View source for Remote work

{{Short description|Employees working from any location}}
{{Redirect2|Work from home|WFH|other uses|Work from Home (disambiguation)|and|WFH (disambiguation)}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2024}}
[[File:Home-based_worker_percentage_2019.svg|thumb|right|upright=1.35|alt=map of 2019 global home-based workers|Percentage of workforce that was home-based in 2019]]
[[File:There_is_a_strong_feeling_that_most_of_us_will_be_working_from_home_in_20_years_to_help_save_the_planet.jpg|thumb|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.]]
[[File:USMC-100324-M-6847A-001.jpg|thumb|right|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 [[work (human activity)|working]] at or from one's [[home]] or [[Third place|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 terminal]]s 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 call]]ing 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Michael |first=O'Leary |chapter=Distributed work Over the Centuries: Trust and Control in the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670-1826 |title=Distributed Work |year=2002 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |isbn=978-0262083058 |pages=27–54 |url=https://people.ece.ubc.ca/leei/519/2002-hbc-DistributedWork.pdf?ref=blog.dust.tt |editor-first=Pamela |editor-last=Hinds}}</ref>

The [[1911 United Kingdom census|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".<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/nationalism-citizenship/census-lessons/ | title=Census Lessons | first=Helen | last=Sunderland | work=History Worksho[ | date=24 March 2021}}</ref>

In the early 1970s, technology was developed that linked satellite offices to downtown mainframes through [[dumb terminal]]s using telephone lines as a [[network bridge]]. The terms ''telecommuting'' and ''telework'' were coined by Jack Nilles in 1973.<ref>{{citation | title=Jack Nilles | url=https://www.jala.com/jnmbio.php | work=jala.com | publisher=JALA International | date=September 26, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.lifewire.com/difference-between-telecommuting-and-telework-2378090 | title=Differences Between Telecommuting and Telework | first=Melanie | last=Uy | work=[[Lifewire]] | date=March 10, 2021}}</ref> 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 computer]]s and [[terminal emulator]]s.

In 1995, the [[motto]] that "work is something you do, not something you travel to" was coined.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lURiQgAACAAJ | first=Leonhard |last=Woody |title=The Underground Guide to Telecommuting | publisher=Addison-Wesley |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-201-48343-7}}</ref> Variations of this motto include: "Work is what we do, not where we are."<ref>{{cite web | title=Mobile Worker Toolkit: A Notional Guide | url=https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/MobileWorkerToolkitDetailed.pdf | publisher=[[General Services Administration]]}}</ref>

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,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gajendran |first1=Ravi |last2=Harrison |first2=David |title=The Good, The Bad, and the Unknown About Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual Consequences |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |date=2007 |volume=92 |issue=6 |pages=1524–1541 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524 |pmid=18020794 |s2cid=6030172 |url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-9261524.pdf |access-date=February 17, 2022}}</ref> and by 1983 academics were beginning to experiment with online conferencing.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Byrd |first1=Nick |title=Online Conferences: Some History, Methods and Benefits |journal=Right Research: Modelling Sustainable Research Practices in the Anthropocene |date=2021 |pages=435–462 |doi=10.11647/OBP.0213.28 |s2cid=241554841|doi-access=free }}</ref>

In the 1990s and 2000s, remote work became facilitated by technology such as [[collaborative software]], [[virtual private network]]s, [[conference call]]ing, [[videotelephony]], [[internet access]], [[cloud computing]], [[voice over IP]] (VoIP), [[mobile telecommunication]]s technology such as a [[Wi-Fi]]-equipped [[laptop]] or [[tablet computer]]s, [[smartphone]]s, and [[desktop computer]]s, using software such as [[Zoom (software)|Zoom]], [[Cisco Webex|Webex]], [[Microsoft Teams]], [[Google Meet]], [[Slack (software)|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]] [[node (networking)|node]]s."<ref>{{cite book | title=Exploring the Internet: A Technical Travelogue | last=Malamud | first=Carl | author-link=Carl Malamud | isbn=0132968983 | publisher=[[Prentice Hall]] |date=September 1992 | page=284}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Gore | last2=Ratcliffe | first1=Andrew | first2=Mitch | publisher=[[Random House]] | date=1993 | title=AT&T EO personal communicator: A Digital Nomad's Guide | isbn=0-679-74695-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Gore | last2=Ratcliffe | first1=Andrew | first2=Mitch | publisher=[[Random House]] | date=1993 | title=PowerBook: A Digital Nomad's Guide | isbn=0-679-74588-2 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Gore |last2=Ratcliffe | first1=Andrew | first2=Mitch | publisher=[[Random House]] | date=1993 | title=Newton's Law: A Digital Nomad's Guide | isbn=0-679-74647-1 }}</ref>

European [[hacker]] spaces of the 1990s led to [[coworking]]; the first such space opened in 2005.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Laura | first1=Bliss | title=How WeWork Has Perfectly Captured the Millennial Id |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/wework-the-perfect-manifestation-of-the-millennial-id/550922/ | work=[[The Atlantic]] | date=March 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Harrison |first1=Andrew |title=Distributed Workplace Sustainable Work Environments|year=2003|publisher=Spon Press|location=London|isbn=020361657X |last2=Wheeler |first2=Paul |last3=Whitehead |first3=Carolyn}}</ref>

In 2010, the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 required each [[List of federal agencies in the United States|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.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.telework.gov/guidance-legislation/telework-legislation/legislation/ | title=Telework legislation | publisher=[[U.S. Office of Personnel Management]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=H.R. 1722 (111th): Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 | url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1722 | publisher=[[GovTrack]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=White House, Statement by the Press Secretary | via=[[NARA|National Archives]] | work=[[whitehouse.gov]] | date=December 9, 2010 | url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/09/statement-press-secretary}}</ref>

During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], millions of workers began remote work for the first time.<ref>{{Cite news |title='Work from anywhere' is here to stay. How will it change our workplaces? | url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/technology/story/2020-11-12/companies-will-allow-employees-to-work-wherever-they-want | first=Andrea | last=Chang |work=[[San Diego Union-Tribune]] | date=November 12, 2020 | url-access=limited}}</ref> Cities in which the population of remote workers increased significantly were referred to as [[Zoom town]]s.<ref>{{cite news | last=Rosalsky | first=Greg | title=Zoom Towns And The New Housing Market For The 2 Americas | url=https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2020/09/08/909680016/zoom-towns-and-the-new-housing-market-for-the-2-americas | work=[[NPR]] |date=September 8, 2020}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sforza |first=Lauren |date=March 26, 2023 |title=Millions of Americans stopped working from home in 2022: Labor Dept. |url=https://thehill.com/business/3919102-millions-of-americans-stopped-working-from-home-in-2022-labor-dept/ |access-date=March 28, 2023 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref> During the [[Information Age]], many [[startups]] were founded in the homes of entrepreneurs who lacked financial resources.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Study: Most U.S. Entrepreneurs Start Their Business at Home |url=https://www.inc.com/jana-kasperkevic/us-entrepreneurs-keep-businesses-close-to-home.html |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20230328134308/https://www.inc.com/jana-kasperkevic/us-entrepreneurs-keep-businesses-close-to-home.html |archive-date=2023-03-28 |access-date=2025-06-03 |work=Inc.com |language=en}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 8, 2024 |title=ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Fifth edition |url=https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_749399.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240108153534/https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_749399.pdf |archive-date=January 8, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=ILO Monitor on the world of work}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kelly Jackson |first=Marice |date=March 2022 |title=Working remotely: How organizational leaders and HRD practitioners used the experiential learning theory during the COVID-19 pandemic? |journal=New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=44–48 |doi=10.1002/nha3.20351 |pmc=9349552}}</ref> Organizations reported concerns about losses in culture and productivity whilst workers were more concerned about declines in social interactions,<ref name="Majumdar20">{{Cite journal|doi=10.1080/07420528.2020.1786107 |title=COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown: Cause of sleep disruption, depression, somatic pain, and increased screen exposure of office workers and students of India |date=2020 |last1=Majumdar |first1=Piya |last2=Biswas |first2=Ankita |last3=Sahu |first3=Subhashis |journal=Chronobiology International |volume=37 |issue=8 |pages=1191–1200 |pmid=32660352 |s2cid=220522398 }}</ref> internet connectivity and increased workload.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Marzban |first1=Samin |last2=Durakovic |first2=Iva |last3=Candido |first3=Christhina |last4=Mackey |first4=Martin |date=2020 |title=Learning to work from home: experience of Australian workers and organizational representatives during the first Covid-19 lockdowns |journal=Journal of Corporate Real Estate |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=203–222 |doi=10.1108/JCRE-10-2020-0049 |s2cid=235900948 |doi-access=free |hdl=11343/267996}}</ref> Additionally, 25% of remote-working Americans were resistant to employer mandates to return to in-office work.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Workers are refusing to return to the office, and they are ready to face the consequences |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/workers-are-refusing-to-return-to-the-office-and-they-are-ready-to-face-the-consequences/ |access-date=November 10, 2022 |website=ZDNET |language=en}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1097/JOM.0000000000002097 |title=Impacts of Working from Home During COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Well-Being of Office Workstation Users |date=2021 |last1=Xiao |first1=Yijing |last2=Becerik-Gerber |first2=Burcin |last3=Lucas |first3=Gale |last4=Roll |first4=Shawn C. |journal=Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=181–190 |pmid=33234875 |pmc=7934324 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.3233/WOR-210301 |title=Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience |date=2021 |last1=Awada |first1=Mohamad |last2=Lucas |first2=Gale |last3=Becerik-Gerber |first3=Burcin |last4=Roll |first4=Shawn |journal=Work |volume=69 |issue=4 |pages=1171–1189 |pmid=34420999 |s2cid=237268855 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Supporting workers to identify effective approaches for boundary management between home and work across physical spaces, social interactions, and use of time are critical.<ref>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1177/15394492211033830 |title=Negotiating Time and Space when Working from Home: Experiences During COVID-19 |date=2021 |last1=Fukumura |first1=Yoko E. |last2=Schott |first2=Joseph M. |last3=Lucas |first3=Gale M. |last4=Becerik-Gerber |first4=Burcin |last5=Roll |first5=Shawn C. |journal=Otjr: Occupation, Participation and Health |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=223–231 |pmid=34315290 |s2cid=236472297 }}</ref> Research suggests that remote work can lead to increased employee satisfaction and productivity, but may also create challenges in team cohesion.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-12-19 |title=Research: The Growing Inequality of Who Gets to Work from Home |url=https://hbr.org/2023/12/research-the-growing-inequality-of-who-gets-to-work-from-home |access-date=2025-04-30 |work=Harvard Business Review |language=en |issn=0017-8012}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Barrero |first1=Jose Maria |last2=Bloom |first2=Nicholas |last3=Davis |first3=Steven |date=April 2021 |title=Why Working from Home Will Stick |journal=NBER Working Paper Series |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=National Bureau of Economic Research |doi=10.3386/w28731 |id=Working Paper 28731 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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 [[Building insulation|insulation]] and without [[Efficient energy use#Appliances|energy-efficient appliances]]. The increase in electricity also came due to the people using their utilities at different times of the day.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Calma |first=Justine |date=August 2, 2022 |title=The uneven energy costs of working from home |url=https://www.theverge.com/23274595/work-from-home-wfh-energy-bills-utility |access-date=December 3, 2022 |website=The Verge |language=en-US}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ramani |first1=Arjun |last2=Alecdo |first2=Joel |last3=Bloom |first3=Nicholas |date=2024 |title=How working from home reshapes cities |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=121 |issue=45 |pages=e2408930121 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2408930121 |pmid=39471226 |pmc=11551397 |bibcode=2024PNAS..12108930R |issn=0027-8424}}</ref>

==Statistics==
[[File:36% of Europeans want teleworking to be favoured to fight climate change More specifically, concerning transport, which three actions should be prioritised to combat climate change..svg|thumb|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%).<ref>{{Cite news | title=How usual is it to work from home? | url=https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210517-2 | work=[[Europa (web portal)|Europa]] | date=May 17, 2021}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite AV media |last1=Bloom |first1=Nicholas |title=Home is where the work is |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fptjLm2HXMg |date=February 10, 2023 |publisher=Stanford University School of Engineering |work=The Future of Everything Podcast |format=video |language=en}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" />

=== United States ===
According to a [[Gallup (company)|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.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Saad |first1=Lydia |last2=Wigert |first2=Ben |date=October 13, 2021 |title=Remote Work Persisting and Trending Permanent |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/355907/remote-work-persisting-trending-permanent.aspx |access-date=April 23, 2023 |work=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]]}}</ref>

Gallup found in February 2023 that, among remote-capable employees in the U.S., 20% worked on-site, 28% exclusively remote and 52% hybrid.<ref>Goldberg, E. (March 30, 2023). [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/business/economy/remote-work-measure-surveys.html?partner=calculated Do we know how many people are working from home?] ''The New York Times''. Retrieved on May 2, 2023.

Gallup. [https://www.gallup.com/401384/indicator-hybrid-work.aspx Hybrid Work Indicators]. Retrieved on May 2, 2023.</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Wagner |first=Erich |date=January 7, 2022 |title=Report: 45% of All Federal Employees Teleworked in Fiscal 2020 |url=https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/01/report-45-all-federal-employees-teleworked-fiscal-2020/360507/ |work=[[Government Executive]]}}</ref>

A September 2022 study{{Efn|This study also surveyed workers from 26 other countries. See citation (Aksoy 2022) for more.}} 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.<ref name=":1" />

According to the Gallup 2024 report, half of full-time working Americans have the option to work remotely. At the same time, six out of ten remote workers surveyed want to work in hybrid mode, about 30% prefer fully remote mode, and less than 10% choose to work in an office. Also, 60% of respondents say they would be willing to change jobs if they were not given the opportunity to work remotely.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Council |first=S. B. E. |date=2024-12-17 |title=GALLUP: Employee Views and Preferences on Remote Work |url=https://sbecouncil.org/2024/12/17/gallup-employee-views-and-preferences-on-remote-work/ |access-date=2025-06-03 |website=Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== 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{{Efn|This survey also studied Asia-Pacific, Latin America, North America, and the European Union to a lesser extent. See citation (AWA Hybrid Working Index 3) for those results.}} 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.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |date=January 8, 2024 |title=AWA Hybrid Working Index 3 |url=https://www.advanced-workplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/AWA-Hybrid-Working-Index-3-Report.pdf |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=advanced-workplace}}</ref>

A September 2022 study{{Efn|This study also surveyed workers from 26 other countries. See citation (Aksoy 2022) for more.}} 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.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Aksoy |first1=Cevat |last2=Barrero |first2=Jose |last3=Bloom |first3=Nicholas |last4=Davis |first4=Steven |last5=Dolls |first5=Mathias |last6=Zarate |first6=Pablo |date=September 2022 |title=Working From Home Around the World |url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30446/w30446.pdf |journal=NBER |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240108174059/https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30446/w30446.pdf |archive-date=January 8, 2024}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Swinney |first1=Paul |last2=Graham |first2=Daniel |last3=Vera |first3=Olivia |last4=Anupriya |last5=Hörcher |first5=Daniel |last6=Ojha |first6=Surabhi |date=May 2023 |title=Office politics London and the rise of home working |url=https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Office-Politics-May-2023.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109103807/https://www.centreforcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Office-Politics-May-2023.pdf |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=www.centreforcities.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Swinney |first1=Paul |last2=Vera |first2=Olivia |date=May 24, 2023 |title=Office politics: London and the rise of home working |url=https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/how-many-days-are-employers-requiring-workers-be-in-the-office/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109135757/https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/how-many-days-are-employers-requiring-workers-be-in-the-office/ |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=www.centreforcities.org}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 2023 |title=Flexible and hybrid working practices in 2023 Employer and employee perspectives |url=https://www.cipd.org/globalassets/media/knowledge/knowledge-hub/reports/2023-pdfs/2023-flexible-hybrid-working-practices-report-8392.pdf |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ali |first1=Vinous |last2=Corfe |first2=Scott |last3=Norman |first3=Amy |last4=Wilson |first4=Jude |date=September 13, 2023 |title=Hybrid Work Commission 2023 |url=https://www.publicfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Hybrid-Work-Commission-report-Embargoed-until-13th-Sept-2023.pdf |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=www.publicfirst.co.uk}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bogunovic |first=Sofia |date=April 11, 2023 |title=Top hybrid work trend stats from companies in the UK for 2023 |url=https://www.travelperk.com/blog/top-hybrid-work-trend-stats-from-global-companies/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109112646/https://www.travelperk.com/blog/top-hybrid-work-trend-stats-from-global-companies/ |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2023 |website=TravelPerk}}</ref>{{Unreliable source?|date=January 2024|reason=This survey was by a travel management firm so they may have an incentive to say fewer people WFH than in reality in order to justify their services for commercial travel.}}

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=May 23, 2022 |title=Is hybrid working here to stay? |url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ishybridworkingheretostay/2022-05-23 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109121415/https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ishybridworkingheretostay/2022-05-23 |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=Office for National Statistics}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023 |title=State of hybrid work 2023 |url=https://owllabs.co.uk/state-of-hybrid-work/2023/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109121615/https://owllabs.co.uk/state-of-hybrid-work/2023/ |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |website=Owl Labs}}</ref>

An Autumn Survey by ONS found that more than a quarter of working adults in Great Britain (28%) had hybrid arrangements.<ref name="ons.gov.uk">{{Cite web |title=Who are the hybrid workers? - Office for National Statistics |url=https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/whoarethehybridworkers/2024-11-11#:~:text=While%20the%20trend%20in%20working,some%20workers%20more%20than%20others. |access-date=2024-11-11 |website=www.ons.gov.uk}}</ref> They found that those aged over 30, parents and managers and professionals were the most likely to log on from home.<ref name="ons.gov.uk"/>

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.<ref name="ons.gov.uk"/>

==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.<ref name="Distributed Work">{{cite journal |url=https://www.ics.uci.edu/~corps/phaseii/OlsonOlson-DistanceMatters-HCIJ.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322164159/https://www.ics.uci.edu/~corps/phaseii/OlsonOlson-DistanceMatters-HCIJ.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2016-03-22 |doi=10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4 |title=Distance Matters |date=2000 |last1=Olson |first1=Gary M. |last2=Olson |first2=Judith S. |journal=Human–Computer Interaction |volume=15 |issue=2–3 |pages=139–178 }}</ref>{{rp|166}}

{| class="wikitable" align="center"
|-
!
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Copresence
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Visibility
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Audibility
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Contemporality
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Simultaneity
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Sequentiality
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Reviewability
! scope="col" style="background:#efefef;" | Revisability
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Face to face
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Telephone
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Video conference
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Two-way chat
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Answering machine
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Email
|
|
|
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|-
! scope="row" style="background:#efefef;" | Letter
|
|
|
|
|
|
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
| align="center" | {{checkmark}}
|-
|}

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.<ref name="Kramer, Robert">Kramer, Robert. "Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems." Academy of Management Review 15.3 (1990): 545-47. Web.</ref>

'''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.<ref name="Distributed Work"/>

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)<ref name="Distributed Work"/>{{rp|166}}

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"<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://orgcom17.hciresearch.org/sites/kraut.hciresearch.org/files/protected/Bjorn14-DoesDistanceStillMatter.pdf |doi=10.1145/2670534 |title=Does Distance Still Matter? Revisiting the CSCW Fundamentals on Distributed Collaboration |date=2014 |last1=Bjørn |first1=Pernille |last2=Esbensen |first2=Morten |last3=Jensen |first3=Rasmus Eskild |last4=Matthiesen |first4=Stina |journal=ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction |volume=21 |issue=5 |pages=1–26 }}</ref>

===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. {{harvp|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.<ref name="Distributed Work"/>

===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.<ref name=":0a" /> 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:

{| class=wikitable
|-
! scope="col" | Quality
! scope="col" | Description
|-
! align="center" | Co-presence
|When sharing the same physical environment, participants are able to easily and hear what the other is doing and looking at.
|-
! align="center" | Visibility
|The participants are able to see each other and are able to pick up non-verbal facial cues and body language.
|-
! align="center" | Audibility
|When the participants are able to communicate by speaking, they are able to pick up voice intonation and utterance timing.
|-
! align="center" | Cotemporality
| Efficiency is promoted when an utterance is produced just about when it is received and understood, without delay.
|-
! align="center" | Simultaneity
|Messages can be simultaneously conveyed and received by both participants.
|-
! align="center" | Sequentiality
|The participants speak only with each other without intervening turns from conversations with other people.
|-
! align="center" | Reviewability
|Participants are able to return to a physical form of the exchange at a later time.
|-
! align="center" | 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.<ref name=":0a">{{cite book|last1=Herbert|first1=Clark |title=Grounding in Communication |year=1991 |publisher=L.B. Resnick, R.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley |location=Washington, DC |pages=127–149 |last2=Brennan |first2=Susan}}</ref>

====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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gergle |first1=D. |last2=Kraut |first2=R. E. |last3=Fussell |first3=S. R. |title=Using Visual Information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370024.2012.678246 |journal= Human–Computer Interaction|date=January 2013 |volume=28 |issue=1 |pages=1–39 |doi=10.1080/07370024.2012.678246|doi-broken-date=June 26, 2025 }}</ref>

{| class=wikitable
|-
! scope="col" | Cost
! scope="col" | Description
! scope="col" | Paid By
|-
! align="center" | Formulation
|Time and effort increase as utterances are created and revised and as utterances become more complicated.
|Speaker
|-
! align="center" | Production
|Effort invested in producing a message varies depending on the medium of communication.
|Speaker
|-
! align="center" | Reception
|Listening is generally easier than reading.
|Addressee
|-
! align="center" | Understanding
|Costs are higher the more often that the addressee has to formulate the appropriate context of the conversation.
|Addressee
|-
! align="center" | 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
|-
! align="center" | Delay
|The cost of delaying an utterance in order to more carefully plan, revise and execute the communication.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Asynchrony
|The cost associated with the work required to cue one participant to stop and another to start.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Speaker change
|The cost associated with the work required to cue one participant to stop and another to start.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Display
|The cost associated with displaying non-verbal cues.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | Fault
|The cost associated with producing a mistaken message.
|Both
|-
! align="center" | 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hinds |first1=Pamela |last2=Kiesler|first2=Sara |title=Distributed Work |year=2002 |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Mass. |pages=57–73}}</ref>

; 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.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? |year=2005 |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |pages=925–936 |last1=Kruger |first1=J. |last2=Epley |first2=N. |last3=Parker |first3=J. |last4=Ng |first4=Z. W.|volume=89 |issue=6 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 |pmid=16393025 }}</ref>

==Legal aspects==
In 1996, the [[Home Work Convention]], an [[International Labour Organization]] (ILO) [[Treaty|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".<ref>UK Legislation, [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/39/section/35 National Minimum Wage Act 1998, Section 35], accessed on 24 October 2024</ref> 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".<ref>[[Patrick Elias|Mr Justice Elias]], in [[Employment Appeal Tribunal|United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal]], [https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2007/0475_06_2102.html James v Redcats (Brands) Ltd <nowiki>[</nowiki>2007<nowiki>]</nowiki> UKEAT 0475_06_2102], paragraph 7, delivered on 21 February 2007, accessed on 24 October 2024</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://business.gov.nl/staff/health-and-safety/working-from-home-your-employees-rights/ |title=Working from home: your employees' rights |publisher=[[Government of the Netherlands]] |accessdate=2025-04-09}}</ref>

==Potential benefits==
===Cost reduction===
Remote work can [[cost reduction|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]].<ref name=profits/> Certain employee expenses, such as office expenses, can be shifted to the remote worker, although this is the subject of lawsuits.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/lawsuits-put-spotlight-on-paying-remote-workers-expenses.aspx | title=Lawsuits Put Spotlight on Paying Remote Workers' Expenses | first=Stephen | last=Miller | work=[[Society for Human Resource Management]] | date=June 17, 2022}}</ref>

Remote work also reduces costs for the worker such as costs of travel/[[commuting]]<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/12/02/in-defense-of-remote-work/ | title=In Defense Of Remote Work | first=Jeff | last=DeVerter | work=[[Forbes]] | date=December 2, 2020}}</ref><ref name=impact>{{cite journal | last1=Watad | first1=Mahmoud M.| first2=Gregory T. | last2=Jenkins | title=The Impact Of Telework On Knowledge Creation And Management | journal=Journal of Knowledge Management Practice | date=December 4, 2010 | volume=11 |issue=4 | url=http://www.tlainc.com/articl237.htm}}</ref> and clothing.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/articles/pros-and-cons-of-working-from-home | title=Pros and Cons of Working From Home | first=Robin | last=Madell | work=[[U.S. News & World Report]] | date=June 30, 2022}}</ref> It also allows for the possibility of living in a cheaper area than that of the office.<ref name=masterclass/>

===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.<ref>{{Cite journal | title=The Impact of Enforced Working from Home on Employee Job Satisfaction during COVID-19: An Event System Perspective | first1=Jun | last1=Yu | first2=Yihong | last2=Wu | journal=[[International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health]] | date=December 2021| volume=18 | issue=24 | page=13207 | doi=10.3390/ijerph182413207 | pmid=34948823 | pmc=8701258 | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Cook | first1=Dave | title=The freedom trap: digital nomads and the use of disciplining practices to manage work/leisure boundaries | journal=Information Technology & Tourism | date=March 12, 2020 | volume=22 | issue=3 | pages=355–390 | doi=10.1007/s40558-020-00172-4 | doi-access=free}}</ref>

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]].<ref name=impact/><ref>{{Cite journal | last1=Ipsen | first1=Christine | last2=van Veldhoven |first2=Marc | last3=Kirchner | first3=Kathrin | last4=Hansen | first4=John Paulin | date=January 2021 | title=Six Key Advantages and Disadvantages of Working from Home in Europe during COVID-19 | journal=[[International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health]] | volume=18 | issue=4 | pages=1826 | doi=10.3390/ijerph18041826| pmid=33668505| pmc=7917590 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Itam |first1=Urmila Jagadeeswari |last2=Warrier |first2=Uma |date=2024-03-27 |title=Future of work from everywhere: a systematic review |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJM-06-2022-0288/full/html |journal=International Journal of Manpower |language=en |volume=45 |issue=1 |pages=12–48 |doi=10.1108/IJM-06-2022-0288 |issn=0143-7720}}</ref>

Providing the option to work remotely or adopting a hybrid work schedule has been an incentivizing benefit companies used in new hiring.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://hbr.org/2022/03/remote-work-has-opened-the-door-to-a-new-approach-to-hiring | title=Remote Work Has Opened the Door to a New Approach to Hiring | first1=Adam | last1=Ozimek | first2=Christopher | last2=Stanton | work=[[Harvard Business Review]] | date=March 11, 2022}}</ref>

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]].<ref name=positive>{{cite press release | url=https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/11/telecommuting | title=Telecommuting has Mostly Positive Consequences for Employees and Employers, Say Researchers | publisher=[[American Psychological Association]] | date=November 19, 2007}}</ref><ref name=consequences/>

===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,<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Hook | first1=Andrew | last2=Sovacool | first2=Benjamin K. | last3=Sorrell | first3=Steve | first4=Victor | last4=Court | date=August 19, 2020 | title=A systematic review of the energy and climate impacts of teleworking | journal=Environmental Research Letters | volume=15 | issue=9 | page=093003 | doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ab8a84 | bibcode=2020ERL....15i3003H | s2cid=218789818| doi-access=free }}</ref> cleaner air,<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://eos.org/research-spotlights/remote-work-may-be-keeping-some-cities-air-cleaner | title=Remote Work May Be Keeping Some Cities' Air Cleaner | first=Rebecca | last=Dzombak | work=[[American Geophysical Union]] | date=October 12, 2021}}</ref> and a reduction of electricity usage due to a lower office space footprint.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1=Sahoo | first1=Bibhu Prasad |last2=Gulati |first2=Ankita |last3=Haq | first3=Irfan Ul | date=2021 | title=COVID-19 & Prospects of Online Work from Home Using Technology: Case from India | journal=International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering | volume=17 | issue=9 | pages=106 |doi=10.3991/ijoe.v17i09.23929 | s2cid=239072387| doi-access=free }}</ref>

During the [[COVID-19 lockdowns]], the increase in remote work led to a decrease in global [[CO2 emissions|CO<sub>2</sub> emissions]].<ref>{{Cite news | title=Coronavirus could cause fall in global CO2 emissions | url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/10/coronavirus-could-cause-fall-in-global-co2-emissions | first=Jonathan | last=Watts | work=[[The Guardian]] |date=March 10, 2020}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web | title=Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere | url=https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/emission-reductions-from-pandemic-had-unexpected-effects-on-atmosphere |access-date=June 8, 2022 |website=NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)}}</ref>

The increase in remote work had also led to people moving out of cities and into larger homes which catered for home office space.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Holmes | first1=Torik | last2=Lord | first2=Carolynne | last3=Ellsworth-Krebs | first3=Katherine | year=2021 | title=Locking-down instituted practices: Understanding sustainability in the context of 'domestic' consumption in the remaking | journal=[[Journal of Consumer Culture]] | volume=22 | issue=4 | pages=1049–1067 | doi=10.1177/14695405211039616 | s2cid=244184652 | url=https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/159206/1/Locking_down_instituted_practices_post_print.pdf}}</ref>

===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.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/are-we-really-more-productive-working-home | title=Are We Really More Productive Working from Home? | first=Rebecca | last=Stropoli | work=[[University of Chicago Booth School of Business]] | date=August 18, 2021}}</ref>

Since work hours are less regulated in remote work, [[Employee engagement|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.{{citation needed|date=May 2022}}

Remote work improves efficiency by reducing or eliminating employees commute time, thus increasing their availability to work.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/how-remote-work-can-be-more-productive | title=How remote work can be more productive than in-person work | work=[[Lucidchart]]| date=May 21, 2020 }}</ref><ref name=impact/> In addition, remote work also helps employees achieve a better work-life balance.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Powell |first=Jessica |date=September 25, 2020 |title=Opinion {{!}} The Rise of Remote Work Can Be Unexpectedly Liberating |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/opinion/remote-work-from-home-office.html |access-date=November 23, 2022 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

An increase in productivity is also supported by [[sociotechnical system]]s (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.<ref name="Torraco">{{cite journal | doi=10.1002/hrdq.1125 | title=Work design theory: A review and critique with implications for human resource development | date=March 9, 2005 | last1=Torraco | first1=Richard J. | journal=Human Resource Development Quarterly | volume=16 | pages=85–109}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1177/001872675100400101 | title=Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting | year=1951 | last1=Trist | first1=Eric Lansdown | author-link1=Eric Trist | last2=Bamforth | first2=K. W. | journal=Human Relations | volume=4 | pages=3–38 | s2cid=145434302}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/001872678704000303 | title=Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisted | year=1987 | last1=Cherns | first1=Albert | journal=[[Human Relations (journal)|Human Relations]] | volume=40 | issue=3 | pages=153–161 | s2cid=145140507}}</ref> Remote work provides workers with the freedom and power to decide how and when to do their tasks and therefore can increase productivity.<ref name=consequences>{{cite journal | url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-9261524.pdf | doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524 | pmid=18020794 | title=The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences | year=2007 | last1=Gajendran | first1=Ravi S. | last2=Harrison | first2=David A. | journal=[[Journal of Applied Psychology]] | volume=92 | issue=6 | pages=1524–1541| s2cid=6030172 }}</ref>

===Lower turnover intention and higher loyalty===
[[Turnover intention]], or the desire to leave an organization, is lower for remote workers.<ref name=consequences/><ref name=profits>{{Cite news | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2021/10/13/how-remote-work-can-increase-business-profits/ | title=How Remote Work Can Increase Business Profits | first=Benjamin | last=Rojas | work=[[Forbes]] | date=October 13, 2021}}</ref><ref name=positive/> Remote workers who experienced greater professional isolation actually had lower [[turnover intention]].<ref name="Golden 2008"/>

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.<ref name=":1" />

A 2017 study showed that companies that offered remote work options experienced a 25% lower turnover rate.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/companies-that-support-remote-work-experience-25-percent-lower-employee-turnover-and-other-findings/ | title=Companies that support remote work experience 25 percent lower employee turnover (and other findings) | first=Greg | last=Nichols | work=[[ZDNet]] | date=October 4, 2017}}</ref>

Surveys by FlexJobs found that 81% of respondents said they would be more loyal to their employers if they had flexible work options.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/survey-productivity-balance-improve-during-pandemic-remote-work/ | title=FlexJobs Survey: Productivity, Work-Life Balance Improves During Pandemic | first=Rachel | last=Pelta | work=FlexJobs}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web | last1=Alexander | first1=Andrea | last2=De Smet | first2=Aaron | last3=Langstaff | first3=Meredith | last4=Ravid | first4=Dan | title=What employees are saying about the future of remote work | url=https://fortcollinschamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-employees-are-saying-about-the-future-of-remote-work-Final.pdf | date=April 2021}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Getting real about hybrid work |url=https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/its-time-for-leaders-to-get-real-about-hybrid |access-date=November 20, 2022 |website=McKinsey}}</ref>

===Access to more employees/employers===
Remote work allows employees and employers to be matched despite major location differences.<ref name=masterclass>{{Cite web | url=https://www.masterclass.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-remote-work | title=How to Work From Home: Pros and Cons of Remote Work | work=[[MasterClass]] | date=September 7, 2021}}</ref>

Working responsibility is given to the employee who is skilled in that area of work.<ref name="Hunter-2019">{{Cite journal |last=Hunter |first=Philip |date=January 2019 |title=Remote working in research: An increasing usage of flexible work arrangements can improve productivity and creativity |journal=EMBO Reports |language=en |volume=20 |issue=1 |doi=10.15252/embr.201847435 |issn=1469-221X |pmc=6322359 |pmid=30530631}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ozimek |first=Adam |date=2022 |title=The New Geography of Remote Work |url=https://www.upwork.com/research/new-geography-of-remote-work|publisher=[[Upwork]]|access-date=April 23, 2023}}</ref>

==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.<ref name="Daft, R. L. 1986">{{cite journal| last1=Daft | first1=Richard L. | author-link1=Richard L. Daft | last2=Lengel | first2=Robert H. | year=1986 | title=Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design | journal=[[Management Science (journal)|Management Science]] | volume=32 | issue=5 | pages=554–571 | doi=10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554 | jstor=2631846 | s2cid=155016492 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="masterclass" /> [[Asynchronous communication]], often used in remote work, can require greater coordination and management than synchronous communication.<ref name="HBR">{{Cite journal |title=Poor Communication May Be Slowing Down Your Team|url=https://hbr.org/2023/10/poor-communication-may-be-slowing-down-your-team |access-date=November 17, 2023 |journal=Harvard Business Review |date=October 18, 2023 |language=en |last1=Tsipursky |first1=Gleb }}</ref> 

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.<ref name="The Balance">{{Cite web |title=Disadvantages of Working From Home |url=https://www.thebalancemoney.com/the-disadvantages-of-working-at-home-2948688 |access-date=December 4, 2022 |website=The Balance |language=en}}</ref>

A 2008 study found that face-to-face interactions are associated with higher levels of interpersonal contact, connectedness, and trust.<ref name="Golden 2008"/> A 2012 study found that 54% of remote workers reported missing social interaction, while 52.5% reported missing professional interaction.<ref name="anxiety">{{cite journal | url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235276465 | doi=10.1108/00483481211229375 | title=From anxiety to assurance: Concerns and outcomes of telework | date=June 2012 | last1=Maruyama | first1=Takao | last2=Tietze | first2=Susanne | journal=Personnel Review | volume=41 | issue=4 | pages=450–469}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Madell-2022">{{Cite web |last=Madell |first=Robin |date=June 30, 2022 |title=Pros and Cons of Working From Home |url=https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/articles/pros-and-cons-of-working-from-home |access-date=February 12, 2022}}</ref><ref name="consequences" /><ref name="Morganson, V. J. 2010" />

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.<ref name="Torraco" /><ref name="DeSanctis">{{cite journal | doi=10.1287/orsc.5.2.121 | title=Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory | year=1994 | last1=Desanctis | first1=Gerardine | author-link1=Gerardine DeSanctis | last2=Poole | first2=Marshall Scott | journal=[[Organization Science (journal)|Organization Science]] | volume=5 | issue=2 | pages=121–147| s2cid=4625142 }}</ref> Remote work introduces a social structure that both enables and constrains communication compared to traditional office environments.<ref name="Hill09">{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.10.002 |title=Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups | year=2009| last1=Hill | first1=N. Sharon |last2=Bartol| first2=Kathryn M. | last3=Tesluk| first3=Paul E.| last4=Langa | first4=Gosia A.| journal=[[Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes]] | volume=108 |issue=2| pages=187–201}}</ref> For example, whereas in-person norms typically encourage face-to-face interaction, remote settings require alternative forms of interpersonal exchange.<ref name="DeSanctis" /> Over time, remote work may shift the established norms of communication and collaboration within organizations.<ref name="Torraco" />

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Azasu |first=Babatunde |date=2020 |title=Open-ended: Office space and remote working in the age of COVID-19 |journal=[[Journal of Property Management]] |volume=85 |pages=34}}</ref> The transfer of tacit knowledge, often learned by observing experienced colleagues, can be more difficult in remote settings where unplanned interactions are less frequent.<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xacc6p4sKRoC |last=Engeström |first=Yrjö |title=From Teams to Knots: Activity-Theoretical Studies of Collaboration and Learning at Work |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2008 | isbn=978-1-139-46994-4 }}</ref>

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.<ref name="Tett">{{cite news | last1=Tett | first1=Gillian | date=June 3, 2021 | title=The empty office: what we lose when we work from home | work=[[The Guardian]] | url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/03/the-empty-office-what-we-lose-when-we-work-from-home}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Hackman1971">{{cite journal |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1971-29858-001 |last1=Hackman |first1=J. Richard |last2=Lawler |first2=Edward E. |year=1971 |title=Employee reactions to job characteristics |journal=[[Journal of Applied Psychology]] |volume=55 |issue=3 |pages=259–286 |doi=10.1037/h0031152}}</ref><ref name="Hackman1976">{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 | title=Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory | year=1976 | last1=Hackman | first1=J. Richard| last2=Oldham | first2=Greg R. | author2-link=Greg Oldham | journal=[[Organizational Behavior and Human Performance]] | volume=16 | issue=2| pages=250–279| s2cid=8618462 }}</ref> In remote work, feedback mechanisms may be less immediate or clear, as electronic communication often lacks the richness of face-to-face interaction.<ref name="Daft, R. L. 1986" /><ref name="Sardes">{{cite journal | doi=10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00284.x |title=Impact of telework on exhaustion and job engagement: A job demands and job resources model |year=2012 | last1=Sardeshmukh | first1=Shruti R. |last2=Sharma |first2=Dheeraj | last3=Golden | first3=Timothy D. |journal=New Technology, Work and Employment | volume=27 | issue=3 |pages=193–207| s2cid=111077383}}</ref> This can contribute to greater role ambiguity, where workers may be less certain about their responsibilities or expectations.<ref name="Golden11">{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0018726711418387 | title=Does it matter where your manager works? Comparing managerial work mode (Traditional, telework, virtual) across subordinate work experiences and outcomes |year=2011 |last1=Golden |first1=Timothy D. |last2=Fromen |first2=Allan |journal=Human Relations| volume=64 |issue=11 |pages=1451–1475 |s2cid=145386665}}</ref> Higher levels of role ambiguity are associated with increased conflict, frustration, and exhaustion.<ref name="Sardes" /><ref name="Sonnetag">{{Cite book | chapter-url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-28468-021 | last1=Sonnentag | first1=Sabine | last2=Frese | first2=Michael | year=2003 | chapter=Stress in organizations |others=I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.) |editor1=W. C. Borman |editor2=D. R. Ilgen |editor3=R. J. Klimoski | series=Handbook of Psychology | volume=12 |title=Industrial and Organizational Psychology |pages=453–491 | location=Hoboken, NJ | publisher=John Wiley & Sons}}</ref> 

[[Job characteristic theory]] has found that feedback is strongly related to overall job satisfaction.<ref name="Fried">{{cite journal | last1=Fried | first1=Yitzhak | last2=Ferris | first2=Gerald R. | year=1987 | title=The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis | journal=[[Personnel Psychology (journal)|Personnel Psychology]] | volume=40 | issue=2 | pages=287–322 | doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x}}</ref> Research indicates that reduced communication and feedback in remote settings can lead to lower levels of job engagement.<ref name="Sardes"/> 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.<ref name="Golden11" /><ref name="Golden 2006">{{cite journal | url=https://content.apa.org/record/2006-20695-012 | last1=Golden | first1=T. D. | last2=Veiga | first2=J. F. | last3=Simsek | first3=Z. | year=2006 | title=Telecommuting's differential impact on work–family conflict: Is there no place like home? | journal=[[Journal of Applied Psychology]] | volume=91 | issue=6 | pages=1340–1350 | doi=10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1340 | pmid=17100488}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Swanberg | first1=J. E. | last2=McKechnie | first2=S. P. | last3=Ojha | first3=M. U. | last4=James | first4=J. B. | year=2011 | title=Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? | journal=[[Journal of Vocational Behavior]] | volume=79 | issue=3 | pages=613–624 | doi=10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.012}}</ref> Furthermore, when managers themselves work remotely, employees may report lower job satisfaction, possibly due to decreased clarity, slower communication, and fewer feedback opportunities.<ref name="Golden11"/> 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.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235315433 | last1=Akkirman | first1=Ali D. | last2=Harris | first2=Drew L. | date=June 2005 | title=Organizational communication satisfaction in the virtual workplace | journal=Journal of Management Development | volume=24 | issue=5 | pages=397–409 | doi=10.1108/02621710510598427}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Fritz | first1=Mary Beth Watson | last2=Narasimhan | first2=Sridhar | last3=Rhee | first3=Hyeun-Suk | year=1998 | title=Communication and coordination in the virtual office | journal=[[Journal of Management Information Systems]] | volume=14 | issue=4 | pages=7–28 | doi=10.1080/07421222.1998.11518184| jstor=40398290 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Pickett | first1=Cynthia L. | first2=Wendi L. | last2=Gardner | first3=Megan | last3=Knowles | date=September 1, 2004 | title=Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues | journal=[[Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin]] | volume=30 | issue=9 | pages=1095–107 | doi=10.1177/0146167203262085 | pmid=15359014 | s2cid=2007730}}</ref>

[[Social information processing (theory)|Social information processing]] theory suggests that individuals interpret and assign meaning to their work environment through social cues.<ref name="Salancik">{{cite journal | doi=10.2307/2392563 | jstor=2392563 | title=A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design | year=1978 | last1=Salancik | first1=Gerald R. | author-link1=Gerald R. Salancik | last2=Pfeffer | first2=Jeffrey | journal=[[Administrative Science Quarterly]] | volume=23 | issue=2 | pages=224–253 | pmid=10307892}}</ref><ref name="Morgeson03">{{cite book |last1=Morgeson |first1=F.P. |last2=Campion |first2=M.A. |year=2003 |chapter=Work design |editor1=W. Bornman |editor2=D. Ilgen |editor3=R. Klimoksi |series=Handbook of Psychology |title=Industrial and Organizational Psychology |volume=12 |pages=423–452 |location=Hoboken, N.J. |publisher=Wiley}}</ref> These cues can be delivered through direct statements, cognitive evaluations, or observed behaviors of colleagues.<ref name="Morgeson03"/> 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.<ref name="Waither">{{cite journal | doi=10.1177/009365092019001003 | title=Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction | year=1992 | last1=Walther | first1=Joseph B. | journal=[[Communication Research (journal)|Communication Research]] | volume=19 |pages=52–90 |s2cid=145557658}}</ref>

===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.<ref name="Fried"/> 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.<ref name="Shamir"/> Additionally, a 2012 study found that social isolation has been associated with decreased motivation.<ref name=anxiety/>

[[Two-factor theory|Motivator-hygiene theory]] differentiates between factors that contribute to job satisfaction (motivators) and those that can prevent dissatisfaction (hygiene factors).<ref name="Herzberg">Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B., (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.</ref> 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.<ref name="Morganson, V. J. 2010">{{cite journal | url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-17667-002 | last1=Morganson | first1=V. J. | last2=Major | first2=D. A. | last3=Oborn | first3=K. L. | last4=Verive | first4=J.M | last5=Heelan | first5=M. P. | year=2010 | title=Comparing telework locations and traditional work arrangements: differences in work–life balance support, job satisfaction and inclusion | journal=Journal of Managerial Psychology | volume=25 | issue=6 | pages=578–595 | doi=10.1108/02683941011056941}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Felstead |first1=Alan |last2=Henseke |first2=Golo |date=October 4, 2017 |title=Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work-life balance |journal=New Technology, Work and Employment |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=195–212 |doi=10.1111/ntwe.12097 |s2cid=117278071 |issn=0268-1072|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===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.<ref name=masterclass/> 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,<ref>{{cite web |title=4 Reasons Why Working From Home Can be Unproductive |url=https://www.corporatesuites.com/4-reasons-working-home-can-unproductive/ |publisher=Corporate Suites |date=June 19, 2015}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The source article is a sales pitch.|date=May 2022}} 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.etui.org/covid-social-impact/romania/romania-law-on-teleworking-approved |title=Romania: law on teleworking approved | work=[[European Trade Union Institute (ETUI)]] | date=June 10, 2020}}</ref> 

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.<ref name="Hunter-2019" />

=== 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<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McMunn |first1=Anne |last2=Bird |first2=Lauren |last3=Webb |first3=Elizabeth |last4=Sacker |first4=Amanda |date=April 2020 |title=Gender Divisions of Paid and Unpaid Work in Contemporary UK Couples |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017019862153 |journal=Work, Employment and Society |language=en |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=155–173 |doi=10.1177/0950017019862153 |issn=0950-0170 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109133044/https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10081119/1/UKHLS%20Gender%20%20Total%20Labor%20WES%20accepted%20copy.pdf |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024 |via=Sage Journals}}</ref> and 2020–21<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zamberlan |first1=Anna |last2=Gioachin |first2=Filippo |last3=Gritti |first3=Davide |date=June 1, 2021 |title=Work less, help out more? The persistence of gender inequality in housework and childcare during UK COVID-19 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562421000032 |journal=Research in Social Stratification and Mobility |volume=73 |pages=100583 |doi=10.1016/j.rssm.2021.100583 |issn=0276-5624 |access-date=January 8, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sánchez |first1=Alejandra Rodríguez |last2=Fasang |first2=Anette |last3=Harkness |first3=Susan |date=December 16, 2021 |title=Gender division of housework during the COVID-19 pandemic: Temporary shocks or durable change? |url=https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/45/43 |journal=Demographic Research |language=en |volume=45 |pages=1297–1316 |doi=10.4054/DemRes.2021.45.43 |issn=1435-9871 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240109133629/https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol45/43/45-43.pdf |archive-date=January 9, 2024 |access-date=January 8, 2024}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hartner-Tiefenthaler |first1=Martina |last2=Zedlacher |first2=Eva |last3=el Sehity |first3=Tarek Josef |date=August 4, 2022 |title=Remote workers' free associations with working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria: The interaction between children and gender |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=13 |pages=859020 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859020 |pmc=9391219 |pmid=35996573 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last1=Aksoy |first1=Cevat |last2=Barrero |first2=Jose |last3=Bloom |first3=Nicholas |last4=Davis |first4=Steven |last5=Dolls |first5=Mathias |last6=Zarate |first6=Pablo |date=September 2022 |title=Working From Home Around the World |url=https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30446/w30446.pdf |journal=NBER |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240108174059/https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30446/w30446.pdf |archive-date=January 8, 2024}}</ref>

A 2021 study indicated that remote work may be associated with increased risks of intimate partner violence for women.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mojahed |first1=A |last2=Brym |first2=S |last3=Hense |first3=H |date=2021 |title=Rapid review on the associations of social and geographical isolation and intimate partner violence |journal=Frontiers in Psychiatry |volume=12 |doi=10.3389/fpsyt.2021.578150 |doi-access=free |pmid=33927649 |pmc=8076499 }}</ref> Studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic found that women working from home had higher odds of experiencing intimate partner violence, particularly psychological violence, compared to those working on-site.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mial |first1=N |last2=Francis |first2=SC |last3=Stockl |first3=H |date=2023 |title=Working from home and intimate partner violence among cis-women during the COVID-19 pandemic |journal=BMC Public Health |volume=23 |issue=1 |page=965 |doi=10.1186/s12889-023-15785-7 |doi-access=free |pmid=37237282 |pmc=10214313 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Frank |first1=E |last2=Zhao |first2=Z |last3=Fang |first3=Y |date=2021 |title=Experiences of work-family conflict and mental health symptoms by gender among physician parents during the COVID-19 pandemic |journal=JAMA Network Open |volume=4 |issue=11 |pages=e2134315 |doi=10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.34315 |pmid=34767022 |pmc=8590168 }}</ref>While much of the research linking psychological distress to remote work focuses on the pandemic period,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Matthews |first1=T |last2=Chen |first2=L |last3=Zhang |first3=D |date=2022 |title=Gender differences in working from home and psychological distress - A national survey of U.S. employees during the COVID-19 pandemic |journal=Industrial Health |volume=60 |issue=4 |pages=334–344 |doi=10.2486/indhealth.2022-0077 |pmid=35569955 |pmc=9453567 |bibcode=2022IndHe..60..334M }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Sardes"/> 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.<ref name="golden006">{{cite journal | last1=Golden | first1=T. D. | year=2006 | title=Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions | journal=Journal of Vocational Behavior | volume=69 | pages=176–187 | doi=10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.003| s2cid=143888296 }}</ref> 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,<ref name="Bailey">{{cite journal | url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-13502-004 | last1=Bailey | first1=Diane E. | last2=Kurland | first2=Nancy B. | year=2002 | title=A review of telework research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work | journal=[[Journal of Organizational Behavior]] | volume=23 | issue=4 | pages=383–400 | doi=10.1002/job.144| s2cid=727943 }}</ref><ref name="Ilozor">{{cite journal | url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-03330-002 | last1=Ilozor | first1=Doreen B. | last2=Ilozor | first2=Ben D. | last3=Carr | first3=John | year=2001 | title=Management communication strategies determine job satisfaction in telecommuting | journal=Journal of Management Development | volume=20 | issue=6 | pages=495–507 | doi=10.1108/02621710110399783}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Golden05">{{cite journal | url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-02634-009 | last1=Golden | first1=Timothy D. | last2=Veiga | first2=John F. | year=2005 | title=The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsistent findings | journal=[[Journal of Management]] | volume=31 | issue=2 | pages=301–318 | doi=10.1177/0149206304271768 | s2cid=14021410}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.discovery.org/a/4235/ | title=Slow But Steady "Telework Revolution" Eyed | first=Matt | last=Rosenberg | publisher=[[Discovery Institute]] | date=September 26, 2007}}</ref>

Working in a shared office environment may enhance opportunities for collaboration and professional development, potentially contributing to increased employee effectiveness.<ref>{{Cite web |title=20 Tips for Working From Home |url=https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/get-organized-20-tips-for-working-from-home |access-date=December 15, 2022 |website=PCMAG |language=en}}</ref>

===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.<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CbuCDwAAQBAJ | last=Harpelund | first=Christian |title=Onboarding: Getting New Hires off to a Flying Start | publisher=[[Emerald Group Publishing]] | date=January 21, 2019| isbn=978-1-78769-583-2 }}</ref>

Job characteristics such as skill variety, task identity, and task significance contribute to employees' perceptions of the meaningfulness of their work.<ref name="Hackman1976"/> 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.<ref name="Oldham 2005">[[Greg Oldham|Oldham, G. R.]], & Hackman, J. R. (2005). How job characteristics theory happened. In The Oxford handbook of management theory: The process of theory development, 151-170.</ref><ref name="Hackman1976"/> 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.<ref name="Shamir">{{cite journal | doi=10.5465/amr.1985.4278957 | title=Work-At-Home and the Quality of Working Life | year=1985 | last1=Shamir | first1=Boas | last2=Salomon | first2=Ilan | journal=[[Academy of Management Review]] | volume=10 | issue=3 | pages=455–464 | jstor=258127 }}</ref>

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.<ref name="Hackman1976"/><ref name="Shamir"/> 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 [[Belongingness|sense of belonging]] and community among workers.<ref name=downside>{{Cite magazine| url=https://www.fastcompany.com/90700878/remote-work-has-a-downside-heres-why-i-want-to-go-back-to-the-office | title=Remote work has a downside. Here's why I want to go back to the office | first=Mark C. | last=Crowley | magazine=[[Fast Company]] | date=November 30, 2021|access-date=April 23, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bXtFzwEACAAJ | title=Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World | first=Vivek | last=Murthy | date=April 11, 2023 | author-link=Vivek Murthy | publisher=[[HarperCollins]]| isbn=9780062913302 }}</ref>

===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.<ref name=downside/><ref>{{Cite journal | title=A pandemic of social isolation? | first=Julianne | last=Holt-Lunstad | journal=World Psychiatry | author-link=Julianne Holt-Lunstad | publisher=[[Wiley Online Library]] | date=January 12, 2021| volume=20 | issue=1 | pages=55–56 | doi=10.1002/wps.20839 | pmid=33432754 | pmc=7801834 }}</ref> Similarly, a study conducted by researchers at the [[University of Chicago]] found that routine social interactions can benefit mental health.<ref name="downside" /><ref>{{Cite news | url=https://news.uchicago.edu/story/cities-depression-lower-rates-mental-health-psychology-socioeconomic-networks | title=How do cities impact mental health? A new study finds lower rates of depression | first=Sarah | last=Steimer | work=[[University of Chicago]] | date=July 28, 2021|access-date=April 23, 2023}}</ref>

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.<ref name="downside" /><ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Ozcelik-and-Barsade_WorkplaceLoneliness_2018.pdf|title=No Employee an Island: Workplace Loneliness and Job Performance|first1=Hakan|last1=Ozcelik|first2=Sigal G.|last2=Barsade|author-link2=Sigal G. Barsade|journal=[[Academy of Management Journal]]|volume=61|number=6|pages=2343–2366|doi=10.5465/amj.2015.1066|publisher=[[Academy of Management]]|year=2018|s2cid=149199657 |access-date=April 23, 2023}}</ref> Remote work, by reducing opportunities for informal interaction, can hinder the development of workplace friendships.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/24/working-home-productivity-pandemic-remote/ | title=You may get more work done at home. But you'd have better ideas at the office. | first1=Edward |last1=Glaeser | first2=David | last2=Cutler | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=September 24, 2021}}</ref><ref name="masterclass" />

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.<ref name="positive" /><ref name="consequences" />

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".<ref name="Hackman1971" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Workplace in a Post-COVID World |url=https://mcguiredevelopment.com/blog/the-workplace-in-a-post-covid-world/ |website=McGuire Development Company |date=August 10, 2021 }}</ref>

===Information security===
Effective remote work requires appropriate training, tools, and technologies. Remote work arrangements can introduce [[Computer security|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.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://usa.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/remote-working-how-to-stay-safe | title=Cyber Security Risks: Best Practices for Working from Home and Remotely | publisher=[[Kaspersky Lab]]}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web | title=The Safest States for Telecommuters | url=https://go.verizon.com/resources/safest-most-dangerous-states-telecommuting/ | website=Verizon Resource Center |date=February 17, 2021}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2020/06/19/is-working-remote-a-blessing-or-burden-weighing-the-pros-and-cons/ | title=Is Working Remote A Blessing Or Burden? Weighing The Pros And Cons | first=Bryan | last=Robinson | work=[[Forbes]] | date=June 19, 2020 | url-access=limited}}</ref> A survey conducted by FlexJobs found that 28% of remote workers reported experiencing technical problems, and 26% cited Wi-Fi connectivity issues as challenges.<ref name="The Balance" />

===Loss of control by management===
Remote work may sometimes be viewed cautiously by management due to concerns about reduced managerial control.<ref name="Hartman">{{cite journal | last1=Hartman | first1=Richard I. | last2=Stoner | first2=Charles R. | last3=Arora | first3=Raj | year=1991 | title=An investigation of selected variables affecting telecommuting productivity and satisfaction | journal=[[Journal of Business and Psychology]] | volume=6 | issue=2| pages=207–225 | doi=10.1007/bf01126709| jstor=25092331 | s2cid=144736120}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Madell-2022" />

===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,<ref name="Hill">{{cite journal | url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001879103000423 | last1=Hill | first1=E. Jeffrey | last2=Ferris | first2=Maria | last3=Märtinson | first3=V. | year=2003 | title=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 | journal=[[Journal of Vocational Behavior]] | volume=63 | issue=2 | pages=220–241 | doi=10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00042-3}}</ref> with remote employees receiving higher supervisor ratings and performance appraisals compared to on-site workers.<ref name=consequences/> As with job attitudes, the amount of time spent remote working may influence the relationship between remote work and job performance.<ref name="Golden 2008"/>

Productivity declines among remote workers have been attributed in some cases to inadequate home office setups.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.apty.io/blog/remote-working-factors-that-cause-low-employee-productivity | title=Remote Working: Understanding the Factors That Cause Low Employee Productivity | work=Apty | date=March 30, 2022}}</ref> Nevertheless, some surveys have reported that over two-thirds of employers observed increased productivity among their remote workforces, although findings vary.{{citation needed|date=September 2023}}

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.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/two-cheers-for-the-virtual-office/| title=Two Cheers for the Virtual Office | first1=Thomas H. | last1=Davenport | first2=Keri | last2=Pearlson | work=[[MIT Sloan Management Review]] | date=July 15, 1998}}</ref>

A 2008 study found that the more time employees spent working remotely, the lower their perceived productivity was among managers.<ref name="Golden 2008">{{cite journal | url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-16251-016 | last1=Golden | first1=T. D. | last2=Veiga | first2=J. F. | last3=Dino | first3=R. N. | year=2008 | title=The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? | journal=[[Journal of Applied Psychology]] | volume=93 | issue=6| pages=1412–1421 | doi=10.1037/a0012722| pmid=19025257}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":2" />

===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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stauffer |first=Jason |title=Working remotely? Here are 4 things to pay attention to this tax season |url=https://www.cnbc.com/select/remote-work-tax-tips/ |access-date=June 8, 2023 |website=CNBC |date=February 6, 2023 |language=en}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite press release | url=https://www.aicpa.org/press/pressreleases/2020/aicpa-harris-poll-reveals-taxpayers-unaware-of-state-tax-liabilities-related-to-working-remotely.html | title=AICPA/Harris Poll Reveals Many Taxpayers Unaware of State Tax Liabilities Related to Working Remotely | publisher=[[AICPA]] | date=November 5, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/many-taxpayers-could-face-surprise-bill-over-remote-work-misconceptions-study-finds | title=Many taxpayers could face surprise bill over remote work misconceptions, study finds | first=Brittany De | last=Lea | work=[[FOXBusiness]] | date=November 10, 2020}}</ref>

===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 wherever it would be legal to do so.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Pega | first1=Frank | last2=Náfrádi | first2=Bálint | display-authors=etal. | date=May 17, 2021 | title=Global, regional, and national burdens of ischemic heart disease and stroke attributable to exposure to long working hours for 194 countries, 2000–2016: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury |journal=[[Environment International]] |volume=154 | page=106595 | doi=10.1016/j.envint.2021.106595 | pmid=34011457 | pmc=8204267 | doi-access=free| bibcode=2021EnInt.15406595P }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Majumdar20"/>

==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 (signal processing)|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.<ref name="Distributed Work"/>

==See also==
{{Portal|Business|Society|Telecommunications}}
<!-- alphabetical order please [[WP:SEEALSO]] -->
<!-- please add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]], via {{subst:AnnotatedListOfLinks}} or {{Annotated link}} -->
{{div col|colwidth=30em|small=yes}}
* {{Annotated link |Asynchronous communication}}
* {{Annotated link |Canadian Telework Association}}
*Comparisons
** {{Annotated link |Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients}}
** {{Annotated link |Comparison of file hosting services}}
** {{Annotated link |Comparison of FTP client software}}
** {{Annotated link |Comparison of office suites}}
** {{Annotated link |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 [[nomad]]ic lifestyle
* {{Annotated link |Distributed development}}
* {{Annotated link |Distance education}}
* [[Desktop virtualization]] – ability to access legacy applications or operating systems from a remote device
* {{Annotated link |Digital divide}}
* {{Annotated link |E-lancing}}
* {{Annotated link |Environmental impact of transport}}
* {{Annotated link |Flexible work arrangement}}
* {{Annotated link |Flextime}}
* {{Annotated link |Home Work Convention}}
* [[Homeshoring]] – In [[British English]], when the initiative comes from the company, the terms "homeshoring" and "homesourcing" are sometimes used.<ref>{{cite web |title=Homeshoring | work=Macmillan English Dictionary | url=https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/homeshoring}}</ref>
* {{Annotated link |Hot desking}}
* [[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.
* {{Annotated link |Job characteristic theory}}
* {{Annotated link |Labour market flexibility}}
* {{Annotated link |Media richness theory}}
* {{Annotated link |Outsourcing}}
* {{Annotated link |Putting-out system}}
* {{Annotated link |Small office/home office}}
* {{Annotated link |Smart city}}
* {{Annotated link |Study (room)}}
* {{Annotated link |Telecentre}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual assistant (occupation)|Virtual assistant}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual business}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual community of practice}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual management}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual team}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual volunteering}}
* {{Annotated link |Virtual workplace}}
* {{Annotated link |Work design}}
* [[Work at home scheme]] – [[get-rich-quick scheme]]s 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
* {{Annotated link |Work–family conflict}}
* [[Zoom town]] – community that is popular for remote workers
{{div col end}}
<!-- alphabetical order please [[WP:SEEALSO]] -->

<ref name=":2">{{cite journal |last1=Howe |first1=L. C. |last2=Menges |first2=J. I. |title=Remote work mindsets predict emotions and productivity in home office: a longitudinal study of knowledge workers during the Covid-19 pandemic |journal=Human–Computer Interaction |date=November 2022 |volume=37 |issue=6 |pages=481–507 |doi=10.17863/CAM.78735 }}</ref>

==References==
===Notes===
{{Notelist}}

===Citations===
{{Reflist}}

==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). [http://web.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.cryptome.org/2013/01/aaron-swartz/Internet-Scientific-Collaboration.pdf#page=86 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). [https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=mis_facpubs 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.&nbsp;127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
* Krauss, R. M. & Fussell, S. R. (1990). [https://books.google.com/books?id=gD2YAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Mutual+knowledge+and+communicative+effectiveness%22&pg=PA111 Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness]. In J. Galegher & R. E. Kraut, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp.&nbsp;111–145). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
* Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. (2002). [https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kiesler/publications/2002pdfs/2002_what-know-proximity-work-groups.pdf What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research]. In P. Hinds, & Kiesler, S. (Ed.), Distributed Work (pp.&nbsp;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). [https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/nicholas.epley/KrugerEpleyParkerNg2005.pdf 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. [https://content.taylorfrancis.com/books/download?dac=C2010-0-40908-7&isbn=9781134365869&format=googlePreviewPdf The distributed workplace sustainable work environments]. London: Spon Press, 2004. Print.
* Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). [http://services.carstensorensen.com/media/HindsBailey2004.pdf 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). [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Kraut/publication/220879221_Effectiveness_of_Shared_Leadership_in_Online_Communities/links/00b4952bb4ae4b31b0000000/Effectiveness-of-Shared-Leadership-in-Online-Communities.pdf Effectiveness of shared leadership in online communities] CSCW'12: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp.&nbsp;407–416 ). NY: ACM Press.
* Hinds, Pamela, and Sara Kiesler, Distributed work. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. Print.

==External links==
* {{Wikiversity inline|telecommuting}}

{{Employment}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Telecommuting|*]]
[[Category:Working conditions]]
[[Category:Working time]]