. Autonomy increased remote workers' satisfaction by reducing work-family conflicts, especially when workers were allowed to work outside traditional work hours and be more flexible for family purposes. Autonomy was the reason for an increase in employee engagement when the amount of time spent remote working increased. Remote workers have more flexibility and can shift work to different times of day and different locations to maximize their performance. The autonomy of remote work allows for arrangement of work to reduce work-family conflict and conflicts with recreational activities. However, studies also show that autonomy must be balanced with high levels of discipline if a healthy work/leisure balance is to be maintained.

Remote work may make it easier for workers to balance their work responsibilities with their personal life and family roles such as caring for children or elderly parents. Remote work improves efficiency by reducing travel time, and reduces commuting time and time stuck in traffic congestion, improving quality of life.

Remote working greatly increases the freedom employees have to choose where to work, such as a home, coffee shop or co-working space. This approach allows employees to choose their own beneficial working style in their preferred environment, further promoting a healthy work-life balance and providing productivity.

Providing the option to work remotely or adopting a hybrid work schedule has been an incentivizing benefit companies used in new hiring.

Hybrid is a flexible work model that allows employees to split their time between working in the office and working from home.

A 2007 meta-analysis of 46 studies of remote work involving 12,833 employees conducted by Ravi Gajendran and David A. Harrison in the Journal of Applied Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), found that remote work has largely positive effects on employees' job satisfaction, perceived autonomy, stress levels, manager-rated job performance, and (lower) work-family conflict, and lower turnover intention.

Environmental benefits

See also: Mobility transition

Remote work can reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, with fewer cars on the roads.

Most studies find that remote work overall results in a decrease in energy use due to less time spent on energy-intensive personal transportation, cleaner air, and a reduction of electricity usage due to a lower office space footprint.

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, the increase in remote work led to a decrease in global CO₂ emissions. Partially due to the decrease in car commuting, carbon emissions dropped by 5.4%; however, emissions immediately increased to the same rate in the following year.

The increase in remote work had also led to people moving out of cities and into larger homes which catered for home office space.

Increased productivity

Remote work has long been promoted as a way to substantially increase employee productivity. A 2013 study showed a 13% increase in productivity among remotely working call-center employees at a Chinese travel agency. An analysis of data collected through March 2021 found that nearly six out of 10 workers reported being more productive working from home than they expected to be, compared with 14% who said they got less done.

Since work hours are less regulated in remote work, employee effort and dedication are far more likely to be measured purely in terms of output or results. However, traces of non-productive work activities (such as research, self-training, dealing with technical problems or equipment failures), and time lost on unsuccessful attempts (such as early drafts, fruitless endeavors, abortive innovations), are visible to employers.

Remote work improves efficiency by reducing or eliminating employees commute time, thus increasing their availability to work. In addition, remote work also helps employees achieve a better work-life balance.

An increase in productivity is also supported by sociotechnical systems (STS) theory (1951), which states that, unless absolutely essential, there should be minimal specification of objectives and how to do tasks in order to avoid inhibiting options or effective actions. Remote work provides workers with the freedom and power to decide how and when to do their tasks and therefore can increase productivity.

Lower turnover intention and higher loyalty

Turnover intention, or the desire to leave an organization, is lower for remote workers. Remote workers who experienced greater professional isolation actually had lower turnover intention.

A study of workers in 27 countries surveyed in mid-2021 and early 2022 found they would on average be willing to sacrifice 5% of their pay to be able to work from home two to three days per week. 26% would quit immediately or seek a new job if they were required to work five or more days per week.

A 2017 study showed that companies that offered remote work options experienced a 25% lower turnover rate.

Surveys by FlexJobs found that 81% of respondents said they would be more loyal to their employers if they had flexible work options. In a 2021 study by McKinsey & Company, more than half of the workers supported companies adopting a hybrid work model, and more than a quarter stated that they would consider switching jobs if their current employer eliminated remote work options.

A 2021 employee survey reports preferring a more flexible working model. During the COVID-19 pandemic the working model showed the amount of employees who are working fully on site is 62%, with 30% hybrid and 8% remote. Post COVID-19 pandemic working models changed with the amount of employees who were fully on site at 37%, with 52% hybrid and 11% remote.

Access to more employees/employers

Remote work allows employees and employers to be matched despite major location differences.

Working responsibility is given to the employee who is skilled in that area of work.

Relocation opportunity

Remote workers may have the opportunity to relocate to another city or state for potential job opportunities and or lower cost of living. A 2020 survey found that 2.4% of people or 4.9 million Americans say they have moved because of remote work in 2020.

Potential drawbacks and concerns

Drawbacks due to reduced face-to-face interactions

The technology available for remote communication does not fully replicate the nuances of face-to-face interactions. Room for mistakes and miscommunication can increase. According to media richness theory, face-to-face communication allows for processing rich information through the clarification of ambiguous issues, immediate feedback, and personalized communication including body language and tone of voice. Remote work typically relies on tools such as videotelephony, telephone, and email, which can introduce limitations such as time lags, reduced ability to interpret emotions, and slower decision-making processes. Asynchronous communication, often used in remote work, can require greater coordination and management than synchronous communication.

An increase in videoconferencing during remote work has led to what has been termed "Zoom fatigue," with factors such as prolonged eye contact, self-monitoring during calls, limited physical movement, and reduced non-verbal communication contributing to feelings of exhaustion.

A 2008 study found that face-to-face interactions are associated with higher levels of interpersonal contact, connectedness, and trust. A 2012 study found that 54% of remote workers reported missing social interaction, while 52.5% reported missing professional interaction.

Remote work can also impact workplace relationships, particularly when some employees work remotely and others do not. This dynamic may sometimes lead to feelings of resentment or perceptions of unfairness among those who are required to be on-site. Remote workers may also experience reduced access to in-person companionship and on-site benefits.

The adaptation of technology within organizations has been studied under adaptive structuration theory, which suggests that the use of technology evolves based on both the intended purpose and how individuals choose to use it in practice. Remote work introduces a social structure that both enables and constrains communication compared to traditional office environments. For example, whereas in-person norms typically encourage face-to-face interaction, remote settings require alternative forms of interpersonal exchange. Over time, remote work may shift the established norms of communication and collaboration within organizations.

Sharing information among teams can also present challenges when working remotely. In office settings, informal information exchange often occurs spontaneously during casual encounters, such as coffee breaks. In remote work environments, sharing information typically requires more deliberate effort and proactive communication. The transfer of tacit knowledge, often learned by observing experienced colleagues, can be more difficult in remote settings where unplanned interactions are less frequent.

Timely access to information may also be affected in remote work unless information sharing is actively organized. A lack of awareness about colleagues’ activities can lead to slower decision-making or less effective decisions.

From an anthropological perspective, remote work can influence the process of sensemaking, as it limits exposure to a wide range of contextual cues and informal signals.

Feedback is an important component of job performance and employee development. It provides employees with information about how well they are meeting expectations and completing tasks. In remote work, feedback mechanisms may be less immediate or clear, as electronic communication often lacks the richness of face-to-face interaction. This can contribute to greater role ambiguity, where workers may be less certain about their responsibilities or expectations. Higher levels of role ambiguity are associated with increased conflict, frustration, and exhaustion.

Job characteristic theory has found that feedback is strongly related to overall job satisfaction. Research indicates that reduced communication and feedback in remote settings can lead to lower levels of job engagement. Studies in 2006 and 2011 found that when perceived supervisor support and the quality of the leader-employee relationship decline, remote workers' job satisfaction may decrease. Furthermore, when managers themselves work remotely, employees may report lower job satisfaction, possibly due to decreased clarity, slower communication, and fewer feedback opportunities. However, some workers — such as those with longer tenure, functional (rather than socially-oriented) work relationships, or certain personality traits — may report satisfaction with communication even in remote settings.

Social information processing theory suggests that individuals interpret and assign meaning to their work environment through social cues. These cues can be delivered through direct statements, cognitive evaluations, or observed behaviors of colleagues. In remote work settings, the reduced immediacy and richness of computer-mediated communication may slow the processing of social information compared to in-person interactions.

Lessened work motivation

Skill variety has been found to have a strong relationship with internal work motivation, with jobs that involve a range of skills leading to greater intrinsic motivation among employees. A 1985 study found that in remote work settings, limitations in teamwork opportunities or reduced opportunities to engage in a variety of tasks may impact workers' internal motivation. Additionally, a 2012 study found that social isolation has been associated with decreased motivation.

Motivator-hygiene theory differentiates between factors that contribute to job satisfaction (motivators) and those that can prevent dissatisfaction (hygiene factors). Motivators, such as recognition and opportunities for career advancement, may be affected in remote work environments. A 2010 study found that remote workers who are not physically present may experience fewer opportunities for recognition and advancement compared to on-site colleagues, as they may be less visible to peers and supervisors.

A 2017 study found that physical separation from the office environment may also reduce opportunities for informal encouragement, which can contribute to an employee's ability to perform at their highest potential.

Distractions

While working in an office presents its own set of distractions, it has been argued that remote work may involve additional or different types of distractions. A study identified children as the most common source of distraction for remote workers, followed by spouses, pets, neighbors, and solicitors. Access to appropriate tools and facilities has also been cited as a potential challenge for maintaining focus during remote work, though coworking spaces and short-term office rentals can help address this issue.

In some countries, such as Romania, national labor inspectorates have been tasked with verifying that remote work environments meet regulatory requirements for health and safety.

A 2019 study found that the absence of on-site monitoring in remote work arrangements has been associated with the potential for increased distractions and, in some cases, decreased productivity.

Women burdening an unfair share of domestic work

See also: Double burden

Remote work arrangements can have varying effects depending on workers’ home environments and domestic responsibilities. Analyses of survey data from the United Kingdom in 2010 and 2020–21 suggest that women are more likely to bear a disproportionate share of domestic work compared to men.

A 2022 study surveying 283 Austrian remote workers cohabiting with an intimate partner during mid-2020 found that women with children reported more exhausting experiences with home-based work, including longer working hours and less distinct boundaries between work and personal life. Women without children reported improved concentration and positive outcomes when working from home.

A separate study conducted in 2021–2022, surveying workers from 26 countries, found that women valued the option to work from home more highly than men in nearly all countries surveyed. Additionally, among both men and women, those with children generally placed a higher value on remote work options compared to those without children.

A 2021 study indicated that remote work may be associated with increased risks of intimate partner violence for women. Studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic found that women working from home had higher odds of experiencing IPV, particularly psychological violence, compared to those working on-site. Contributing factors included social isolation, increased access by abusers, and economic stressors such as job loss. Although these risks were heightened during the pandemic, some factors may persist beyond the immediate COVID-19 context, highlighting ongoing concerns regarding personal safety for vulnerable individuals working remotely.

The shift to remote work has also been associated with amplifying pre-existing gender disparities. Women with family responsibilities often experienced an increased domestic workload, including childcare and household management, compared to men. This additional burden has been linked to higher rates of anxiety and depression among women with families, whereas such effects were not observed among women without caregiving responsibilities.While much of the research linking psychological distress to remote work focuses on the pandemic period, continued attention to the intersection of domestic roles and remote work environments remains relevant in the post-pandemic workplace.

Employee pressure to be seen as valuable

Remote workers may experience pressure to produce higher levels of output in order to demonstrate their value and counter perceptions that remote work involves reduced productivity. This pressure, combined with limited coworker interactions and feelings of isolation, was associated with lower levels of job engagement among remote workers in a 2012 study. A 2006 study found that higher-quality relationships with teammates can decrease remote workers' job satisfaction, possibly due to frustrations arising from the challenges of maintaining relationships through digital communication. However, coworker support and participation in virtual social groups aimed at team building have been found to positively influence job satisfaction in studies conducted in 2001 and 2002, potentially through increased opportunities for skill use and greater perceived task significance.

A 2005 study suggested that the relationship between remote work and job satisfaction is complex. Initial increases in remote work may be associated with higher job satisfaction, likely due to greater autonomy. However, as the extent of remote work increases further, declines in feedback and task significance may lead to a plateau or slight decline in satisfaction. Thus, the amount of remote work plays an important role in shaping its overall impact on employee satisfaction. Barriers to the continued expansion of remote work include employer concerns about trust and employees’ feelings of personal disconnection.

Working in a shared office environment may enhance opportunities for collaboration and professional development, potentially contributing to increased employee effectiveness.

Challenges to team building; focus on the individual

In traditional office environments, communication and relationship-building among employees and supervisors often occur naturally through day-to-day interactions. In remote work settings, maintaining these relationships typically requires more deliberate effort, particularly for new employees who need to learn organizational norms and practices while working remotely.

Job characteristics such as skill variety, task identity, and task significance contribute to employees' perceptions of the meaningfulness of their work. Skill variety refers to the range of activities and skills required to complete a job, with greater skill variety associated with increased job challenge and a stronger sense of meaningfulness and engagement. Remote work does not necessarily change the skill variety or perceived meaningfulness of tasks compared to in-office work; however, opportunities for skill development may differ based on whether work is structured individually or collaboratively. Tasks focused primarily on individual work may offer fewer chances to apply a wide range of skills compared to teamwork-based activities.

Task identity is defined as the extent to which an individual can complete an entire piece of work or identify with a complete project, rather than contributing only a small part. Task significance refers to the degree to which work has a substantial impact on others within or outside the organization. While remote work may not inherently alter these job characteristics, their presence remains important in shaping remote workers' attitudes and work outcomes.

According to Vivek Murthy in his book Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World, face-to-face meetings, in-person collaboration, and brief informal interactions in the workplace contribute to a sense of belonging and community among workers.

Isolation and mental health

Research by psychologist Julianne Holt-Lunstad at Brigham Young University has indicated that social integration is one of the strongest predictors of longevity. Similarly, a study conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago found that routine social interactions can benefit mental health.

Workplace relationships also play a role in employee commitment. A 2018 study by Sigal G. Barsade found that employees experiencing greater loneliness reported feeling less committed to their employers and coworkers. Remote work, by reducing opportunities for informal interaction, can hinder the development of workplace friendships.

Concerns have been raised that remote work might negatively affect career progression and workplace relationships. However, a 2007 study found no overall detrimental effects on the quality of workplace relationships or career outcomes among remote workers. In fact, remote work was associated with improvements in employee-supervisor relationships, and job satisfaction was partly linked to the quality of these relationships. The study noted that only high-intensity remote work—defined as working remotely more than 2.5 days per week—was associated with weaker relationships among coworkers, although it also reduced work-family conflict.

Individual responses to the characteristics of remote work may vary. According to job characteristics theory from the 1970s, the degree to which employees respond to job features such as autonomy and feedback is influenced by their personal need for accomplishment and development, referred to as "growth need strength". Employees with higher growth need strength may respond more positively to increased autonomy and more negatively to reduced feedback in remote work environments than those with lower growth need strength.

A 2021 report from Prudential claimed that a majority of workers preferred a hybrid model combining remote and in-person work. The report also indicated that two-thirds of workers believed in-person interactions were important for career advancement. Fully remote workers were more likely to feel hesitant about taking vacations, to perceive a need to be constantly available, and to report feelings of isolation. Overall, the findings suggested that while workers value flexibility, many also wished to retain the benefits associated with in-person workplace interactions.

Information security

Effective remote work requires appropriate training, tools, and technologies. Remote work arrangements can introduce cybersecurity risks, and following recommended best practices is important for maintaining security. Common guidelines include using antivirus software, restricting family member access to work devices, covering webcams when not in use, utilizing virtual private networks (VPNs), relying on centralized storage solutions, creating strong and secure passwords, and exercising caution with email communications to guard against scams and security breaches.

In 2021, a ranking based on data breaches, stolen records, privacy laws, victim counts, and financial losses identified Vermont, South Carolina, South Dakota, Alabama, and Nebraska as the top five safest states for remote workers in the United States.

A 2020 survey of over 1,000 remote workers found that 59% of respondents felt more cyber-secure when working in-office compared to working from home.

Technology or equipment issues

Access to adequate equipment and technology is essential for effective remote work. Technical difficulties can hinder productivity; a survey conducted by FlexJobs found that 28% of remote workers reported experiencing technical problems, and 26% cited Wi-Fi connectivity issues as challenges.

Loss of control by management

Remote work may sometimes be viewed cautiously by management due to concerns about reduced managerial control. Research has found that managers may exhibit bias against employees who are not physically present in the office, with perceptions of employee contribution influenced more by visibility than by the actual quality of work performed.

Alleged drop in worker productivity

Research on the relationship between remote work and productivity has produced mixed findings. Some studies have indicated that remote work can increase worker productivity, with remote employees receiving higher supervisor ratings and performance appraisals compared to on-site workers. As with job attitudes, the amount of time spent remote working may influence the relationship between remote work and job performance.

Productivity declines among remote workers have been attributed in some cases to inadequate home office setups. Nevertheless, some surveys have reported that over two-thirds of employers observed increased productivity among their remote workforces, although findings vary.

Organizations may encounter challenges when shifting to remote work models, particularly where traditional management practices rely on direct observation rather than results-based evaluation. This reliance can present obstacles to effective remote management. Additionally, issues related to liability and workers' compensation may arise in remote work arrangements.

A 2008 study found that the more time employees spent working remotely, the lower their perceived productivity was among managers.

Research examining employee mindsets has also highlighted the role of psychological factors in remote work outcomes. The study Remote work mindsets predict emotions and productivity in home office: a longitudinal study of knowledge workers during the Covid-19 pandemic found that knowledge workers with a fixed mindset toward remote work experienced more negative emotions and fewer positive emotions, leading to perceptions of lower productivity. Encouraging a growth mindset—viewing remote work as a skill that can be developed—was suggested as a strategy for improving employee experiences and productivity.

Envy in the workplace

Employees who do not have access to remote work opportunities may experience feelings of envy toward colleagues who do, which can contribute to workplace tensions.

Taxation complexity

Remote workers are typically subject to taxation based on several factors, including their place of residence, the location of their employer, and the tax laws of the applicable jurisdictions. In most cases, workers are taxed according to the rules of the jurisdiction in which they reside. International tax treaties may also influence the taxation of remote workers by providing mechanisms to prevent double taxation.

Understanding the tax implications of remote work is important, particularly when working from a different jurisdiction than the employer's location. Research indicates that remote workers often have limited awareness of the tax consequences associated with cross-jurisdictional work arrangements.

Health impacts due to increased hours working

A 2021 report by the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization indicated that remote work could contribute to increased health risks if it leads to working more than 55 hours per week. Extended working hours have been associated with negative impacts on health, well-being, and sleep, with contributing factors including disruptions to daily routines, heightened anxiety and worry, feelings of isolation, increased family and work-related stress, and prolonged screen time.

Distance work in the future

Future technological advancements are expected to address some of the current limitations associated with remote communication. Improvements in system design, processing power, and increased bandwidth may reduce delays in audio and video transmission, allowing for larger, smoother, and more life-like displays of remote participants. These enhancements could make remote interactions more closely resemble the flow of face-to-face communication. While future technologies may offer capabilities that surpass certain aspects of in-person interaction, challenges related to the use of distributed work technologies and gaps in user proficiency are likely to persist. Consequently, face-to-face interaction is expected to remain an important component of workplace communication.

See also

• Asynchronous communication – Transmission of data at irregular intervals
• Canadian Telework Association – Organization promoting telework and telecommuting in Canada
• Comparisons
  • Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients
  • Comparison of file hosting services
  • Comparison of FTP client software
  • Comparison of office suites
  • Comparison of web conferencing software
• Coworking – people working independently sharing a common working area
• Digital nomad – someone that works remotely while traveling and living a nomadic lifestyle
• Distributed development – Research and development done across many locations
• Distance education – Mode of delivering education to students who are not physically present
• Desktop virtualization – ability to access legacy applications or operating systems from a remote device
• Digital divide – Inequality of access to information and communication technologies
• E-lancing – Online freelance work
• Environmental impact of transport
• Flexible work arrangement – Type of work arrangement
• Flextime – Flexible hours schedule in workdays
• Home Work Convention – International Labour Organization Convention
• Homeshoring – In British English, when the initiative comes from the company, the terms "homeshoring" and "homesourcing" are sometimes used.
• Hot desking – Office organization system
• Hoteling – Some companies, particularly those where employees spend a great deal of time on the road and at remote locations, offer a hotdesking or hoteling arrangement where employees can reserve the use of a temporary traditional office, cubicle or meeting room at the company headquarters, a remote office center, or other shared office facility.
• Job characteristic theory – Theory of work design
• Labour market flexibility – Speed with which labour markets adapt to changes
• Media richness theory – Framework describing a communication medium's ability to reproduce the information sent over it
• Outsourcing – Contracting internal tasks to an external organization
• Putting-out system – Cottage industry
• Small office/home office – Category of business or cottage industry that involves from 1 to 10 workers
• Smart city – City using integrated information and communication technology
• Study (room) – Type of room in a house
• Telecentre – A public place where people can access digital technologies
• Virtual assistant
• Virtual business – Employs electronic means to do business as opposed to brick and mortar
• Virtual community of practice
• Virtual management – Supervision, leadership and maintenance of virtual teams
• Virtual team – Team whose members collaborate remotely
• Virtual volunteering – Online volunteering
• Virtual workplace – Workplace that is not located in any physical space
• Work design – Area of research and practice within industrial and organizational psychology
• Work at home scheme – get-rich-quick schemes in which a victim is lured by an offer to be employed at home, very often doing some simple task in a minimal amount of time with a large amount of income that exceeds the market rate for the type of work
• Work–family conflict – Type of conflict
• Zoom town – community that is popular for remote workers

Further reading

• "The 5th Annual State of Remote Work," OwlLabs and Global Workplace Analytics, 2022
• Working from Home: Unraveling the Employment Law Implications of the Remote Office, Journal of Labor and Employment, 2022
• Lessons Learned from Remote Working during COVID-19: Can Government Save Money Through Maximizing Efficient Use of Leased Space, Testimony presented to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2020
• The Business Case for Remote Work for Employers, Employees, the Environment, and Society; Global Workplace Analytics; 2020
• Global Work-from-Home Experience Survey Report, Iometrics & Global Workplace Analytics, 2020
• Pandemic Manual: Appendix 3—Optimizing Remote Work Programs, IFMA Foundation, 2020 ISBN 978-1-883176-49-5
• 'Telework in the 21st Century – An Evolutionary Perspective from Six Countries,' International Labor Organization, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019 ISBN 978-92-2-133367-8
• John O'Duinn, (2018) 'Distributed Teams: The Art and Practice of Working Together While Physically Apart,' ISBN 978-1-7322549-0-9
• Thomas L. Friedman, 'The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.' 2005 ISBN 978-0-374-29288-1
• AWA Hybrid Working Index 3, August 2023
• Aksoy et al. (2022) Working from Home around The World
• Olson, G. M. & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2–3), 139–178.
• Olson, J. S., Hofer, E., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G. M., Cooney, D., & Faniel, I. (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific Collaboration on the Internet. . Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press.
• Malhotra, Arvind, Majchrzak, Ann, Carman, Robert & Lott, Vern (2001). Radical innovation without collocation: A case study at Boeing-Rocketdyne. MIS Quarterly, 25(2).
• Maznevski, M., & Chudoba, C. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11(5), 473–492.
• Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, R. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Krauss, R. M. & Fussell, S. R. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness. In J. Galegher & R. E. Kraut, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 111–145). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In P. Hinds, & Kiesler, S. (Ed.), Distributed Work (pp. 57–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Gergle, D., Kraut, R. E., & Fussell, S. R. (2013). Using Visual information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks. Human Computer Interaction, 28(1), 1-39.
• Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925–936.
• Book: Harrison, Andrew, Paul Wheeler, and Carolyn Whitehead. The distributed workplace sustainable work environments. London: Spon Press, 2004. Print.
• Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615–632.
• Zhu, H., Kraut, R. E., & Kittur, A. (2012). Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities CSCW'12: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 407–416 ). NY: ACM Press.
• Hinds, Pamela, and Sara Kiesler, Distributed work. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. Print.

External links

• Learning materials related to telecommuting at Wikiversity