Everyone has a hot take on whether and how we should be returning to the office. From Elon Musks’s extremist take that any remote work can only be done on top of 40 hours in the office, to more realistic estimates that remote work is here to stay and will only increase in popularity, we’ve seen opinions all over the board. But it’s clear: remote work is here to stay. The question now, though, is how do we intentionally incorporate remote work in a way that protects and promotes employee health.
Before we dive into what I-O psychology can teach us about how to remote work in a healthy way, I want to clarify that access to remote work is privileged. Many of the lowest paid jobs, that were deemed essential during the initial lockdowns of 2020, are those that do not have access to remote work. Also, remote work is largely dependent on high-speed, reliable internet access, and a recent report found that roughly 25% of households in the US do not have this access (McNally, 2021). That’s not to say that the area is not serviced—a recent FCC report found that nearly all areas in the US in theory have access to high speed internet either through satellite or broadband (though rural and tribal lands, and US territories still lag behind in access)—but rather to say that the financial barrier to gaining this access is too steep for many. So the first real take away here is that the discussions surrounding “returning to the office” need to acknowledge that for millions of Americans “leaving the office” was never an option in the first place, and maybe it should be.
For many companies, deciding whether, how, and to what degree they want employees to return to the office is top of mind these days. Despite the hype, this isn’t really a new topic in I-O psychology. For years we’ve been researching flexible scheduling, flexible workplace arrangement (i.e., telecommuting), and virtual teaming. But only recently, thanks to the major push from the 2020 lockdowns, many companies are adopting some sort of these policies. We know that largely flexible scheduling is more helpful than flexible workplace (Shockley & Allen, 2007), though historically these had small impacts on work-family conflict experience (Allen et al., 2013), potentially due to inability to use policies that existed. We also know that the more flexible the schedule and workplace are the more supported employees feel (Thompson et al., 2015). Thompson and coauthors suggest offering working from home 2-3 days per week, and if it is necessary to have face-to-face, all-hands-on-deck times, allowing flexibility in scheduling outside of a core set of hours (e.g., 11 AM -3 PM) that all employees are required to be present. This allows people to individualize their schedules in a way that meets their unique needs, while still satisfying required face-to-face time. We also know that, in general, remote work is associated with a host of positive outcomes for the individual and the organization (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) including job satisfaction, work family balance, perceived autonomy, and reduced stress; though if done frequently it may come at a cost of interpersonal relationships at work.
However, another key issue to consider with remote work and flexible arrangements is equity. If these policies are simply offered as options, we know that people, especially parents, who use them will be punished in their careers with the company (Leslie et al., 2018). We also know that it’s caregivers who are more likely to use these policies may benefit the most from them (Allen et al., 2013), and even show better biological functioning from use of these policies (Chandola et al., 2019). Research also shows men may be less likely to seek out these arrangements, and may pay an additional social penalty if they do (Vandello et al., 2013). We also know that minority groups are more reticent to return to the office because of the social aggression they experience in the physical workplace (Odom et al., 2022). So how do we ensure that there is equity in the implementation of these policies? Rather than making them optional, make them required. It’s not, “you can work from home 3 days a week” it’s “you must work from home 3 days per week”. In this way, there ought to be no social punishment for use of policies. Moreover, including a broad and diverse group of employees in the decision making process will help to ensure all views are considered.
But what about when people are actually working from home? How can we do this better than the slap-dash setups we all had at during the lockdowns?
The availability of relatively consistent childcare should already help improve the work-from-home setups compared to early 2020, since work-family conflict was one of the main sources of stress during that transition (Shockley et al., 2021). Organizations can provide access to high quality dependent care, as this has also been identified as a useful tool in family-friendly policies (Park & Allen, )
The widespread understanding of and access to videoconferencing software may also help. However, research suggests that employees should be able to keep their cameras off, turn off their self-view, schedule these meetings for the morning and not during mealtimes, and minimize the number of virtual meetings in order to protect their wellbeing (Bennett et al., 2021;Karl et al., 2022; Shockley et al., 2021). We also know that videoconferencing is particularly draining for women (Shockley et al., 2021), again highlighting the need to be inclusive when considering policies.
This highlights the other consideration with technology: just because we have it doesn’t mean we have to use it. There are so many ways to get in touch with coworkers, email, instant messaging, phone, videoconferencing, in person, that we need to be thoughtful of how we use them. Thinking about the immediacy of the issue (do I need an answer right now, or can it wait?) and matching it to the medium (instant messaging or a phone call is fast and synchronous, videoconferencing requires scheduling, and email is asynchronous) is helpful. Thinking of the content of the issue (is there a lot of ambiguity in the content? is the content potentially emotional and I want to provide support) and matching it to the richness of the media (an email or instant message can leave a lot of room for interpretation of emotional content and not a lot of room for immediate follow up or discussion; videoconferencing or a phone call can help reduce the ambiguity and create a sense of authenticity; Brodsky, 2020)
But one of the risks of working from home is the change to interpersonal relationships. It’s hard for coworkers, and managers especially (Parker et al., 2020), to trust their coworkers to get work done if they cannot be physically present (Eisenberg & Krishnan, 2018). This is despite clear evidence that employees are working longer (Yang et al., 2021) and are more productive (Prodoscore, 2020) while working remotely than in person. Leaders need to learn to trust their employees, and also create a psychologically safe environment to discuss the real challenges associated with remote work, including feelings of isolation (Edmonson & Mortensen, 2021). Leaders can also create clear expectations about the frequency and nature of communication they expect in order to boost performance (Shockley et al., 2021) and help create that trust.
Leaders and employees both need to find ways to create stronger boundaries so when working from home, work does not creep into time it shouldn’t. Employees can set timers to tell them when their workday is over, can establish routines and rituals that help mentally transition them into and out of work, and can be intentional about how and when they disconnect from work like shutting and putting away work materials and taking email notifications off of their phone (Allen et al., 2021). Employees can also create physical space in their homes that are conducive to work, like a set space outside of the bedroom where they work every day, ideally separated from any other home-dwellers, having places in the house that are off limits during work or that work never happens (Allen et al., 2021). And again being clear about expectations of boundaries and confronting coworkers/supervisors/subordinates when these boundaries are not respected (Allen et al., 2021).
Last, I hope that this shift also helps us rethink what organizations pay for. Rather than viewing remote work as a benefit, what if we viewed it as the default? Shouldn’t employers have to pay employees more if they’re expecting them to do work somewhere else? We’re all familiar with delivery fees when food is delivered to your home, paying for the convenience of the same product in a space you want it rather than the space it’s being made. Ought employers not also be expected, or required, to pay employees a premium for doing work in a specific place or at a specific time? That’s not even accounting for commuting expenses (both time, and financial) that employees previously were expected to bare the brunt of. I argue that we need to shift the conversation to put the financial burden of having in-office work to the employer.
-Keaton A. Fletcher