research working from home productivity

This website uses cookies to ensure the best user experience. Privacy & Cookies Notice Accept Cookies

Manage My Cookies

Manage Cookie Preferences

Confirm My Selections

• Monetary Policy
• Health Care
• Climate Change
• Artificial Intelligence
• All Chicago Booth Review Topics

Are We Really More Productive Working from Home?

Data from the pandemic can guide organizations struggling to reimagine the new office..

• By Rebecca Stropoli
• August 18, 2021
• CBR - Economics
• Share This Page

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg isn’t your typical office worker. He was No. 3 on the 2020 Forbes list of the richest Americans, with a net worth of $125 billion, give or take. But there’s at least one thing Zuckerberg has in common with many other workers: he seems to like working from home. In an internal memo, which made its way to the Wall Street Journal , as Facebook announced plans to offer increased flexibility to employees, Zuckerberg explained that he would work remotely for at least half the year.

“Working remotely has given me more space for long-term thinking and helped me spend more time with my family, which has made me happier and more productive at work,” Zuckerberg wrote. He has also said that he expects about half of Facebook’s employees to be fully remote within the next decade.

The coronavirus pandemic continues to rage in many countries, and variants are complicating the picture, but in some parts of the world, including the United States, people are desperate for life to return to normal—everywhere but the office. After more than a year at home, some employees are keen to return to their workplaces and colleagues. Many others are less eager to do so, even quitting their jobs to avoid going back. Somewhere between their bedrooms and kitchens, they have established new models of work-life balance they are loath to give up.

This has left some companies trying to recreate their work policies, determining how best to handle a workforce that in many cases is demanding more flexibility. Some, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Spotify, are leaning into remote work. Others, such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, are reverting to the tried-and-true office environment, calling everyone back in. Goldman’s CEO David Solomon, in February, called working from home an “aberration that we’re going to correct as quickly as possible.” And JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said of exclusively remote work: “It doesn’t work for those who want to hustle. It doesn’t work for spontaneous idea generation. It doesn’t work for culture.”

This pivotal feature of pandemic life has accelerated a long-running debate: What do employers and employees lose and gain through remote work? In which setting—the office or the home—are employees more productive? Some research indicates that working from home can boost productivity and that companies offering more flexibility will be best positioned for success. But this giant, forced experiment has only just begun.

An accelerated debate

A persistent sticking point in this debate has been productivity. Back in 2001, a group of researchers from the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon, led by Robert E. Kraut , wrote that “collaboration at a distance remains substantially harder to accomplish than collaboration when members of a work group are collocated.” Two decades later, this statement remains part of today’s discussion.

However, well before Zoom, which came on the scene in 2011, or even Skype, which launched in 2003, the researchers acknowledged some of the potential benefits of remote work, allowing that “dependence on physical proximity imposes substantial costs as well, and may undercut successful collaboration.” For one, they noted, email, answering machines, and computer bulletin boards could help eliminate the inconvenience of organizing in-person meetings with multiple people at the same time.

Two decades later, remote-work technology is far more developed. Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that, even in pre-pandemic 2019, more than 26 million Americans—approximately 16 percent of the total US workforce—worked remotely on an average day. The Pew Research Center put that pre-pandemic number at 20 percent, and in December 2020 reported that 71 percent of workers whose responsibilities allowed them to work from home were doing so all or most of the time.

The sentiment toward and effectiveness of remote work depend on the industry involved. It makes sense that executives working in and promoting social media are comfortable connecting with others online, while those in industries in which deals are typically closed with handshakes in a conference room, or over drinks at dinner, don’t necessarily feel the same. But data indicate that preferences and productivity are shaped by factors beyond a person’s line of work.

The productivity paradigm

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom  was bullish on work-from-home trends. His 2015 study, for one—with James Liang , John Roberts , and Zhichun Jenny Ying , all then at Stanford—finds a 13 percent increase in productivity among remotely working call-center employees at a Chinese travel agency.

But in the early days of the pandemic, Bloom was less optimistic about remote work. “We are home working alongside our kids, in unsuitable spaces, with no choice and no in-office days,” Bloom told a Stanford publication in March 2020. “This will create a productivity disaster for firms.”

To test that thesis, Jose Maria Barrero  of the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology, Bloom, and Chicago Booth’s Steven J. Davis  launched a monthly survey of US workers in May 2020, tracking more than 30,000 workers aged 20–64 who earned at least $20,000 per year in 2019.

Companies that offer more flexibility in work arrangements may have the best chance of attracting top talent at the best price.

The survey measured the incidence of working from home as the pandemic continued, focusing on how a more permanent shift to remote work might affect not only productivity but also overall employee well-being. It also examined factors including how work from home would affect spending and revenues in major urban centers. In addition to the survey, the researchers drew on informal conversations with dozens of US business executives. They are publishing the results of the survey and related research at wfhresearch.com .

In an analysis of the data collected through March 2021, they find that nearly six out of 10 workers reported being more productive working from home than they expected to be, compared with 14 percent who said they got less done. On average, respondents’ productivity at home was 7 percent higher than they expected. Forty percent of workers reported they were more productive at home during the pandemic than they had been when in the office, and only 15 percent said the opposite was true. The researchers argue that the work-from-home trend is here to stay, and they calculate that these working arrangements will increase overall worker productivity in the US by 5 percent as compared with the pre-pandemic economy.

“Working from home under the pandemic has been far more productive than I or pretty much anyone else predicted,” Bloom says.

No commute, and fewer hours worked

Some workers arguing in favor of flexibility might say they’re more efficient at home away from chatty colleagues and the other distractions of an office, and that may be true. But above all, the increased productivity comes from saving transit time, an effect overlooked by standard productivity calculations. “Three-quarters or more of the productivity gains that we find are coming from a reduction in commuting time,” Davis says. Eliminate commuting as a factor, and the researchers project only a 1 percent productivity boost in the postpandemic work-from-home environment, as compared with before.

It makes sense that standard statistics miss the impact of commutes, Davis explains. Ordinarily, commuting time generally doesn’t shift significantly in the aggregate. But much like rare power outages in Manhattan have made it possible for New Yorkers to suddenly see the nighttime stars, the dramatic work-from-home shift that occurred during the pandemic made it possible to recognize the impact traveling to and from an office had on productivity.

Before the pandemic, US workers were commuting an average of 54 minutes daily, according to Barrero, Bloom, and Davis. In the aggregate, the researchers say, the pandemic-induced shift to remote work meant 62.5 million fewer commuting hours per workday.

People who worked from home spent an average of 35 percent of saved commuting time on their jobs, the researchers find. They devoted the rest to other activities, including household chores, childcare, leisure activities such as watching movies and TV, outdoor exercise, and even second jobs.

Infographic: People want working from home to stick after the pandemic subsides

With widespread lockdowns abruptly forcing businesses to halt nonessential, in-person activity, the COVID-19 pandemic drove a mass social experiment in working from home, according to Jose Maria Barrero  of the Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology, Stanford’s Nicholas Bloom , and Chicago Booth’s Steven J. Davis . The researchers launched a survey of US workers, starting in May 2020 and continuing in waves for more than a year since, to capture a range of information including workers’ attitudes about their new remote arrangements.

Read more >>

Aside from commuting less, remote workers may also be sleeping more efficiently, another phenomenon that could feed into productivity. On days they worked remotely, people rose about 30 minutes later than on-site workers did, according to pre-pandemic research by Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia  of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and SUNY Empire’s Victoria Vernon . Both groups worked the same number of hours and slept about the same amount each night, so it’s most likely that “working from home permits a more comfortable personal sleep schedule,” says Vernon. “Teleworkers who spend less time commuting may be happier and less tired, and therefore more productive,” write the researchers, who analyzed BLS data from 2017 to 2018.

While remote employees gained back commuting time during the pandemic, they also worked fewer hours, note Barrero, Bloom, and Davis. Hours on the job averaged about 32 per week, compared with 36 pre-pandemic, although the work time stretched past traditional office hours. “Respondents may devote a few more minutes in the morning to chores and childcare, while still devoting about a third of their old commuting time slot to their primary job. At the end of the day, they might end somewhat early and turn on the TV. They might interrupt TV time to respond to a late afternoon or early evening work request,” the researchers explain.

This interpretation, they write, is consistent with media reports that employees worked longer hours from home during the pandemic but with the added flexibility to interrupt the working day. Yet, according to the survey, this does not have a negative overall effect on productivity, contradicting one outdated stereotype of a remote worker eating bonbons, watching TV, and getting no work done.

Remote-work technology goes mainstream

The widespread implementation of remote-working technology, a defining feature of the pandemic, is another important factor for productivity. This technology will boost work-from-home productivity by 46 percent by the end of the pandemic, relative to the pre-pandemic situation, according to a model developed by Rutgers’s Morris A. Davis , University of North Carolina’s Andra C. Ghent , and University of Wisconsin’s Jesse M. Gregory . “While many home-office technologies have been around for a while, the technologies become much more useful after widespread adoption,” the researchers note.

There are significant costs to leaving the office, Rutgers’s Davis says, pointing to the loss of face-to-face interaction, among other things. “Working at home is always less productive than working at the office. Always,” he said on a June episode of the Freakonomics podcast.

One reason, he says , has to do with the function of cities as business centers. “Cities exist because, we think, the crowding of employment makes everyone more productive,” he explains. “This idea also applies to firms: a firm puts all workers on the same floor of a building, or all in the same suite rather than spread throughout a building, for reasons of efficiency. It is easier to communicate and share ideas with office mates, which leads to more productive outcomes.” While some employees are more productive at home, that’s not the case overall, according to the model, which after calibration “implies that the average high-skill worker is less productive at home than at the office, even postpandemic,” he says.

How remote work could change city centers

What will happen to urban business districts and the cities in which they are located in the age of increasing remote work?

About three-quarters of Fortune 500 CEOs expect to need less office space in the future, according to a May 2021 poll. In Manhattan, the overall office vacancy rate was at a multidecade high of 16 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to real-estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield.

And yet Davis, Ghent, and Gregory’s model projects that after the pandemic winds down, highly skilled, college-educated workers will spend 30 percent of their time working from home, as opposed to 10 percent in prior times. While physical proximity may be superior, working from home is far more productive than it used to be. Had the pandemic hit in 1990, it would not have produced this rise in relative productivity, per the researchers’ model, because the technology available at the time was not sufficient to support remote work.

A June article in the MIT Technology Review by Stanford’s Erik Brynjolfsson and MIT postdoctoral scholar Georgios Petropoulos corroborates this view. Citing the 5.4 percent increase in US labor productivity in the first quarter of 2021, as reported by the BLS, the researchers attribute at least some of this to the rise of work-from-home technologies. The pandemic, they write, has “compressed a decade’s worth of digital innovation in areas like remote work into less than a year.” The biggest productivity impact of the pandemic will be realized in the longer run, as the work-from-home trend continues, they argue.

Lost ideas, longer hours?

Not all the research supports the idea that remote work increases productivity and decreases the number of hours workers spend on the job. Chicago Booth’s Michael Gibbs  and University of Essex’s Friederike Mengel  and Christoph Siemroth  find contradictory evidence from a study of 10,000 high-skilled workers at a large Asian IT-services company.

The researchers used personnel and analytics data from before and during the coronavirus work-from-home period. The company provided a rich data set for these 10,000 employees, who moved to 100 percent work from home in March 2020 and began returning to the office in late October.

Total hours worked during that time increased by approximately 30 percent, including an 18 percent rise in working beyond normal business hours, the researchers find. At the same time, however, average output—as measured by the company through setting work goals and tracking progress toward them—declined slightly. Time spent on coordination activities and meetings also increased, while uninterrupted work hours shrank. Additionally, employees spent less time networking and had fewer one-on-one meetings with their supervisors, find the researchers, adding that the increase in hours worked and the decline in productivity were more significant for employees with children at home. Weighing output against hours worked, the researchers conclude that productivity decreased by about 20 percent. They estimate that, even after accounting for the loss of commuting time, employees worked about a third of an hour per day more than they did at the office. “Of course, that time was spent in productive work instead of sitting in traffic, which is beneficial,” they acknowledge.

Regardless of what research establishes in the long run about productivity, many workers are already demanding flexibility in their schedules.

Overall, though, do workers with more flexibility work fewer hours (as Barrero, Bloom, and Davis find) or more (as at the Asian IT-services company)? It could take more data to answer this question. “I suspect that a high fraction of employees of all types, across the globe, value the flexibility, lack of a commute, and other aspects of work from home. This might bias survey respondents toward giving more positive answers to questions about their productivity,” says Gibbs.

The findings of his research do not entirely contradict those of Barrero, Bloom, and Davis, however. For one, Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth acknowledge that their study doesn’t necessarily reflect the remote-work model as it might look in postpandemic times, when employees are relieved of the weight of a massive global crisis. “While the average effect of working from home on productivity is negative in our study, this does not rule out that a ‘targeted working from home’ regime might be desirable,” they write.

Additionally, the research data are derived from a single company and may not be representative of the wider economy, although Gibbs notes that the IT company is one that should be able to optimize remote work. Most employees worked on company laptops, “and IT-related industries and occupations are usually at the top of lists of those areas most likely to be able to do WFH effectively.” Thus, he says, the findings may represent a cautionary note that remote work has costs and complexities worth addressing.

As he, Mengel, and Siemroth write, some predictions of work-from-home success may be overly optimistic, “perhaps because professionals engage in many tasks that require collaboration, communication, and innovation, which are more difficult to achieve with virtual, scheduled interactions.”

Attracting top talent

The focus on IT employees’ productivity, however, excludes issues such as worker morale and retention, Booth’s Davis notes. More generally, “the producer has to attract workers . . . and if workers really want to commute less, and they can save time on their end, and employers can figure out some way to accommodate that, they’re going to have more success with workers at a given wage cost.”

Companies that offer more flexibility in work arrangements may have the best chance of attracting top talent at the best price. The data from Barrero, Bloom, and Davis reveal that some workers are willing to take a sizable pay cut in exchange for the opportunity to work remotely two or three days a week. This may give threats from CEOs such as Morgan Stanley’s James Gorman—who said at the company’s US Financials, Payments & CRE conference in June, “If you want to get paid New York rates, you work in New York”—a bit less bite. Meanwhile, Duke PhD student John W. Barry , Cornell’s Murillo Campello , Duke’s John R. Graham , and Chicago Booth’s Yueran Ma  find that companies offering flexibility are the ones most poised to grow.

Working policies may be shaped by employees’ preferences. Some workers still prefer working from the office; others prefer to stay working remotely; many would opt for a hybrid model, with some days in the office and some at home (as Amazon and other companies have introduced). As countries emerge from the pandemic and employers recalibrate, companies could bring back some employees and allow others to work from home. This should ultimately boost productivity, Booth’s Davis says.

Or they could allow some to work from far-flung locales. Harvard’s Prithwiraj Choudhury  has long focused his research on working not just from home but “from anywhere.” This goes beyond the idea of employees working from their living room in the same city in which their company is located—instead, if they want to live across the country, or even in another country, they can do so without any concern about being near headquarters.

Does remote work promote equity?

At many companies, the future will involve remote work and more flexibility than before. That could be good for reducing the earnings gap between men and women—but only to a point.

“In my mind, there’s no question that it has to be a plus, on net,” says Harvard’s Claudia Goldin. Before the pandemic, many women deemphasized their careers when they started families, she says.

Research Choudhury conducted with Harvard PhD student Cirrus Foroughi  and Northeastern University’s Barbara Larson  analyzes a 2012 transition from a work-from-home to a work-from-anywhere model among patent examiners with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The researchers exploited a natural experiment and estimate that there was a 4.4 percent increase in work output when the examiners transitioned from a work-from-home regime to the work-from-anywhere regime.

“Work from anywhere offers workers geographic flexibility and can help workers relocate to their preferred locations,” Choudhury says. “Workers could gain additional utility by relocating to a cheaper location, moving closer to family, or mitigating frictions around immigration or dual careers.”

He notes as well the potential advantages for companies that allow workers to be located anywhere across the globe. “In addition to benefits to workers and organizations, WFA might also help reverse talent flows from smaller towns to larger cities and from emerging markets,” he says. “This might lead to a more equitable distribution of talent across geographies.”

More data to come

It is still early to draw strong conclusions about the impact of remote work on productivity. People who were sent home to work because of the COVID-19 pandemic may have been more motivated than before to prove they were essential, says Booth’s Ayelet Fishbach, a social psychologist. Additionally, there were fewer distractions from the outside because of the broad shutdowns. “The world helped them stay motivated,” she says, adding that looking at such an atypical year may not tell us as much about the future as performing the same experiment in a typical year would.

Before the pandemic, workers who already knew they performed better in a remote-working lifestyle self-selected into it, if allowed. During the pandemic, shutdowns forced remote work on millions. An experiment that allowed for random selection would likely be more telling. “The work-from-home experience seems to be more positive than what people believed, but we still don’t have great data,” Fishbach says.

Adding to the less optimistic view of a work-from-home future, Booth’s Austan D. Goolsbee says that some long-term trends may challenge remote work. Since the 1980s, as the largest companies have gained market power, corporate profits have risen dramatically while the share of profits going to workers has dropped to record lows. “This divergence between productivity and pay may very well come to pass regarding time,” he told graduating Booth students at their convocation ceremony. Companies may try to claw back time from those who are remote, he says, by expecting employees to work for longer hours or during their off hours.

And author and behavioral scientist Jon Levy argues in the Boston Globe that having some people in the office and others at home runs counter to smooth organizational processes. To this, Bloom offers a potential solution: instead of letting employees pick their own remote workdays, employers should ensure all workers take remote days together and come into the office on the same days. This, he says, could help alleviate the challenges of managing a hybrid team and level the playing field, whereas a looser model could potentially hurt employees who might be more likely to choose working from home (such as mothers with young children) while elevating those who might find it easier to come into the office every day (such as single men).

Gibbs concurs, noting that companies using a hybrid model will have to find ways to make sure employees who should interact will be on campus simultaneously. “Managers may specify that the entire team meets in person every Monday morning, for example,” he says. “R&D groups may need to make sure that researchers are on campus at the same time, to spur unplanned interactions that sometimes lead to new ideas and innovations.”

Sentiments vary by location, industry, and culture. Japanese workers are reportedly still mostly opting to go to the office, even as the government promotes remote work. Among European executives, a whopping 88 percent reportedly disagree with the idea that remote work is as or more productive than working at the office.

Regardless of what research establishes in the long run about productivity, many workers are already demanding flexibility in their schedules. While only about 28 percent of US office workers were back onsite by June 2021, employees who had become used to more flexibility were demanding it remain. A May survey of 1,000 workers by Morning Consult on behalf of Bloomberg News finds that about half of millennial and Gen Z workers, and two-fifths of all workers, would consider quitting if their employers weren’t flexible about work-from-home policies. And additional research from Barrero, Bloom, and Davis finds that four in 10 Americans who currently work from home at least one day a week would look for another job if their employers told them to come back to the office full time. Additionally, most employees would look favorably upon a new job that offered the same pay as their current job along with the option to work from home two to three days a week.

The shift to remote work affects a significant slice of the US workforce. A study by Chicago Booth’s Jonathan Dingel  and Brent Neiman  finds that while the majority of all jobs in the US require appearing in person, more than a third can potentially be performed entirely remotely. Of these jobs, the majority—including many in engineering, computing, law, and finance—pay more than those that cannot be done at home, such as food service, construction, and building-maintenance jobs.

Barrero, Bloom, and Davis project that, postpandemic, Americans overall will work approximately 20 percent of full workdays from home, four times the pre-pandemic level. This would make remote work less an aberration than a new norm. As the pandemic has demonstrated, many workers can be both productive and get dinner started between meetings.

Works Cited

• Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis,  “Why Working from Home Will Stick,”  Working paper, April 2021.
• ———,  “60 Million Fewer Commuting Hours per Day: How Americans Use Time Saved by Working from Home,” Working paper, September 2020.
• ———,  “Let Me Work From Home Or I Will Find Another Job,”  Working paper, July 2021.
• John W. Barry, Murillo Campello, John R. Graham, and Yueran Ma,  “Corporate Flexibility in a Time of Crisis,”  Working paper, February 2021.
• Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts, and Zhichun Jenny Ying,  “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment,”   Quarterly Journal of Economics , October 2015.
• Prithwiraj Choudhury, Cirrus Foroughi, and Barbara Larson,  “Work-from-Anywhere: The Productivity Effects of Geographic Flexibility,”   Strategic Management Journal , forthcoming.
• Morris A. Davis, Andra C. Ghent, and Jesse M. Gregory,  “The Work-at-Home Technology Boon and Its Consequences,”  Working paper, April 2021. 
• Jonathan Dingel and Brent Neiman,  “How Many Jobs Can Be Done at Home?”  White paper, June 2020.
• Allison Dunatchik, Kathleen Gerson, Jennifer Glass, Jerry A. Jacobs, and Haley Stritzel,  “Gender, Parenting, and the Rise of Remote Work during the Pandemic: Implications for Domestic Inequality in the United States,”   Gender & Society , March 2021.
• Michael Gibbs, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth,  “Work from Home & Productivity: Evidence from Personnel & Analytics Data on IT Professionals,”  Working paper, May 2021.
• Robert E. Kraut, Susan R. Fussell, Susan E. Brennan, and Jane Siegel, “Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration: Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work,” in  Distributed Work , eds. Pamela J. Hinds and Sara Kiesler, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.
• Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia and Victoria Vernon,  “Telework and Time Use in the United States,”  Working paper, May 2020.

More from Chicago Booth Review

College bests benefits for injured workers.

In Denmark, those who picked education benefits over disability payments got back to work within seven years, and with a 25 percent raise.

If Big Tech Is a Problem, What’s the Solution?

The answer will have major implications for US and global markets.

• CBR - Public Policy

Some Fathers Are Less Willing to Spend on Daughters than on Sons

Findings from a series of surveys suggest that simple gender preference may be the explanation.

Related Topics

• CBR - Fall 2021
• CBR - Remote Work
• Coronavirus
• CBR - Coronavirus

More from Chicago Booth

Your Privacy We want to demonstrate our commitment to your privacy. Please review Chicago Booth's privacy notice , which provides information explaining how and why we collect particular information when you visit our website.

Golf, rent, and commutes: 7 impacts of working from home

The pandemic sharply accelerated trends of people working from home, leaving lasting impacts on how we work going forward. Stanford scholar Nicholas Bloom details how working from home is affecting the office, our homes, and more.

The massive surge in the number of people working from home may be the largest change to the U.S. economy since World War II, says Stanford scholar Nicholas Bloom .

And the shift to working from home, catalyzed by the pandemic, is here to stay, with further growth expected in the long run through improvements in technology.

Looking at data going back to 1965, when less than 1% of people worked from home, the number of people working from home had been rising continuously up to the pandemic, doubling roughly every 15 years, said Bloom, the William D. Eberle Professor in Economics in the School of Humanities and Sciences and professor, by courtesy, at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Before the pandemic, only around 5% of the typical U.S. workforce worked from home; at the pandemic’s onset, it skyrocketed to 61.5%. Currently, about 30% of employees work from home.

“In some ways, one of the biggest lasting legacies of the pandemic will be the shift to work from home,” said Bloom.

Bloom shared his research on working from home at the Stanford Distinguished Careers Institute ’s “The Future of Work” Winter 2023 Colloquium, which focused on how the ways we work are changing.

DCI Director Richard Saller moderated the event , which featured scholars from Stanford and beyond discussing working arrangements and attitudes, challenges to office real estate, learned lessons about the power of proximity, and more.

Below are seven takeaways from Bloom’s discussion:

• The employees. About 58% of people in the U.S. can’t work from home at all, and they are typically frontline workers with lower pay. Those who work entirely from home are primarily professionals, managers, and in higher-paying fields such as IT support, payroll, and call centers. The highest paid group includes the 30% of people working from home in a hybrid capacity, and these include professionals and managers.
• The move. Almost 1 million people left city centers like New York and San Francisco during the pandemic. Those who used to go to the office five days a week are now willing to commute farther because they are only in the office a couple days a week, and they want larger homes to accommodate needs such as a home office. This has changed property markets substantially with rents and home values in the suburbs surging, Bloom said. Home values in city centers have risen but not by much.
• The commute. Public transit journeys have plummeted and are currently down by a third compared to pre-pandemic levels. This sharp reduction is threatening the survival of mass transit, Bloom said. These are systems that have relatively fixed costs because the hardware and labor, which is largely unionized, are relatively hard to adjust. A lot of the revenues come from ticket sales, and these agencies are losing a lot of money.
• The office. Offices are changing, with cubicles becoming less popular and meeting rooms more desirable. As some companies incorporate an organized hybrid schedule in which everyone comes in on certain days, they are redesigning spaces to support more meetings, presentations, trainings, lunches, and social time.
• The startups. Startup rates are surging, up by 20% from pre-pandemic numbers. The reasons: working from home provides a cheaper way to start a new company by saving a lot on initial capital and rent. Also, people can more easily work on a startup on the side when their regular job offers the option to work from home.
• The downtime. The number of people playing golf mid-week has more than doubled since 2019. People used to go before or after work, or on the weekends, but now the mid-day, mid-week golf game is becoming more common. The same is probably true for things like gyms, tennis courts, retail hairdressers, ski resorts, and anything else that consumers used to pack into the weekends.
• The organization. More and more, firms are outsourcing or offshoring their information technology, human resources, and finance to access talent, save costs, and free up space. There has been a big increase in part-time employees, independent contractors, and outsourcing. “After seeing how well it worked with remote work at the beginning of the pandemic, companies may not see a need to have employees in the country,” Bloom said.

Interested in hearing more about the future of work? Stanford Continuing Studies will feature Bloom as he discusses “The Future of and Impact of Working from Home” on May 1 as part of the Stanford Monday University web seminar series .

Bloom is also co-director of the Productivity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a fellow at the Centre for Economic Performance, and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research .

Does Working from Home Boost Productivity Growth?

Ethan Goode

Brigid Meisenbacher

Download PDF (255 KB)

FRBSF Economic Letter 2024-02 | January 16, 2024

An enduring consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic is a notable shift toward remote and hybrid work. This has raised questions regarding whether the shift had a significant effect on the growth rate of U.S. productivity. Analyzing the relationship between GDP per hour growth and the ability to telework across industries shows that industries that are more adaptable to remote work did not experience a bigger decline or boost in productivity growth since 2020 than less adaptable industries. Thus, teleworking most likely has neither substantially held back nor boosted productivity growth.

The U.S. labor market experienced a massive increase in remote and hybrid work during the COVID-19 pandemic. At its peak, more than 60% of paid workdays were done remotely—compared with only 5% before the pandemic. As of December 2023, about 30% of paid workdays are still done remotely (Barrero, Bloom, and Davis 2021).

Some reports have suggested that teleworking might either boost or harm overall productivity in the economy. And certainly, overall productivity statistics have been volatile. In 2020, U.S. productivity growth surged. This led to optimistic views in the media about the gains from forced digital innovation and the productivity benefits of remote work. However, the surge ended, and productivity growth has retreated to roughly its pre-pandemic trend. Fernald and Li (2022) find from aggregate data that this pattern was largely explained by a predictable cyclical effect from the economy’s downturn and recovery.

In aggregate data, it thus appears difficult to see a large cumulative effect—either positive or negative—from the pandemic so far. But it is possible that aggregate data obscure the effects of teleworking. For example, factors beyond telework could have affected the overall pace of productivity growth. Surveys of businesses have found mixed effects from the pandemic, with many businesses reporting substantial productivity disruptions.

In this  Economic Letter , we ask whether we can detect the effects of remote work in the productivity performance of different industries. There are large differences across sectors in how easy it is to work off-site. Thus, if remote work boosts productivity in a substantial way, then it should improve productivity performance, especially in those industries where teleworking is easy to arrange and widely adopted, such as professional services, compared with those where tasks need to be performed in person, such as restaurants.

After controlling for pre-pandemic trends in industry productivity growth rates, we find little statistical relationship between telework and pandemic productivity performance. We conclude that the shift to remote work, on its own, is unlikely to be a major factor explaining differences across sectors in productivity performance. By extension, despite the important social and cultural effects of increased telework, the shift is unlikely to be a major factor explaining changes in aggregate productivity.

Possible productivity effects of telework

Teleworking might affect output per hour in different ways. For example, in surveys, many workers claim to be more productive remotely (Barrero et al 2021). That said, some workers might face more disruptions, such as childcare demands or inferior equipment. In addition, idea sharing may be more difficult online, and workers may need to devote time to learning new skills. Alternatively, any association between the ability to telework and productivity performance could reflect other factors. For example, industries where the majority of work needs to be done in person could have faced more disruptions from social-distancing requirements or supply chain bottlenecks.

Thus, in theory the relationship between telework and productivity balances both positive and negative effects. The net effect may also change over time as businesses and workers adjust to new modes of working.

Empirical evidence tends to involve relatively narrow sets of tasks, such as call centers, where output can be easily measured. For example, Bloom et al. (2015) find that workers in a call center in China who were randomly assigned to remote work were more productive than in-person workers. In contrast, Emanuel and Harrington (2023) find that call-center workers at a Fortune 500 company were slightly less productive after they were forced to work remotely at the onset of the pandemic. Emanuel and Harrington (2023) discuss other literature that finds a mix of productivity gains and costs. Because of the narrow scope of the empirical evidence, we turn to industry data to provide more insight.

Measuring productivity growth by industry

In this  Letter , we measure industry productivity by output, using value added, per hour. We focus on 43 industries that span the private economy, including, for example, chemical manufacturing, retail trade, and accommodation and food services. We exclude the real estate, rental, and leasing industry because a large fraction of output in this industry is imputed rather than directly measured.

We construct industry-level productivity by combining national accounts measures of output by industry from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and all-employee aggregate weekly hours from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Our industry-level productivity data set is available quarterly starting in the second quarter of 2006 and ending in the first quarter of 2023. For each industry, we calculate the average annualized growth in quarterly productivity to measure changes in industry productivity over the pandemic.

We measure teleworkability by industry using the occupational mix of different industries and the teleworkability of different occupations. For the latter, we rely on occupational teleworkability scores from Dingel and Neiman (2020), which assigns 462 occupations a score between zero and one based on the job characteristics reported in the O*NET survey. Occupations that cannot be done remotely, such as custodial workers and waiters, were given a score of zero, while entirely teleworkable jobs, such as mathematicians and research scientists, received scores of one. Occupations that fall between the poles include counselors and medical records technicians, which receive scores of 0.5. Bick, Blandin, and Mertens (2020) report that actual teleworking shares are highly related to the Dingel and Neiman measures.

We aggregate these occupation-level scores to an industry-level average by weighing the teleworkability score for each occupation by the 2018 share of industry employment from the BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics. For example, we assign the data processing industry a score of 0.88 because most of the workers in this industry are in highly teleworkable occupations, such as software developers and programmers.

Figure 1 displays scores for a subset of industries ordered from the most teleworkable on the top to the least teleworkable on the bottom. The most teleworkable industries are data processing and professional services. The least teleworkable industries are accommodation and food services and some retailers. The figure demonstrates that teleworkability varies widely across industries, ranging from less than 10% to close to 90% of an industry’s workers.

Figure 1 Teleworkability by industry

Industry productivity and teleworkability

Since industries differ considerably in their adaptability to remote work, one would imagine that the shift to telework during the pandemic would affect industries differently. For example, if teleworking offered an important way to circumvent production disruptions brought on by the pandemic, teleworkable industries would have performed better because they faced lower costs to adopting teleworking.

We next examine this relationship between teleworkability and industry productivity growth during and following the pandemic, shown in Figure 2. The horizontal axis measures teleworkability by industry, constructed from the Dingel and Neiman measures in Figure 1. The vertical axis is annualized quarterly productivity growth from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the first quarter of 2023, measured in percentage points. The size of the bubbles conveys the pre-pandemic share of an industry’s contribution to total output, measured as industry value-added, as of the fourth quarter of 2019.

Figure 2 Industry productivity growth versus teleworkability

The blue fitted line reflects the average relationship between the two variables. The figure shows that more-teleworkable industries grew somewhat faster during the pandemic than less-teleworkable industries. A 1 percentage point increase in teleworkability is associated with a 0.05 percentage point increase in an industry’s predicted pandemic productivity growth rate. The relationship is statistically significant.

However, it turns out that more-teleworkable industries also grew faster before the pandemic. To better isolate the association with the shift to remote work during the pandemic, Figure 3 controls for pre-pandemic trends by removing each industry’s average annualized productivity growth for 2006–2019 from its pandemic average. Hence, the vertical axis now captures the amount by which an industry’s pandemic productivity growth exceeded or fell short of its pre-pandemic pace.

In Figure 3, the nearly flat blue line reflects that there is essentially no relationship between teleworkability and excess pandemic productivity growth. Although the association is still slightly positive, the relationship is much weaker than in Figure 2 and is not statistically significant.

Figure 3 Productivity growth, accounting for pre-pandemic trends

Both Figures 2 and 3, show that productivity growth varied significantly across industries. But based on Figure 3, it appears unlikely that the differences in performance during the pandemic across industries have much to do with differences in teleworking. Fernald and Li (2022) take the analysis one step further by considering that growth in work hours might be mismeasured to the extent that people are working more “off the clock” (Barrero et al. 2021). That analysis reinforces the conclusion from Figure 3, that there is essentially no relationship between teleworkability and pandemic productivity growth. We found similar results using only data during 2020 when firms were first adjusting to new work arrangements. The results are also similar for 2021-23, when firms had more experience with remote work and were also shifting to reopening office workspaces and, increasingly, to hybrid work.

The shift to remote and hybrid work has reshaped society in important ways, and these effects are likely to continue to evolve. For example, with less time spent commuting, some people have moved out of cities, and the lines between work and home life have blurred. Despite these noteworthy effects, in this  Letter  we find little evidence in industry data that the shift to remote and hybrid work has either substantially held back or boosted the rate of productivity growth.

Our findings do not rule out possible future changes in productivity growth from the spread of remote work. The economic environment has changed in many ways during and since the pandemic, which could have masked the longer-run effects of teleworking. Continuous innovation is the key to sustained productivity growth. Working remotely could foster innovation through a reduction in communication costs and improved talent allocation across geographic areas. However, working off-site could also hamper innovation by reducing in-person office interactions that foster idea generation and diffusion. The future of work is likely to be a hybrid format that balances the benefits and limitations of remote work.

Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicolas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis. 2021. “Why Working from Home Will Stick.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28731. Updated survey results available from  https://wfhresearch.com/ .

Bick, Alexander, Adam Blandin, and Karel Mertens. 2020. “ Work from Home before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak .”  American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics  15(4), pp. 1-39.

Bloom, Nicholas, James Liang, John Roberts, and Zhichun Jenny Ying. 2015. “Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment.”  Quarterly Journal of Economics  130(1), pp. 165¬-218.

Dingel, Jonathan I., and Brent Neiman. 2020. “How Many Jobs Can Be Done at Home?”  Journal of Public Economics  189(104235).

Emanuel, Natalia, and Emma Harrington. 2023. “ Working Remotely? Selection, Treatment, and the Market for Remote Work .” FRB New York Staff Report 1061 (May).

Fernald, John, and Huiyu Li. 2022. “ The Impact of COVID on Productivity and Potential Output .” Paper presented at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, WY, August 25.

Opinions expressed in FRBSF Economic Letter do not necessarily reflect the views of the management of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. This publication is edited by Anita Todd and Karen Barnes. Permission to reprint portions of articles or whole articles must be obtained in writing. Please send editorial comments and requests for reprint permission to [email protected]

The Truth About Work-From-Home Productivity

Hybrid and fully remote teams can be far more productive than in-person teams..

Posted October 3, 2022 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• What Is a Career
• Find a career counselor near me
• Most employees prefer hybrid or remote work, but companies are wary of the cost to effectiveness.
• Work-from-home productivity is generally higher than in the office, research shows, especially on individual tasks.
• A policy of flexibility helps companies maximize both retention and productivity of employees.

Is work-from-home productivity higher or lower than in the office? Research shows that hybrid and even fully remote teams can gain a substantial productivity advantage if their leaders stop relying on traditional office-based culture and methods of collaboration . Instead, by adopting best practices for hybrid and remote work, forward-thinking leaders can drastically outcompete in-person teams in productivity.

Work-From-Home Productivity

Alex, the Chief Executive Officer of a 900-employee SaaS (Software as a Service) company, wanted to figure out his future work arrangements. His default plan was an office-centric environment. He feared that if his team didn’t return to the office full time, he would lose out to rivals who could do so and gain productivity benefits by working from the office.

This is not an unusual situation. Indeed, numerous companies are concerned about workplace productivity in remote work. The belief underlying this thought process is that people can’t be truly productive outside of the office: Elon Musk claimed those working remotely are only “pretending to work.”

Alex hired a consultant with expertise in hybrid and remote work, who told the CEO that many employees might leave if forced to come back to the office full time because the large majority of employees prefer fully remote or at least hybrid work arrangements. In fact, data clearly show that workers—especially tech workers like at his company—are more productive working remotely.

External Research on Work-From-Home Productivity

A two-year study published in February 2021 of 3 million employees at 715 U.S. companies, including many from the Fortune 500 list, showed that working from home improved employee productivity by an average of 6 percent.

Another survey of 800 employers found that 94 percent of employers said their employees were just as productive or even more productive while working remotely. And 83 percent of workers said they were happy with remote work arrangements, while only 7 percent wanted to return to an office immediately. Most workers said they wanted a hybrid setup when they do eventually return to their workplaces, splitting their time between home and the office.

Such remote work productivity gains aren’t surprising. Pre-COVID research showed that telework boosted productivity; after all, remote work removes many hassles taking up time for in-office work, such as lengthy daily commutes. Moreover, working from home allows employees much more flexibility to do work tasks at times that work best for their work-life balance, rather than the traditional 9-to-5 schedule. Such flexibility matches research showing we all have different times of day when we are best suited for certain tasks, enabling us to be more productive when we have more flexible schedules.

Some might feel worried that these productivity gains are limited to the context of the pandemic. Fortunately, research shows that after a forced period of work from home, if workers are given the option to keep working from home, those who choose to do so experience even greater productivity gains than in the initial forced period.

An important academic paper from the University of Chicago provides further evidence of why working at home will stick. First, the researchers found that working at home proved a much more positive experience for employers and employees alike than either had anticipated. That led employers to report a willingness to continue work-from-home after the pandemic.

Second, an average worker spent over 14 hours and $600 to support their work-from-home. In turn, companies made large-scale investments in back-end IT facilitating remote work. Some paid for home office equipment for employees. Furthermore, remote work technology improved over this time. Therefore, both workers and companies will be more invested in telework after the pandemic.

Apart from that, non-survey research similarly shows significant productivity gains for remote workers during the pandemic. Moreover, governments plan to invest in improving teleworking infrastructure, making higher productivity gains even more likely.

Academics demonstrated a further increase in productivity in remote work throughout the pandemic. A study from Stanford showed that efficiency for remote work increased from 5 percent greater than in the office in the summer of 2020 to 9 percent greater in May 2022, as companies and employees alike grew more comfortable with work-from-home arrangements.

A Hybrid-First Model of Work-From-Home Productivity

The next step involved figuring out how to improve worker productivity further for the SaaS company. To better understand what staff needed, the consultant helped the company conduct an internal survey to ascertain work preferences and productivity.

Upon gathering data on the preferred working styles of employees, the consultant discovered that employees expressed a strong desire to work from home. Around 59 percent of employees indicated a preference for hybrid work environments (one to two days per week in the office) and no full-time in-office work, while 32 percent indicated a strong willingness to work at home full-time, and only 19 percent wanted three or more days of in-office work.

After analyzing the results of the internal as well as external data, the consultant advised Alex to implement a hybrid-first approach with one day in the office for most staff and fully-remote options for those who wanted them. A hybrid-first approach proved most compatible with the desires of the vast majority of employees, allowing them to remain productive while retaining them effectively. The consultant concluded that the company should transition to a hybrid-first model in which some work is done from home and some from the office.

Hybrid-first models work even better when leaders adopt best practices for hybrid work. These involve addressing proximity bias , maximizing social capital, and facilitating remote innovation .

Alex and the rest of the management team were initially skeptical of the proposed hybrid-first approach, but after trying it out and seeing months of high employee productivity and retention, they are now believers. Those employees permitted to remain fully remote proved willing to go above and beyond to get the job done. They also swiftly adapted to changes required for their company’s success by working flexible hours to accommodate the shift of most employees to working occasionally in the office. As a result, the hybrid-first work strategy established an environment where employees could effectively manage their tasks while maintaining a good work-life balance.

To best maximize the productivity of their employees, companies must understand where they are most productive. And if they wish to retain them, employers need to appreciate and meet the preferences of their employees. Fortunately, hybrid and fully-remote work options allow the best of both worlds. A hybrid-first model is the best practice for hybrid and remote work, enabling leaders willing to let go of their intuitions and rely on evidence from both academic research, internal and external surveys, and case studies from progressive companies to seize a competitive advantage in the future of work.

Tsipursky, G. (2021). Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams: A Manual on Benchmarking to Best Practices for Competitive Advantage. Columbus, OH: Intentional Insights Press.

Alexander, A., De Smet, A., Langstaff, M., & Ravid, D. (2021). What employees are saying about the future of remote work. McKinsey & Company.

Bloom, Nicholas, et al. "Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130.1 (2015): 165-218.

Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Vrontis, D. (2022). Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1501-1512.

Donati, S., Viola, G., Toscano, F., & Zappalà, S. (2021). Not all remote workers are similar: technology acceptance, remote work beliefs, and wellbeing of remote workers during the second wave of the covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12095.

Ferreira, Rafael, et al. "Decision factors for remote work adoption: advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges." Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7.1 (2021): 70.

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

Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature human behaviour, 6(1), 43-54.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D. , is on the editorial board of the journal Behavior and Social Issues. He is in private practice.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Are you more productive working from home? This study looks for answers

Studies in Japan suggest home workers' productivity has increased during the pandemic. Image:  Unsplash/Avel Chuklanov

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Masayuki Morikawa

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Future of Work is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, future of work.

• The pandemic helped lead a huge rise in remote working, but there is still relatively little data about the practice and and its impact.
• Researchers compare two recent studies conducted with home workers in Japan during the pandemic.
• Their findings suggest the average productivity of home workers has increased but is still lower than that of the usual workplace.
• They warn that while WFH could become a preferred way of working for employees in the future, a recent survey of Japanese employers found many plan to discontinue the practice.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of workers working from home (WFH) has been increasing rapidly. There has also been a rapid, parallel increase in research on WFH. We now know what workers need to be able to WFH as well as what type of workers are actually WFH. Findings generally show that highly skilled, high-wage, white-collar employees in large firms tend to WFH, meaning that the expansion of WFH has tended to increase inequality in the labour market. However, productivity of WFH has not yet been well understood.

Studies on WFH productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic

Currently, business managers and policy practitioners are interested in whether WFH will continue as a new workstyle after the COVID-19 pandemic ends. Productivity of WFH is a key determinant of whether WFH will persist or not, but quantitative evidence on WFH productivity is still limited. Studies based on surveys of workers include Etheridge et al. (2020), Barrero et al. (2021), and my work (Morikawa 2020). 1 Since it is extremely challenging to measure the productivity of white-collar workers, who perform a large variety of tasks, all of these studies depend on the workers’ self-assessment of WFH productivity.

Etheridge et al. (2020) show that, on average, workers in the UK adopting WFH report little difference in productivity relative to productivity before the pandemic. In the US, Barrero et al. (2021) indicate that most respondents who adopted WFH report equal to or higher WFH productivity than productivity on business premises. My study (Morikawa 2020) was based on a 2020 survey of workers in Japan and documents that the mean WFH productivity was approximately 60% to 70% relative to working at the usual workplace and that it was lower for employees who were forced to start WFH only after the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. To summarise, studies on the productivity of WFH under the COVID-19 pandemic are still limited, and the results are far from conclusive.

To explore the productivity dynamics of WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic, I extend the analysis of my 2020 study. I conducted a follow-up survey in 2021 to explore the changes in prevalence, frequency, and productivity of WFH during a year of the pandemic and discuss the future of WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic (Morikawa 2021).

Keeping workers well. It is the united aim of a global community influencing how companies will keep employees safe. What is the role of COVID-19 testing? What is the value of contact tracing? How do organizations ensure health at work for all employees?

Members from a diverse range of industries – from healthcare to food, utilities, software and more – and from over 25 countries and 250 companies representing more than 1 million employees are involved in the COVID-19 Workplace Commons: Keeping Workers Well initiative. Launched in July 2020, the project is a partnership between the World Economic Forum and Arizona State University with support from The Rockefeller Foundation.

The COVID-19 Workplace Commons: Keeping Workers Well initiative leverages the Forum’s platforms, networks and global convening ability to collect, refine and share strategies and approaches for returning to the workplace safely as part of broader COVID-19 recovery strategies.

Companies can apply to share their learnings and participate in the initiative as a partner, by joining the Forum’s Platform for Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare.

Learn more about the impact .

Prevalence and frequency of WFH

Our 2021 survey asked workers in Japan about the adoption and frequency of WFH. The responses show that 21.5% of workers were practising WFH, which is a decrease from 32.2% a year prior. Among only continuing (panel) respondents, the extent of the decline was larger: it decreased from 37.1% to 21.1%. Of the employees who responded to both 2020 and 2021 surveys, 41.7% stopped practising WFH, indicating that a non-negligible number of workers reverted to working at their usual workplace. In particular, individuals with lower WFH productivity had a higher probability of exiting from WFH.

In contrast, the mean share of WFH days (WFH days divided by weekly working days) is almost unchanged during the past year: 55.7% in the 2020 survey and 56.6% in the 2021 survey. Even for the subsample of those who responded to both surveys and who continued to implement WFH, the mean frequencies of WFH are almost unchanged (55.9% in 2020 and 54.3% in 2021). While the change in the extensive margin (adoption) is relatively large, the change in the intensive margin (frequency) is negligible.

Productivity dynamics of WFH

The surveys asked the subjects to self-assess WFH productivity relative to one’s productivity at the usual workplace (= 100). The distributions of WFH productivity in 2020 and 2021 are in Figure 1. The figure shows that (1) the overall distribution has shifted slightly right, and (2) the lower end of the distribution has shrunk substantially. The mean WFH productivity has improved from 61 in 2020 to 78 in 2021 (where productivity at the usual workplace = 100). The subsample of panel employees shows a similar pattern: the mean productivity has improved from 61 to 77.

Figure 1 Change in WFH productivity distribution

The WFH productivity of those who continuously engaged in WFH improved from 70 in 2020 to 78 in 2021. The 8-point increase in WFH productivity comes from, for example, learning effects and investment in WFH infrastructure at home. The mean WFH productivity in the 2020 survey of those who exit from WFH was 49, far lower than that of WFH continuers (70). This selection mechanism contributes to a 9-point improvement in mean WFH productivity. In short, (1) a ‘selection effect’ arising from the exit of low-WFH-productivity employees from WFH practice, and (2) the improvement in WFH productivity through a ‘learning effect’ contributed almost equally to the improved mean WFH productivity.

WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic

Both the 2020 and 2021 surveys asked the telecommuters about their intention to continue WFH after the pandemic. The percentage of WFH workers who answered they would like to practice WFH at the same frequency as they currently do even when the COVID-19 pandemic subsides increased substantially from 38.1% in the 2020 survey to 62.6% in the 2021 survey (Figure 2). Even for the subsample of WFH continuers, the percentage has increased from 56.2% to 68.2%.

Figure 2 WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic

We posit that the possible reasons behind this change are (1) the improvement in WFH productivity, and (2) the increasing recognition of the amenity value of WFH. Since there was a strong positive correlation between the intention in 2020 to continue frequent WFH and the actual implementation of WFH in 2021, the result suggests that WFH may become a preferred work style even after the pandemic subsides. As described before, the productivity of WFH is, on average, still lower than that of the usual workplace, meaning that WFH has a high amenity value for teleworkers.

Have you read?

Working from home here’s why you should start your day with a ‘virtual commute’, covid-19: most american workers want to keep working from home, how does working from home impact productivity.

However, according to a survey of Japanese firms conducted in late 2021, the majority of firms are planning to discontinue the WFH practice and revert to the conventional workstyle after the end of COVID-19 (Morikawa 2022b). These contrasting results indicate that there is a large gap between firms’ interests and the preferences of WFH workers. From the viewpoints of the productivity-wage parity and the compensating wage differential, it is possible that WFH workers’ relative wages will be reduced. However, since it is difficult to accurately capture the productivity of individual workers who perform WFH, there is a potential that conflict between workers and management over WFH will arise after the pandemic.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Future of Work .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Green job vacancies are on the rise – but workers with green skills are in short supply

Andrea Willige

February 29, 2024

Digital Cooperation Organization - Deemah Al Yahya

Why clear job descriptions matter for gender equality

Kara Baskin

February 22, 2024

Improve staff well-being and your workplace will run better, says this CEO

Explainer: What is a recession?

Stephen Hall and Rebecca Geldard

February 19, 2024

Is your organization ignoring workplace bullying? Here's why it matters

Jason Walker and Deborah Circo

February 12, 2024

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

Research: Knowledge Workers Are More Productive from Home

• Julian Birkinshaw,
• Jordan Cohen,
• Pawel Stach

More people are focusing on work they find worthwhile.

Researchers studied knowledge workers in 2013 and again during the 2020 pandemic lockdown and found significant changes in how they are working. They learned that lockdown helps people focus on the tasks that really matter. They spent 12% less time drawn into large meetings and 9% more time interacting with customers and external partners. Lockdown also helped people take responsibility for our own schedules. They did 50% more activities through personal choice and half as many because someone else asked them to. Finally, during lockdown, people viewed their work as more worthwhile.  The number of tasks rated as tiresome dropped from 27% to 12%, and the number we could readily offload to others dropped from 41% to 27%.

In these difficult times, we’ve made a number of our coronavirus articles free for all readers. To get all of HBR’s content delivered to your inbox, sign up for the Daily Alert newsletter.

For many years, we have sought to understand and measure the productivity of knowledge workers, whose inputs and outputs can’t be tracked in the same way as a builder, shelf-stacker, or call center worker. Knowledge workers apply subjective judgment to tasks, they decide what to do when, and they can withhold effort (by not fully engaging their brain) often without anyone noticing. This make attempts to improve their productivity very difficult.

• Julian Birkinshaw is a professor at London Business School. He is the coauthor of Fast/Forward: Make Your Company Fit for the Future .
• Jordan Cohen is the Chief People Officer at Lumanity and a regular contributor to HBR.
• Pawel Stach is a researcher at London Business School.

Partner Center

To sign up for monthly results updates please click here.

Download our time series data on the extent of working from home., new working from home around the globe: 2023 report , by cevat aksoy, jose maria barrero,, nicholas bloom, steven j. davis, mathias dolls, and pablo zarate, coverage : the economist   “the fight over working from home goes global”, download summary data.

Research papers

Read our detailed research output and find historical results updates in our Research and Policy page.

Latest Results Summary

Read the latest monthly results summary based on our US SWAA data.

U.S. Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes

Download the latest data from the Survey of Workplace Arrangements & Attitudes (SWAA).

Global Survey of Working Arrangements

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

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Researchers working from home: Benefits and challenges

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

* E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Materials and methods

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

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

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

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

Efficiency of research work.

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

Comparing working from home to working in the office.

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

Actual and ideal time spent working from home.

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

Feasibility of working more from home.

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

Background information.

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

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

Data preprocessing and analyses

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

Background information

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

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

Efficiency of research work

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

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

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

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

Comparing working from home to working in the office

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

The bars represent response averages of the given aspects.

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

Actual and ideal time spent working from home

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

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

Feasibility of working more from home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting information

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

How working from home works out

Key takeaways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The inequality time bomb

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

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

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

Figure 2: Not all jobs can be carried out WFH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble for the cities?

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

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

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

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

Working from home is here to stay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The office will survive but it may look different

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making a smooth transition

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

First, working from home should be part time.

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

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

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

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

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

Second, working from home should be optional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample reweighted to match the Current Population Survey. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Topics

• Policy Brief

More Publications

Inequality in length of life, discrete time duration models with group-level heterogeneity, commitment mechanisms and compliance with health-protecting behavior: preliminary evidence from orissa (india).

• Share full article

Advertisement

Share of fully remote

and hybrid workers

High school

Bachelor’s

Who Still Works From Home?

By Ben Casselman ,  Emma Goldberg and Ella Koeze

The American workplace’s experiment with remote work happened, effectively, overnight: With the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, more than half of workers began working from home at least part of the time, according to Gallup. But the shift to a permanent hybrid-work reality has been gradual, with periods of tension as workers across white-collar industries pushed against executives’ return-to-office orders .

Those battles have largely come to an end, and workplaces have reached a new hybrid-work status quo. Roughly one-tenth of workers are cobbling together a combination of work in the office and from home, and a similar portion are working entirely remotely.

This population of hybrid and remote workers in the United States doesn’t quite mirror the larger population of workers: Government data shows they tend to have more education and are more often white and Asian.

Type of worker

~115 million workers

~14 million

~15 million

High school or less

Some college

Bachelor's degree

Graduate degree

Each square here represents 50,000 workers between the ages of 18 and 64. In 2023, about 143 million people in that age range were working in the United States.

Roughly 80 percent of those work fully in person . The remaining work either a hybrid schedule or fully remote .

If we look at all workers by their level of education, the biggest group of workers have no college education.

But if we focus on just those who work at home all or some of the time, college educated workers become the most prominent. Working from home is, for the most part, a luxury for the highly educated.

The pandemic laid bare inequalities in the American economy. White-collar workers were in many cases able to do their jobs safely at home, but lower-income workers often had to continue to work in person, even when health risks were highest. And now that the public health emergency is over, that workplace divide — who gets the benefits of remote flexibility and who does not — has become entrenched.

White and Asian workers are more likely to work from home

Share of fully remote and hybrid workers who identify as a given race or ethnicity vs. the same group’s share of the entire work force

Hispanic workers and Black workers are underrepresented in remote work.

Only 10% of remote

share of all workers

The divide in who gets the flexibility to work remotely also reflects the country’s racial inequalities. Because white and Asian workers are more likely to hold office jobs, they are more likely to have the opportunity to work remotely part or all of the time. Black and Hispanic workers, meanwhile, more frequently hold jobs in food service, construction, retail, health care and other fields that require them to be in person.

The youngest workers are working from home less often

Share of fully remote and hybrid workers who fall in each age group vs. the same group’s share of the entire work force

When employers were first mounting their return-to-office battles, many assumed that their youngest employees would be the toughest to persuade to come back. But today, young people make up a greater share of those working in person than their share of the total work force.

That is partly because a smaller share of Americans under 25 have completed college degrees. Many work in jobs like food service that cannot be done remotely. But that is not the whole story: Even among college graduates, workers in their 20s are more likely to be in the office full time than their older colleagues. That suggests that young workers are embracing the benefits of in-person work: socialization, mentorship and face time with the boss. The potential downsides of fixed office schedules may also matter less to them: Relatively fewer young workers might have children (or aging parents) at home, making remote flexibility less of a priority.

More women work remotely, but it’s complicated.

Remote work also breaks down along gender lines — though it does not lend itself to a simple narrative.

Overall, women are more likely than men to work remotely. That’s partly because more women have college degrees, so more of them are in the kind of professional jobs in which flexible arrangements have become the norm. Even among those without college degrees, women are more likely to work at a desk in an administrative or customer support role, while men more often work in construction, manufacturing and other jobs that can only be done in person.

Looking narrowly at just college graduates, remote work patterns for women and men look more evenly distributed, with men slightly more likely to work remotely than women. But there’s one place where the pattern looks different: among parents with young children.

Parents have been some of the biggest winners in the flexible-work era. Remote flexibility made more feasible the constant juggling of professional and caretaking obligations. But it is mothers, not fathers, who appear to be taking the most advantage of workplace flexibility, whether out of choice or necessity.

Share of fully remote and hybrid college-educated workers who have children or not, by gender

College-educated men

With no kids

With young kids

With older kids

vs. share of all working college-educated men

College-educated women

Mothers of young kids are more likely to work from home than other women.

Note: Young kids are those 5 years old or younger.

Among college-educated men, having children does not make much difference to whether they work at home or in person. Among women, it’s a different story. Mothers of young children are much more likely to work remotely than women without children or mothers of older children.

When possible, disabled workers often choose to go fully remote

Fully remote and hybrid work often get talked about in the same breath. But in some cases, the implications are different.

For many workers with disabilities, the normalization of remote work has offered an opportunity to avoid energy-draining commutes and offices that are not designed to accommodate their needs. For others, it has opened up pathways into industries that were previously difficult to break into.

But those gains come primarily from fully remote work, not the hybrid model that has come to dominate some industries. Workers with disabilities are 22 percent more likely to work fully remotely than otherwise similar workers without disabilities, but only slightly more likely to work a hybrid schedule, according to research from the Economic Innovation Group . Workers with disabilities that limit mobility, such as those who use wheelchairs, were particularly likely to benefit from the opportunity to work entirely from home.

Employers should “understand the significant difference between full-remote and hybrid-remote,” the researchers wrote. “A labor market that includes a greater number of full-remote jobs will open the door for far more otherwise qualified workers.”

Methodology

The data in this article comes from the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of 60,000 U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau. Respondents are asked how many hours they worked the previous week, and how many of those hours they teleworked or worked from home. “Fully remote” workers are those who worked all of their hours remotely; “hybrid” workers are those who worked some but not all of their hours remotely. Respondents who were not employed, or who did not work at all in the previous week, are excluded. Data shown is for calendar year 2023. Figures are rounded throughout.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Remote Working and Work Effectiveness: A Leader Perspective

Associated data.

All necessary data samples are provided in the paper.

Currently, job duties are massively transferred from in-person to remote working. Existing knowledge on remote working is mainly based on employees’ assessment. However, the manager’s perspective is crucial in organizations that turned into remote work for the first time facing sudden circumstances, i.e., SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The main aim of our study was to analyze remote work effectiveness perceived by managers (N = 141) referring to three crucial aspects, i.e., manager, team, and external cooperation. We assumed the perceived benefits, limitations, and online working frequency as predictors of remote work effectiveness. Further, we analyzed the possible differences in remote work perception referring to different management levels (i.e., middle-level and lower-level). Our findings revealed a significant relationship between the benefits and effectiveness of managers and external cooperation, specifically among lower-level managers. Limitations, particularly technical and communication issues, predicted team and external cooperation effectiveness. The results showed remote work assessment as being socially diverse at the management level.

1. Introduction

Currently, remote work has become a crucial organizational tool that enables effective performance in the increasingly competitive global market. Although working outside of the office has already been available, this form of performing job duties seems mainstream in modern organizations. Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, 14.2% of employees in Poland changed their current way of performing professional duties to a remote mode. Almost every sixth employee in the public sector and every twelfth in the private sector worked remotely [ 1 ]. 85.6% worked remotely for five days a week, and 64% were likely to perform their professional duties remotely even after returning to the work office, especially since 44% of employees declared that their efficiency at home did not decrease [ 2 ]. Half of them indicated that sufficient work outside of the office was performed mainly for two days, and every seventh employee pointed out three remote working days.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many studies have been conducted on various aspects of remote working from the employees’ perspectives [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Generally, employees find working from home productive, albeit managers are often concerned about maintaining job performance at least on the same level as office work [ 8 , 9 ]. Thus, it seems crucial to look at how managers at different levels of management perceive the introduction of remote working on an unprecedented scale since they are responsible for organizing and controlling the employees’ work [ 10 ]. We decided to use managerial perception as previous research has proved the usefulness of subjective performance measures and their similarity with objective internal performance [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. This study aimed to determine how managers rated the effectiveness of their own work and how they assessed the effectiveness of their team and external collaboration while performing their job duties remotely.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Managers’ effectiveness has been defined as the impact of managers on the fluent functioning of an organization [ 14 ]. They can manage effective performance by using optimal acquisition and utilization of internal and external resources, i.e., human, financial, and instrumental resources. Since the managerial role is crucial in obtaining effective workflow and outcomes, this study was focused on managers’ perspectives.

Managers have different needs depending on their status [ 15 ]. Most often, the structure of managers in an organization consists of three levels [ 16 , 17 ]. The first one is top management which assumes top managers with most power, authority, and responsibility. The managers at this level define the company’s strategy, vision, and mission. They represent the company externally and visualize and define the company’s future. Top management is also responsible for dealing with the groups or individuals who may have different interests or intentions that do not have to align with the company’s interests. Their role is to unite or convince them that the interest of the organization stands above everything and is not in conflict with their actions [ 18 ]. The second level, namely middle management, is the one that sets the goals to achieve the organization’s strategy. Middle managers are tasked with communicating and implementing the plan received from top management [ 19 ]. They indicate organizational roles, and they work mainly with the low management. Thus, they rarely have contact with first-line workers. [ 20 ]. At the lowest level of the managerial hierarchy, lower-level managers usually have the most direct and frequent contact with front-line employees. As a result, low managers can significantly impact work effectiveness [ 21 ] since they operate and plan in the short term. They usually do not have the power to implement their own initiatives that can change the strategic goals [ 19 , 22 ]. Nevertheless, to ensure the stable functioning of the organization in unstable circumstances (e.g., at the time of the pandemic), they play a crucial role as first-line leaders. Therefore, the main objective of our study was the assessment of how managers with direct contact with subordinates (i.e., low- and middle-level managers) perceived work effectiveness.

The environment in which an organization finds itself is volatile, and managers at all levels should be open to change. Increased performance and job satisfaction from the perspective of individual employees are reported in trade journals [ 23 ] and academic sources [ 24 ]. However, the relationship between remote working and performance has not been well established from the managers’ perspective [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 25 , 26 ]. Virtual working, including working from home, comprises different benefits, e.g., saving time and other expenses, integrating the work of specialized employees, and expanding external co-operation. There is abundant research on the benefits and limitations of remote working [ 27 ]. The most common benefits include no commuting, reduced distraction, work–life balance and increased work flexibility, creativity, and motivation [ 28 , 29 ]. In addition, many studies have shown increased productivity [ 30 , 31 ]. Research indicates that proximity to co-workers often leads to wasted time and decreased productivity. The increased efficiency of employees in remote working is due to the lack of distractions present in the office [ 32 ]. On the other hand, employees indicate that the most significant disadvantage of remote work is the lack of non-work-related contacts [ 33 ], even though they can contact others via information and communication technologies (ICTs) [ 34 ]. Although Gibbs, Mengel, and Siemroth [ 27 ] emphasized that productivity depended on the worker’s characteristics, and measured employee productivity, the employees were able to maintain similar or slightly lower levels of output during work from home. Besides its positive aspects [ 30 , 35 ], existing research indicated a number of challenges generated by remote work, such as work–home interference, ineffective communication, procrastination, and loneliness.

As mentioned above, there are many advantages of remote forms of performing job duties, and several limitations that result in work outcomes and collaboration [ 31 ]. The responsibility of managing the remote work of employees rests with managers, particularly first-line managers and team leaders. Therefore, we assumed that the perceived effectiveness of remote work was connected with the experienced benefits and limitations ( cf. Hypothesis 1). Moreover, different management levels, i.e., middle- and lower-level managers, might perceive remote work differently ( cf. Hypothesis 2).

The perceived benefits, limitations, and frequency of remote work are related to the remote work effectiveness perceived by lower-level and middle-level managers.

The perceived remote working conditions differ between lower-level and middle-level managers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants and procedure.

To evaluate the effectiveness of remote work, we recruited employees from one of the largest enterprises in Poland. The companies that provided data belong to one of Poland’s largest capital groups in the energy sector. The survey covered the executive staff of three companies employing 234 middle- and lower-level managers (68 women and 166 men). A total of 29% were middle-level managers. The survey mainly addressed managers who had worked remotely/hybrid since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Two of the three companies surveyed previously could use remote working, but no more than two days per month. One company did not have remote working in operation. A vast majority of the managers were college-educated employees. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, all companies included in the survey had started remote working with the possibility of hybrid working. In the interests of employees, it was recommended that all individuals who were able to perform their duties (i.e., had the appropriate equipment) and agreed to work remotely took advantage of this opportunity.

We focused explicitly on the management staff during recruitment, i.e., department executives. Overall, the sample comprised 141 participants, including 18.7% middle management and 81.3% lower management. A total of 71% of participants were male, which reflects a male predominance in the real structure of the labor market and the share of males in the total number of employed managers in Poland [ 36 ]. All respondents were highly skilled and educated, mainly in the engineering field.

This cross-sectional study was based on anonymized employee data selected from the organizational resources. No person-related data were collected to ensure the anonymity of the study. The respondents received a link that directed them to the survey located on the company intranet. Participation was voluntary and free of charge. The participants were informed of the voluntary nature of participation in the study and the anonymity of data collection, i.e., their data would be analyzed collectively, and no personal information would be shared. They were assured that there were no wrong answers and that all of their opinions were important. Prior to participation, the respondents provided oral consent to participate in the study and were informed about the possibility of withdrawing from the study. All employees were aged 18 or older and completed their duties remotely from home.

2.2. Measures

Work effectiveness was assessed with three items related to different remote work effectiveness dimensions, i.e., the respondents were asked to assess the effectiveness of their own work, of the team, and of the co-operation with other business areas. All items required the participants to rate the extent to which they perceived work effectiveness (sample question: “Taking everything into consideration, how do you rate your work effectiveness as a whole?”) in all dimensions using a 5-point scale from 1 (ineffective) to 5 (very effective). Each dimension contained one-item measures. Using single-item measures is effective and more favorable in some respects than using multiple-item measures [ 37 ]; e.g., single-item measures are easier to understand by management, are completed more quickly, and require less effort. Higher scores indicated a higher level of perceived effectiveness in each dimension. The reliability of the scale comprising all three items in the current study was considered good, with Cronbach’s α = 0.8.

Benefits were measured using the one-item scale to assess perceived advantages of remote work with multiple-choice answers (sample categories: possibility to gain technical skills, on-task concentration, organized home life, and work economy). The list of chosen benefits was evaluated in terms of subjective fulfillment of criteria for remote working benefits by using competent judges. Benefits were defined as positive aspects, advantages, or profits gained from remote work. We asked five professionals, who were psychologists and managers, to evaluate the set of benefits on a 5-point scale (1 = does not refer to the dimension; 5 = fully refers to the dimension) and inspected the judges’ congruency concerning individual ratings (congruency index = 0.95). The ten benefits of remote work were positively verified by all five judges and were included in the study. The respondents reported the perceived benefits by checking them on a prepared list. The sum of selected benefits indicated the level of perceived benefits gained from remote work. In other words, a higher score indicated a larger number of benefits of remote work.

Limitations were measured with multiple-choice answers using a three-item scale assessing three dimensions of perceived disadvantages of remote work (i.e., organizational, technical, and social limitations). Limitations were defined as work aspects that limit the quality or achievement during remote work. The given limitations were verified by competent judges (congruency index = 0.93) and were introduced to the study. The overall-limitations measure was obtained by summing reported limitations from the possible ten statements which tap the various remote job facet (e.g., organizational, technical, and social issues). Higher scores indicated a higher level of limitations of remote work. The reliability of the scale comprising all three items in the current study was satisfying, Cronbach’s α = 0.7.

The respondents indicated the number of days of remote work per week to gain satisfactory team effectiveness, and the number of days of remote work per week to gain satisfactory management effectiveness. They rated on a scale between one to five working days.

Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables.

Means ( M) , standard deviations ( SD ), and correlations between study variables.

Notes. Limit_org—limitations in the organizational dimension; Limit_tech—limitations in the technical dimension; Limit_soc—limitations in the social dimension; Online_leader—number of days of remote work to maintain high management effectiveness (per week); Online_team—number of days of remote work to maintain high team effectiveness (per week); Effect_leader—leader effectiveness; Effect_team—team effectiveness; Effect_co—external co-operation effectiveness; a Position is dummy-coded (1 = middle-level manager, 0 = lower-level manager); * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

The management position (i.e., lower-level and middle-level management) was negatively related to the perceived benefits ( p ≤ 0.05) and work effectiveness ( p ≤ 0.05), and positively associated with social limitations ( p ≤ 0.05).

In the first step, a regression analytical procedure was conducted to test the interaction between remote work conditions, i.e., benefits, limitations, online working frequency, and remote work effectiveness ( cf. , hypothesis 1). The regression model explained 37% of the variance in managers’ effectiveness (F(2, 134) = 17.94, p < 0.001), 31% of the variance in team effectiveness (F(2, 134) = 15.89, p < 0.001), and 37% of the variance in external co-operation efficacy (F(2, 134) = 13.45, p < 0.001). The managers’ position was dummy-coded and contrasted with “lower-level managers” and “middle-level managers”. The results are given in Table 2 .

Hierarchical linear regression of three aspects of remote work effectiveness.

Notes. Limit_org—limitations in the organizational dimension; Limit_tech—limitations in the technical dimension; Limit_soc—limitations in the social dimension; Online_leader—number of days of remote work to maintain high management effectiveness (per week); Online_team—number of days of remote work to maintain high team effectiveness (per week); a Position is dummy-coded (1 = middle-level manager, 0 = middle-level manager); * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Table 2 shows the regression analysis of the relationship between dependent variables, i.e., manager effectiveness, team effectiveness, co-operation effectiveness, and predictors. Leader effectiveness was negatively related to a managerial position. The managers’ position was dummy-coded (0 = lower-level management; 1 = middle-level management). As shown in Table 2 , middle-level managers perceived the effectiveness of their work as lower ( β = −0.15, p < 0.05). Positive relationships were observed between the perceived benefits of remote work ( β = 0.14; p < 0.05), online working days ( β = 0.34; p < 0.01), and managers’ effectiveness. The same regression analyses were conducted for team effectiveness and relations with the external environment. Team effectiveness perceived by managers was negatively related to the experienced technological limits during remote working ( β = −0.20; p < 0.05) and positively related to the number of online working days ( β = 0.33; p < 0.05). The results showed that co-operation effectiveness was negatively related to the perceived technological limitations ( β = −0.18, p < 0.01), positively associated with the perceived benefits ( β = 0.22, p < 0.01), and positively associated with the frequency of remote work of managers ( β = 0.09, p < 0.05) and the team ( β = 0.32, p < 0.05).

Secondly, we assessed the significance of mean differences in remote work conditions perceived by lower-level and middle-level managers ( cf. hypothesis 2). The scores were normalized to a 0 to 1 range. We applied a Mann-Whitney U test that showed significant differences in the level of the perceived benefits of remote work between these groups (U = 642.50, p = 0.04). Middle-level managers perceived lower benefits ( M = 0.29) compared to lower-level managers ( M = 0.38). Analyzing the online work limitations, we found significant differences in the level of social limits (U = 1138, p = 0.02) and work effectiveness, (U = 519, p = 0.02) between the groups. Middle-level managers reported a higher level of social limits ( M = 0.30) compared to the lower-level managers ( M = 0.22). However, lower-level managers assumed themselves as more effective ( M = 4.37) compared to middle-level managers ( M = 3.95).

Based on the Mann-Whitney U test results, Figure 1 and Figure 2 present the benefits and limitations perceived by the analyzed groups in more detail. The p -value demonstrates significant means differences between the low- and middle-level management.

Remote work benefits perceived by lower- and middle-level managers. Notes. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Remote work limitations, perceived by lower- and middle-level managers. Notes. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; + p < 0.10.

We further tested the relation between the specified benefits (i.e., on-task concentration), limitations (i.e., lack of rules, decreased work productivity, poor communication), and perceived work effectiveness that significantly differentiated managers on different management levels. A Mann-Whitney U test showed that the communication issue and perceived own work effectiveness revealed a differential pattern (U = 1993.50, p = 0.02). In other words, managers who reported poorer communication as a limitation of remote working had a lower level of the perceived own work effectiveness than those who indicated no communication issues. A significant difference was observed in work effectiveness referring to perceived productivity (U = 1882.50, p = 0.001). A lower level of managers’ effectiveness was shown in managers who experienced lower productivity.

Although the lack of rules did not significantly differentiate own work effectiveness, the perceived effectiveness of co-operation with the environment was significantly different for managers who “suffered” more from a lack of rules than those who did not complain (U = 1099, p = 0.03).

On-task concentration reported by managers was significant in differentiating their work effectiveness (U = 1475, p = 0.001) indicating that managers who reported on-task concentration as a remote work benefit perceived better work effectiveness.

4. Discussion

The COVID-19 virus outbreak has made many people work from home on an unprecedented scale, especially in business sectors where employees had not had an opportunity to work remotely before. Consequently, we argued the necessity of conducting research to confirm the effectiveness of remote work in this unique context, particularly from the managers’ perspective.

First, we examined the role of the perceived benefits, limitations, and online working frequency in maintaining high work effectiveness in three dimensions (i.e., manager, team, and external collaboration levels). Our findings showed benefits as significant predictors of perceived manager and co-operation effectiveness. The more benefits managers reported, the more effective they felt at work. Therefore, activating the available strengths of remote work empowers organizational resources and work effectiveness. Available communication devices allow quicker performance of the tasks e.g., organizing and attending work meetings online is faster and easier compared to organizing face-to-face contacts [ 38 ]. This relationship mainly concerns lower-level managers. From the managers’ perspective, the benefits were not as important in predicting the team’s effectiveness. The results indicated significant relationships between technical limitations and effective remote work in team and external collaboration. Technical issues were perceived as lowering work effectiveness, independently of the manager’s management level (i.e., middle-level and lower-level).

Further analysis demonstrated the differences in the perception of work effectiveness among managers at different levels of management (i.e., lower-level and middle-level management). In the context of remote working introduced on such a large scale during the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings highlight that, on the one hand, increased effectiveness and perceived benefits can be observed. On the other hand, they are not at the same level depending on the management role connected with social interactions.

Our findings offer managers a new lens to view the advantages/disadvantages of working from home. Generally, employees’ lack of social interactions is perceived as a disadvantage [ 34 ]. Nevertheless, this study proposes an alternative view of telecommuting that can boost performance as a result of improving technical support and minimalizing unnecessary distractions. Although, Allen, Golden, and Shockley [ 9 ] emphasized that social relationships at work can suffer as a result of excessive remote work, and care should be taken to properly manage the negative effects of weakened relationships between employees. We cannot lead to workplace loneliness which can result in lower job performance [ 39 ] as a result of informal interactions and a team cohesion decrease [ 7 ]. The results showed that the possibility of concentration on the task was evaluated higher by lower-level managers. Work that requires more on-task concentration and problem-solving is done more preferably at home, with significantly fewer distractions [ 29 , 40 ]. As mentioned before, lower-level managers have more frequent contact with employees than higher-level managers, and recent research suggests that calls between remote workers are more task-focused and less distracted [ 32 , 34 ]. Consequently, referring to perceived remote work limitations, organizational issues (e.g., lack of rules), and social issues (i.e., lower productivity and ineffective communication with employees) significantly differentiated the managers at different managerial levels. The middle-level managers suffered more from the specific remote work limitations.

By identifying differences in the managerial levels in the perceived benefits and limitations, our findings shed light on a specific explanation as to why remote working is perceived more favorably by lower-level managers. Therefore, our empirical studies on how social implications of remote working can affect work effectiveness [ 32 ] indicated that a lack of distractions can increase workers’ effectiveness while working from home. We do not argue that the effectiveness of the remote mode is only due to employees’ lack of distraction in the home office. The perceived benefits and technological issues are also related to work effectiveness. An understanding of how managers perceive remote work and its effectiveness at different managerial levels and the discrepancy in the perception of benefits and limitations is crucial for understanding remote work effectiveness, especially since remote working offers indisputable convenience, which will contribute to its expansiveness in the organizational setting compared to the pre-COVID-19 level.

4.1. Limitations and Direction for Further Research

Despite the contributions we make, this study is not without limitations. First, our research did not explore the employees’ perspective or objective internal performance or work characteristics. Nonetheless, the managerial perspective is relatively rarely analyzed. Future research could explore how employee attributes and other factors such as personality or stress may shape the effectiveness of working online. Second, the sample size was comparatively small, with a male predominance, which limits the generalizability of the findings and the opportunity to explore other moderating mechanisms. Nevertheless, the sample provided sufficient statistical power to test the hypothesized relations. Next, our study was designed as cross-sectional. Considering the specificity of the sample and contextual conditions (i.e., pandemic), the cross-sectional design seemed reasonable and indicated the most significant relations. Finally, we used self-reported measures that are often the only possible way to examine one’s own perspective, such as self-perceived effectiveness in a specific context [ 34 ]. Nonetheless, there is still the need to use objective methods and include the employees’ perspective in the study. Using objective information (e.g., Key Performance Indicators or Return on Investment) could help solve this potential bias in the data in a future study.

Remote working in Poland is relatively new and introducing it on a such significant scale might provide unique experiences. Little is known about both direct and ripple effects that can bring us a widespread shift to remote work. Additionally, it would be useful to analyze the further relationship between social interactions and effectiveness by using objective measures. Further research requires more information concerning working online from a leader’s perspective. Longitudinal research would be necessary to demonstrate the development and changes of home office effects. Although the consideration of a leader’s perspective has given us new insights, avoiding a biased managerial perception of remote working as less effective is helpful. A more specific analysis of job characteristics and effectiveness can reveal conditions that are advantageous for employers and employees. Further interaction effects between remote work and HRM policies, as well as between social interactions, should be studied.

This study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic for the first time. In order to rule out the impact of pandemic stress and its effect on effectiveness, it is necessary to repeat the study after the epidemiological threat has ceased. If home-office information on a management level is available, and if a comparison during and after the coronavirus crisis is possible, we can learn whether COVID-19 has contributed to a substantial structural change.

Other constraints that can affect leaders and managers are those that also can be connected with the issues that are familiar from the perspective of employees. One such constraint, for instance, might be the low turnover and the intensity of hiring, which was limited. In the case of employees, a decline in efficiency can be observed, which could be partly traced to having less experience, lower tenure, or being in the process of onboarding [ 27 ].

4.2. Practical Implications

This study provides meaningful implications for practitioners. First, our research suggests that effectiveness can be increased by managing remote work effectively and implementing HR policies to strengthen the benefits of remote work and minimalize shortcomings, mainly in technical dimensions (e.g., poor quality of internet connections, multiple communication channels), while organizations can set hybrid working from home and observe changes in the managerial perception. However, organizations may influence the supportive practices that come to managers of all levels. Employers can offer training on improving their managing skills in remote environments. Some researchers suggest that consideration should be given to the individual adjustment of work conditions (e.g., less disciplined employees might experience more challenges during remote working). Therefore, offering them online work would be unsuccessful [ 34 ].

Researchers emphasize the great role of managers and leaders in practicing working from home. They are ought to provide adequate support in response to the needs of employees with different challenges [ 7 , 34 ]. Otherwise, remote working might turn out to be ineffective causing problems such as a longer time spent on projects, difficulties with training, onboarding issues, etc. We can observe that, from a management point of view, working from home reached the highest level of productivity in COVID-19 and stabilized, but this situation might not be sustainable [ 40 ].

The main concern, from a managerial perspective, often suggested about working from home is a decrease in effectiveness [ 8 ]. Thus, it can have a negative effect on how they operate at different levels of management. This study contributes to clarifying this issue and gaining a better understanding of the sources of perceived effectiveness from the perspective of managers and leaders. It can have a positive impact on the level of employees’ commitment and dedication to their companies, resulting in higher effectiveness [ 8 ].

Without a doubt, remote work has become an inherent work system, and the challenge today is to maintain or indicate maximum efficiency. Undoubtedly, the best solution is to introduce hybrid work and combine remote work with office work [ 23 ]. It is necessary to take a closer look at the characteristics of the job in question and put in place solutions to perform tasks at their best, depending on whether it is more efficient to do them at home or in the office. So far, we know that some work is done effectively at home, while other work is better done at the office.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to understanding how remote working influences effectiveness from the managers’ perspective. While previous research has recognized that working online may be more effective, the role of managers has received less attention, both theoretically and empirically. Generally, managers view remote working as resulting in decreased performance and lower managerial control [ 8 ]. Our study suggests that the more benefits managers perceive, the more effective their work is assessed in different dimensions (i.e., manager, team, external co-operation). Moreover, the results indicated the difference in remote work perception depending on the management level (i.e., lower-level and middle-level management). Managers who have more contact with employees are more aware of the benefits of working remotely. Accordingly, the perceived benefits are related to a higher level of reported work effectiveness.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.K. and K.Ś.; Formal analysis, K.Ś.; Investigation, G.K.; Methodology, G.K. and K.Ś.; Project administration, G.K.; Resources, G.K. and K.Ś.; Software, G.K.; Supervision, K.Ś.; Visualization, G.K. and K.Ś.; Writing–original draft, G.K. and K.Ś.; Writing–review and editing, K.Ś. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The current study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee, decision no. KEUS.67/11.2020.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 15 July 2023

Family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity: do work engagement and self-efficacy mediate?

• Seng-Su Tsang 1 ,
• Zhih-Lin Liu 1 &
• Thi Vinh Tran Nguyen 1 , 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  419 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

3370 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

The shift towards remote work has been expedited by the COVID-19 pandemic, and COVID-19 has increased the need to understand the factors affecting remote work productivity such as family–work conflict, work engagement, and self-efficacy. However, the previous research may not comprehensively capture the intricacies associated with remote work amidst the pandemic. This study proposes a model to explore the relationship between family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity based on role conflict and resource drain theories as well as the family–work-conflict literature. The quantitative approach was used. A questionnaire was distributed using a convenience sampling technique and a response rate of 90.1% (1177 respondents) was achieved. After data cleaning, 785 valid cases were analysed. SPSS 22 and AMOS 20 were used to test the descriptive statistics, reliability, and validity, and the proposed hypotheses were evaluated using Process Macro (Model 5). The findings found that family–work-conflict negatively affected work engagement, self-efficacy, and work-from-home productivity. The negative effect of family–work-conflict on work-from-home productivity was stronger for employees with more work-from-home days than those with fewer. The partial mediation of work engagement and self-efficacy was established. This study contributes to the understanding of remote work productivity during the pandemic, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprise employees. It highlights the regulatory role of working hours when working from home and examines the mediation of self-efficacy in the association between family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity. This study also confirms the gender differences in work-from-home productivity which has been previously inconsistent in the literature. Managerially, the research has practical implications for employers, managers, and the government. Employers should adopt family-friendly policies and offer training programmes to enhance work-from-home productivity. Employers need to pay extra attention to their female employees’ work and family responsibilities and guarantee positive working outcomes through online surveys and two-way communication strategies. Professional training and work-from-home skill development programmes should be provided to boost employee confidence and self-efficacy. Governments and employers should also consider implementing regulations on the duration of working-from-home to avoid negative impacts on work efficiency and family–work conflict.

Similar content being viewed by others

Realizing the full potential of behavioural science for climate change mitigation

Kristian S. Nielsen, Viktoria Cologna, … Kimberly S. Wolske

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: the role of virtual agglomeration

Yang Shen & Xiuwu Zhang

Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action

Peter Andre, Teodora Boneva, … Armin Falk

Introduction

This study investigated the association between family–work conflict (FWC) and work-from-home productivity (WFHP) among Taiwanese work-from-home employees in the COVID-19 context. Although Taiwan is recognised as having one of the most successful pandemic response models in Asia and worldwide, the country experienced a COVID-19 outbreak during the time of the study, with more than 14,634 cases recorded as of June 2021. This was considered to be the first wave of COVID-19 in Taiwan. Many preventive measures were implemented during this period including mandatory social distancing, which included a requirement to work from home for many employees. Taiwanese companies and schools adapted to remote work and learning, respectively, and working from home became a key means of social distancing.

Various enterprises worldwide, especially leading companies in developed countries, had long considered the work-from-home (WFH) model as one of the new forms of work, even before COVID-19 appeared (Vyas and Butakhieo, 2021 ). Academics have been interested in the topic of WFH and have undertaken associated studies (Bloom et al., 2014 ; Crosbie and Moore, 2004 ; Dockery and Bawa, 2014 ; Nakrošienė et al., 2019 ). WFH has been a work option for both employers and employees for some time (Rupietta and Beckmann, 2018 ). However, with the COVID-19 outbreak, WFH became mandatory in some countries (Bonacini et al., 2021 ; Wong et al., 2020 ; Yabe et al., 2020 ), attracting the attention of many scholars around the world (Davies, 2021 ). The present research on WFH focuses not only on policy aspects but also on the quantitative aspects that explore the effects of WFH on human psychology (Galanti et al., 2021 ; Song and Gao, 2020 ), job satisfaction, work engagement (WE) (Ahmadi et al., 2022 ; Irawanto et al., 2021 ; Purwanto et al., 2020 ), and work-life balance (WLB) (Putri and Amran, 2021 ).

Other studies have investigated employee performance and WFHP (Afrianty et al. 2022 ; Farooq and Sultana, 2021 ; Feng and Savani, 2020 ; Morikawa, 2022 ; Ramos and Prasetyo, 2020 ; Sutarto et al., 2021 ). Feng and Savani ( 2020 ), for example, examined the gender gaps in WFH outcomes under pandemic conditions. The authors found that the pandemic generated a gender gap in perceived WFHP. The authors argued that women were expected to dedicate more time to the family when both parents worked from home during the day and schools were closed. On the other hand, Morikawa’s ( 2022 ) research on WFH in Japan during the pandemic revealed that WFHP reached ~60–70% of normal workplace productivity. The study also found that productivity was lower for people and businesses who had begun practicing WFH only after the pandemic had spread. The potential impact of the pandemic on working from home (WFH) and productivity was further investigated by Farooq and Sultana ( 2021 ). They found a negative association between WFH and productivity, including a moderating effect of gender on the relationship. Sutarto et al. ( 2021 ) explored the association between employee mental health and productivity during the crisis to ascertain whether the relationship differed depending on select socio-demographic characteristics. The authors found a negative correlation between the WFH employees’ psychological wellbeing and productivity. Further, gender, age, education level, job experience, marital status, and number of children were found to have no association with productivity. In contrast, the issue of working hours has been shown to be negatively related to productivity (Collewet and Sauermann, 2017 ). Nonetheless, based on our literature review, it appears that only a few works have assessed the effect of working hours on WFH productivity within the COVID-19 context.

Although various studies have focused on WFH in the COVID-19 period, as discussed above, and even though many have explored WFHP and the mediating effect of WE, no works have explored the mediating effect of self-efficacy (SE) in terms of predicting WFHP, especially when family–work conflict (FWC) is treated as an antecedent. In terms of the effect that demographic variables have when predicting WFH performance, the productivity effect remains inconsistent. Hanaysha ( 2016 ) suggested broadening the sample to different industry employees in WE and productivity studies to generalise the findings. Additionally, based on our literature review, few studies to date relate to WFHP in Taiwan during the pandemic period, especially for the employees of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). During the first wave of the pandemic, the Taiwanese Government applied strict social distancing policies, including WFH (Cheng et al., 2020 ). This study is therefore pioneering in exploring WFHP in Taiwan during the pandemic period.

Consequent to these research gaps, the differences present in the findings in the literature, and answering the call of Hanaysha ( 2016 ), the present study is based on role conflict and resource drain theories, the FWC literature, and previous empirical studies. It proposes a multiple mediator model to predict the WFHP of employees in Taiwan’s SMEs during the COVID-19 level 3 alert. The primary purpose of this research is to expand on what is currently known about the effects of FWC on WFHP by investigating the mediating effects of WE and SE to determine their effect mechanism. The secondary purpose of the research is to investigate whether the element of working hours moderates the effects of FWC on WFHP to address the research gap in the existing literature concerning the role of working hours in work-from-home productivity, and the below research questions (RQs) which served as a roadmap for the current study:

RQ1: How does Family–Work Conflict affect Work-from-Home Productivity, and what is the mechanism behind their effect?

RQ2: How do working hours moderate the negative association between Family–Work Conflict and Work-from-Home Productivity?

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: the section “Literature review” provides a comprehensive review of the pertinent literature, including the theoretical background, contextual literature, and core literature, and also presents the research model and hypotheses. Section “Methodology” outlines the research methodology and details the data collection process, while the section “Findings” presents the findings of the study. Finally, the section “Discussion” presents the discussion, conclusions, and comments on the significance and limitations of this research.

Literature review

Working from home: from a flexible working method to a mandatory requirement in the covid-19 era.

WFH refers to the practice of working from home (away from the main office) on one or more days per week (Hill et al., 2003 ). WFH offers employees a multitude of advantages such as flexibility and autonomy, balancing work, performing non-work activities, saving on commuting time, and the additional conveniences of WFH (Afrianty et al., 2022 ; O’Hara, 2014 ). The concept of WFH, first advanced in the 1970s as telework, is the option to perform work at different locations based on technological assistance (van Meel, 2011 ). WFH is a flexible working method for employees that many enterprises and organisations have used for some time (Farooq and Sultana, 2021 ). It has long been linked to workplace programmes that promote WLB and has been frequently used by large corporations in many Western countries to support WLB (Mestre, 1998 ). From a human resource management (HRM) perspective, the positive influence of WFH on employee work attitudes, behaviour, and performance is widely recognised (Crosbie and Moore, 2004 ).

With the COVID-19 outbreaks, WFH has been implemented in 213 countries and territories worldwide (Mukhtar, 2020 ). The ongoing pandemic has brought about significant changes in the way that people work and, in some cases, whether they work at all. A considerable number of individuals have chosen to stay in their homes, either to protect themselves from the disease or due to government-imposed shelter-in-place orders (Farooq and Sultana, 2021 ). Furthermore, many governments have strictly applied social distancing policies, limited mass gatherings, reduced the number of workers in offices, promoted WFH, and applied information technology media to work online (Brodeur et al., 2021 ). Following the implementation of social distancing policies, numerous companies worldwide are still planning to reduce the number of employees working in traditional office settings, thereby enabling and promoting remote work opportunities for their workforce (Xiao et al., 2021 ). As a result, the pandemic has prompted governments and organisations to reconsider their perspectives on WFH and its effectiveness (Farooq and Sultana, 2021 ), with WFH becoming a mandatory government requirement during the pandemic period (Vyas and Butakhieo, 2021 ; Waizenegger et al., 2020 ).

Work from home during the COVID-19 Level 3 Alert in Taiwan

As with other countries and territories worldwide, Taiwan is not immune to the impacts of the pandemic (Lei and Klopack, 2020 ). Although considered one of the more successful countries in fighting the disease (Chien et al., 2020 ; Shokoohi et al., 2020 ) with only 1244 cases recorded up to May 2021, Taiwan faced the first wave of the pandemic with 14,634 cases as reported in June 27 (Taiwan Centers for Disease Control, 2022 ). Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic is a level 3 alert. Prevention solutions are being strictly applied, social distancing is required, and WFH is being promoted by the government and businesses (Kuo, 2021 ; Tan et al., 2021 ).

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

Theoretical foundation, role conflict theory.

Kahn et al. ( 1964 ) proposed the Role Conflict Theory, wherein role conflicts address the “simultaneous occurrence of two (or more) sets of pressures, such that compliance with one would make more difficult compliance with the other” (Kahn et al., 1964 ). FWC is rooted in role conflict theory and posits that individuals possess a limited pool of resources, such as time and energy, which must be allocated among various roles. Consequently, conflicts arising from multiple roles can lead to stress and subsequently diminish employee engagement, efficiency, and productivity (Foy et al., 2019 ; Garg, 2015 ; Wang et al., 2022 ).

Resource drain theory

Resource Drain Theory states that individuals are unable to match the expectations of an additional domain because they must make compromises when distributing their time and energy across two domains (Rothbard and Edwards, 2003 ). According to this theory, the conflict between family and work roles arises frequently due to the finite resources that individuals have, such as energy and time, which must be allocated between the demands of their personal lives and any professional responsibilities (Bozoğlu Batı and Armutlulu, 2020 ). Investing resources in one domain increases the likelihood of not being able to meet the expectations of the other domain. This notion is based on the understanding that work and family are interconnected and intertwined, rather than being separate and distinct entities (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985 ; Windeler et al., 2017 ). Role conflict theory and resource drain theory constitute the theoretical background underpinning the present study.

Hypothesis development

Family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity.

Work and family, formerly examined as two independent systems, have been investigated as one system more recently, referred to as the work–family system (Tsang et al., 2023 ). Working parents can suffer from stress due to the intersection between the family and work domains which manifests as a sense of FWC. This is when the demands or expectations of one role are incompatible with the demands or expectations of another role, and conflicts arise (Ren and Foster, 2011 ). The more time and energy individuals allocate to one role, the less time and energy they have available for the other role. Insufficient time and energy to fulfill the demands of both family and job responsibilities are therefore key factors contributing to FWC (Marks, 1977 ). In the setting of FWC, various studies have identified two distinct types of role conflict: work interfering with family duties, known as work–family conflict (WFC), and family interfering with work responsibilities, known as FWC (Gutek et al., 1991 ). For research purposes, this research explores FWC as a separate factor. Meanwhile, productivity is commonly defined as the measure of output or quantity of production that results from performance behaviours along with external contextual factors and opportunities (Farooq and Sultana, 2021 ). In the current study, it refers to the employees’ perceived work productivity during the practice of WFH.

FWC has been explored to date in studies on employee satisfaction, engagement, performance, and productivity, including during the COVID-19 period (Graham et al., 2021 ; Karakose et al., 2021 ; Kulik and Ramon, 2022 ). Several studies have found that conflict between family and work had negative consequences on emotional health, physical well-being, and life satisfaction (Cohen and Liani, 2009 ; Schieman et al., 2003 ; Singh and Nayak, 2015 ). As a result, FWC can lower employee productivity and performance (Mohsin and Zahid, 2012 ). For example, an employee’s personal issues spilling into the workplace can cause the employee to waste time and lose focus on the job (Perry, 1982 ). Therefore, the person must rearrange their schedule to accommodate the competing demands of family and work (Barnett, 1994 ).

Another issue that arises is psychological interference which refers to the transfer of moods or emotional states generated in the work domain to the family domain (Hughes et al., 1992 ). At home, psychological interference has an impact on a worker’s mood and energy levels which can subsequently contribute to role conflicts, in turn negatively impacting the employee’s performance at work. Home-to-work spillover, according to Crouter ( 1984 ), is defined as the employee’s distressing objective demands and thoughts on family matters. Additionally, several prior research es have identified a significant negative association between FWC and work productivity (Anderson et al., 2002 ; Reina et al., 2017 ; Witt and Carlson, 2006 ). Based on this theorisation, it is hypothesised that:

H1: FWC has a significant negative effect on WFHP

Work engagement and self-efficacy as mediators

“ WE refers to employees emotional commitment to their company. Engagement is described as the ‘harnessing of the self of organisation members to their job roles; people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally in engagement during role performances” (Nguyen et al., 2021 , p. 205). Moreover, WE is recognised as a positive and fulfilling state of mind related to work. It is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption in one’s job or tasks (Nguyen et al., 2021 ; Schaufeli et al., 2002 ). Employees are considered to be engaged with their organisations when they put their all into their work (Nguyen et al., 2021 ). In this study, the definition was adapted to the WFH context. Previous research found that employees who work in a resourceful workplace were energised, enthusiastic, and immersed in their tasks (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014 ; Suan and Nasurdin, 2014 ). Stressful, conflictual, and demanding settings, on the other hand, can undermine employee WE (Coetzee and De Villiers, 2010 ). As a result, FWC is able to negatively affect WE. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:

H2: FWC has a significant negative effect on WE.

Additionally, WE is a critical motivational concept that leads to positive outcomes (C. Barnes and E. Collier, 2013 ), and research suggests that engaged employees contribute to positive organisational outcomes. Business leaders acknowledge that highly engaged employees can significantly enhance productivity and improve a firm’s performance, especially in rapidly evolving markets (Tsang et al., 2023 ). In simpler terms, engaged employees exhibit enthusiasm toward their work, feel a sense of happiness when working for their company, and demonstrate an eagerness to come to work each day (Hanaysha, 2016 ). Furthermore, engaged employees are critical to their organisations’ ability to maintain a competitive advantage and increase work productivity (Albrecht et al., 2015 ; Hanaysha, 2016 ; Takahashi et al., 2022 ). Studies also indicate that WE positively affect employee performance and productivity. Enhancing employee engagement is a positive way to improve work performance and productivity (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010 ; Geldenhuys et al., 2014 ). Aryee et al. ( 2016 ) and Şahin and Yozgat ( 2021 ) found that WE mediate the significant negative relationship between FWC and work performance. Based on the above discussion, we argue that in a WFH setting, employee engagement plays a mediating role in the negative effect of FWC on WFHP. Hence, it is hypothesised that:

H3: WE has a significant positive effect on WFHP.

H4: WE mediates the negative relationship between FWC and WFHP.

SE is a critical personal resource that mitigates the negative effects of job demands (Mihalca et al., 2021 ; Perrewé et al., 2002 ) because SE pertains to the individual’s beliefs in their own capabilities to meet the demands of a given situation and successfully perform specific tasks (Mihalca et al., 2021 ). In this study, SE is defined as occupational self-efficacy based on the self-efficacy energy concept of Rigotti et al. ( 2008 ), which describes the level of SE during WFH. As mentioned above, resource drain theory proposes that people who are heavily invested in one position will inevitably lack the resources required to fulfil their other responsibilities. People with FWC devote more time and attention to their family responsibilities, leaving them with fewer resources to meet their professional demands (Peng et al., 2010 ). Cohen and Kirchmeyer ( 1995 ) suggest that having inadequate resources available for work may jeopardise an employee’s ability to fulfil job tasks, lowering their sense of personal competence. Additionally, research findings indicate that trainees who experience more situational constraints, such as conflicting time demands, were less likely to believe that they could master the training materials successfully (Mathieu et al., 1993 ). Prior research also indicates a negative association between FWC and SE (Netemeyer et al., 1996 ; Peng et al., 2010 ). Therefore, the below hypothesis is stated:

H5: FWC has a negative effect on SE.

Previous studies have demonstrated that employees with high self-efficacy (SE) beliefs are more likely to possess confidence in their ability to effectively fulfil the job requirements, even in the presence of various job-related stressors (Nguyen et al., 2021 ; Stetz et al., 2006 ). Therefore, their productivity also tends to be relatively high. According to Walumbwa et al. ( 2005 ), a higher level of job self-efficacy is associated with more positive work attitudes. Additionally, employees with a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to enhance their work performance and productivity (Tabatabaei et al., 2013 ). Therefore, the below hypothesis is stated:

H6: SE has a significant positive effect on WFHP.

Furthermore, there are currently few studies investigating the mediation of SE in the association between FWC and WFHP, especially in the context of the pandemic. However, several studies found that there is a mediation due to SE in the association between FWC and job satisfaction (Peng et al., 2010 ) and between job performance and other input variables (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2017 ). As a result, we argue that SE is a mediator in the relationship between FWC and WFHP, and we hypothesise that:

H7: SE mediates the negative relationship between FWC and WFHP.

Working hours as a moderator between family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity

Collewet and Sauermann ( 2017 ) found that working hours negatively relate to productivity. Moreover, role conflict theory and resource drain theory maintain that people have limited resources, such as time and energy, to distribute across several responsibilities (Kahn et al., 1964 ). Based on this view, an increase in working hours can cause conflicts that affect productivity (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985 ). In the present study, working hours are measured by the number of assigned WFH days (WFHDs) per week per employee. Therefore, we hypothesise that:

H8: The negative relationship between FWC and WFHP is stronger for employees with more work-from-home days than for the employees with less work-from-home days.

Control variables

Some demographic variables, including gender, age, work experience, the work field, and a number of children, may significantly affect WFHP (Kattenbach et al., 2010 ; Schieman and Glavin, 2008 ; White et al., 2003 ). According to traditional views, work is the role of men while housework and family responsibilities are the duties of women (Gutek et al., 1981 ). This custom has survived despite changes in recent decades. Women continue to devote more time to their children, the household, and the family than men do (Peng et al., 2010 ). Taiwan is strongly influenced by Confucianism, so the view that housework is the duty of women is very evident (Takeuchi and Tsutsui, 2016 ). Therefore, the present study also examines whether WFHP varies between the different categories of these variables. The research model is drawn in Fig. 1 .

A framework for analysing the relationship between family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity, with work engagement and self-efficacy as mediators and work-from-home days (WFHDs) as moderators.

Methodology

Research design.

On the basis of the existing literature, the current study plans to tackle two research questions: ‘How does FWC affect WFHP and what is the mechanism behind the effect?’ and ‘How do working hours moderate the negative association between FWC and WFHP?’ To answer these two research questions, the present study adopted the form of descriptive research because the prior studies have demonstrated that descriptive research explores the relationships between the selected variables (de Vaus, 2001 ; Dulock, 1993 ). Based on two well-known theories, namely the role conflict and resource drain theories, we propose a multiple mediator model to investigate whether FWC has a negative effect on WFHP through the mediating role of WE and SE, as well as whether working hours play a moderating role in the negative association between FWC and WFHP. The research findings will have some theoretical and practical implications in the field.

Research approach

Based on the research design, our study adopted a quantitative approach. The primary data was collected based on a questionnaire survey and then processed using specialised statistical software, SPSS, and AMOS, to test the proposed hypotheses. We adopted the quantitative approach for the following reasons:

Firstly, quantitative research is a systematic and empirical approach that gathers and analyses data using statistical and numerical methods in order to test hypotheses and make generalisations about a population (Mohajan, 2020 ). Through the moderating roles of work engagement and self-efficacy, this method is good for studying complex relationships between the selected variables, such as the association between FWC and WFHP.

Secondly, using a quantitative approach in the current study allowed the authors to determine the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables (Choy, 2014 ; Nardi, 2018 ; Queirós et al., 2017 ) as well as to test the mediating effect of work engagement and self-efficacy on the relationship between family–work conflict and work from home productivity. This was achieved through statistical methods such as regression analysis and path analysis, which helped us identify the relationships between the variables and estimate their effects (Bazeley, 2004 ; Somekhe and Lewin, 2005 ).

Thirdly, a quantitative approach allowed the authors to gather data from a large sample of the population compared to the qualitative approach, which increased the external validity of the findings (Yilmaz, 2013 ).

A printed questionnaire was developed to have two sections. The first section measured the respondents’ basic information. The second section included subscales to measure four constructs, namely FWC, WE, SE, and WFHP.

The first section was comprised of seven questions. The first question, gender, was categorised as (1) female and (2) male. The second question asks for the participant’s age, with four levels (1) 18–30, (2) 31–40, (3) 41–50, and (4) more than 50. The third question, working experience, was divided into four categories, including (1) <2 years, (2) 2–5 years, (3) 6–10 years, and (4) more than 10 years. The fourth question, the working field, included five options, namely: (1) production management, (2) marketing, (3) administrative affairs, (4) financial accounting, and (5) other. The fifth question, the number of children, consisted of four categories including (1) no child, (2) 1 child (3) 2 children, and (4) more than 2 children. The sixth question asked the respondents for the number of WFH days they worked during the COVID–19 level 3 alert in 2021 with four options, specifically (1) <2 days, (2) 2–3 days, (3) 4–5 days, and (4) more than 5 days. The final question, a yes/no question, asked the respondents whether they WFH during the COVID-19 level 3 alert from May 2021 onward. The purpose of this question was to eliminate from our research sample respondents with the answer “no” to ensure that the research object, employees with WFH experiences during the COVID-19 period, was valid.

The second section comprised four subsections. The first subsection, FWC, included five items adapted from Netemeyer et al. ( 1996 ): “My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime”, for example. The second subsection was comprised of nine items adapted from Schaufeli et al. ( 2006 ) to assess WE. An example item is “When I work from home, I feel full of energy.” The third subsection, SE, consisted of six items adapted from Rigotti et al. ( 2008 ). An example item is “I can stay calm when I encounter difficulties at work because I can rely on my own abilities.” The final subsection, WFHP, included seven items adapted from Irawanto et al. ( 2021 ): for example, “I’m productive when I work from home.”

In this study, all of these constructs were self-reporting scales using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. The original Cronbach’s Alpha value for the constructs was >0.6 (Nunnally, 1978 ).

Instrument validity and reliability

The instrument’s validity and reliability were ensured. In the beginning, the constructs were chosen from prior studies. After that, they were adjusted for the current investigation. To collect data in Taiwan, the research team employed a multi-step process. Firstly, two high school English teachers translated the original English questionnaire into Chinese. Subsequently, two different English teachers performed a back-translation to ensure the validity of the instrument. Additionally, three professionals in the field of human resource management were invited to assess the suitability of the questions. To enhance face validity, five employees completed the survey and provided feedback for further improvements. A pilot test involving 50 participants was then conducted to ensure comprehensibility and ease of answering the questions. It’s important to note that these participants were excluded from the official survey. Prior to administering the official survey, Cronbach’s alpha value was pre-tested using the pilot test data. The item’s total correlation exceeded 0.3, and Cronbach’s alpha values for the four constructs in the pilot test surpassed the minimum acceptable value of 0.60 (Nunnally, 1978 ).

Sampling method

In the current study, we adopted a non-probability convenience sampling technique to recruit the research participants and select the sample size. Although probability sampling techniques are generally preferred in quantitative research due to their ability to ensure representativeness and to reduce the risk of bias in the sample (DeVellis and Thorpe, 2021 ), other researchers also argue that in some circumstances, non-probability sampling may be used when the population of interest is difficult to define or when the sample size is small and the research question is exploratory in nature (Creswell and Creswell, 2017 ).

In the present study, our population of interest was difficult to define. Moreover, our study was in the context of COVID-19, which can change rapidly within hours, so we, therefore, needed to obtain data quickly for the exploratory research questions. Moreover, other researchers have argued that despite its limitations, non-probability sampling can still provide valuable insights and serve as a starting point for future studies that utilise probability sampling (Creswell and Creswell, 2017 ). Therefore, we believe that it was the most appropriate method for our study given the specific circumstances and research questions.

Data collection and procedure

The questionnaire was developed specifically for the purpose of gathering data from WFH employees in Taiwan. Because it is impossible to know the total number of the target population, we calculated the minimum sample size using the formula proposed by Tabachnick and Fidell ( 1996 ) in addition to regression analysis: n  = 50 + 8 ∗ m (where m is the number of independent variables). Other researchers have similarly noted that larger sample sizes provide a more accurate representation of the characteristics of the populations that they are drawn from (Cronbach et al., 1972 ; Marcoulides and Heck, 1993 ). Therefore, the present study collected higher than the minimum sample size suggested. With the support of the Rotary International Group in Taiwan, a questionnaire was sent directly to 1307 employees of SMEs in Taipei (8 enterprises), New Taipei (7 enterprises), Taichung (7 enterprises), and Tainan (8 enterprises). The questionnaire was distributed between November 11 and December 29, 2021. Returned questionnaires numbered 1177, with a response rate of 90.1%. In order to increase the response rate, besides support from the Rotary International Group, we also gave the respondents gifts, such as medical masks or convenience store vouchers of 20 NTD.

Because of the purpose of the research, the research participants had to be employees who had WFH during the COVID-19 period. As a result, after collecting the data, we eliminated cases where there was no work-from-home status, cases where data was missing, and other outliers; 785 valid cases were used for the analysis. The participants’ information is shown in Table 1 .

Data analysis strategy

The SPSS v.22 programme was used to conduct the primary analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. To assess univariate normality, cases with z scores exceeding ±3.29 ( p  < 0.001) were identified as outliers, following the approach outlined by Tabachnick et al. ( 2007 ). In order to mitigate issues of multicollinearity, all variance inflation factors (VIFs) needed to be <5 (Hair et al., 2019 ), as recommended by Hair et al. ( 2019 ). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the AMOS v.20 software to examine the convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, the proposed hypotheses were tested using Process Macro (Model 5).

Common method variance and descriptive statistics

Common method variance (CMV) refers to the potential bias that arises when data for two or more variables are collected from the same source, leading to a correlation between the variables that may be misleadingly inflated (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). This study collected data from the same source utilising self-reported data which could lead to common technique bias. Harman’s single-factor matrix was used to determine the CMV of all items. The results show that the factor with the highest variance was 30.42%, which is less than the threshold of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Hence, there was no CMV in the present study. All VIFs were <5 (Hair et al., 1995 ). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the study construct.

Measurement model evaluation

To evaluate the measurement model, a two-step analysis was conducted. Firstly, principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to assess the construct validity of the variables included in the study. A factor loading of 0.5 or higher (Hair et al., 1995 ) was used as the threshold to determine satisfactory construct validity. Additionally, an eigenvalue of at least 1 was considered, and the Varimax rotation method with Kaiser normalisation was applied during the analysis. The results of the PCA are presented in Table 3 with no items omitted.

After performing the PCA, we also checked the Cronbach’s alpha values of the main variables. The results indicate that all Cronbach’s alphas were higher than 0.8, thus exceeding the minimum permitted value of 0.60 (Nunnally, 1978 ). In the second step, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilised to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity. Construct reliability was assessed by examining the composite reliability (CR) values with a threshold of 0.70 commonly considered acceptable (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988 ). All factor loadings were higher than 0.6, and all were significant (Hair et al., 2010 ). All average variance extracted (AVE) estimations exceeded 0.50, indicating convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010 ) (see Table 4 ).

Table 5 further demonstrates that the CFA measurement model (fit indices: CMIN/df < 3, RMSEA < 0.05, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.90, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) > 0.90) implies a good level of fitness. Table 6 shows that all correlations between each pair of constructs were less than the square root of the AVE, indicating that the discriminant validity was sufficient.

Hypothesis testing

Preacher and Hayes’s ( 2004 ) mediation analysis, i.e. PROCESS Macro (model 5), was employed to test the proposed hypotheses. The results show that FWC was negatively related to WFHP ( β  = −0.26, p  < 0.001), supporting H1. This finding is in accordance with the previous findings demonstrating the effect of FWC on WFHP (Anderson et al., 2002 ; Reina et al., 2017 ; Witt and Carlson, 2006 ). FWC negatively influenced WE ( β  = −0.30, p  < 0.001), supporting H2. Although this relationship has been identified in previous studies (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014 ; Suan and Nasurdin, 2014 ), our results confirm the negative relationship between FWC and WE in the context of COVID-19. Furthermore, WE was positively related to WFHP ( β  = 0.11, p  < 0.01), supporting H3. This finding is in line with the previous studies (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008 ; Markos and Sridevi, 2010 ). Additionally, the PROCESS (model 5) showed that WE mediated the relationship between FWC and WFHP ( β  = −0.03 , LLCI = −0.0634 , ULCI = −0.0063), supporting H4. This study has explored the mediator of WE in relation to the association between FWC and WFHP (Aryee et al., 2016 ; Şahin and Yozgat, 2021 ), and this mediating role was also evident in the COVID-19 context. On the other hand, FWC was negatively associated with SE ( β  = −0.25, p  < 0.001), confirming H5 and the previous findings (Netemeyer et al., 1996 ; Peng et al., 2010 ). SE positively affects WFHP ( β  = 0.37, p  < 0.001), supporting H6. This result echoes the previous findings (Tabatabaei et al., 2013 ). In addition, SE mediated the association between FWC and WFHP ( β  = −0.09, LLCI = −0.1242 , ULCI = −0.0621), confirming H7. This is one of the notable findings of our study. As a result, these research findings indicate that FWC negatively affects WFHP and that this effect’s mechanism includes both direct and indirect effects through the partial mediation roles of WE and SE. The findings solve the first research question.

The results of the PROCESS also indicate that the interaction between FWC and WFHDs ( β  = −0.07, SE  = 0.02, t  = −2.87, p  < 0.01, LLCI = −0.1150, ULCI = −0.0216) negatively affected WFHP. The slope test indicated that the negative effect of FWC on WFHP was stronger for employees with more work-from-home days than for those with less, supporting H8. The findings show the role of WFHDs in the negative relationship between FWC and WFHP. According to the research findings, the negative relationship between FWC and WFHP will reduce when the employees are assigned fewer WFHDs. The moderating role of WFHDs can be attributed to the employees’ limited resources, such as time and energy, that they need to distribute across several responsibilities (Kahn et al., 1964 ). As a result, an increase in working hours may result in conflicts that reduce productivity (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985 ). We examined the conditional effect of FWC on WFHP at three values of WFHDs: at the mean value ( β  = −0.28, p  < 0.001), at 1 SD below ( β  = −0.14, p  < 0.01), and at 1 SD above the mean ( β  = −0.35, p  < 0.001). The interaction plot is depicted in Fig. 2 .

WFHDs strengthen the negative relationship between FWC and WFHP. Note: Work-from-home days: WFHDs, family–work conflict: FWC, work-from-home productivity: WFHP.

The effect of the control variables, such as gender, age, work experience, working field, and the number of children, on WFHP, was investigated to determine whether there were any significant differences between the levels of the control variables. The ANOVA results indicated that there were no significant differences between the levels of work experience, working field, and number of children in relation to WFHP. In contrast, there were significant differences between males ( M  = 3.60, SE = 0.03) and females ( M  = 3.37, SE = 0.04) in relation to WFHP ( F (1, 783) = 20.478, p  < 0.001, η 2  = 0.03). This difference can be attributed to the strong influence of Confucianism in Taiwan which results in many believing that housework is the duty of women (Takeuchi and Tsutsui, 2016 ). Therefore, the WFHP among women was lower than that among men. Table 7 presents the ANOVA table, and Fig. 3 presents the study’s model for the results.

Work engagement and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity. Work-from-home days (WFHDs) strengthen the negative relationship between family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity. Note: *** p  < 0.001, ** p  < 0.01, coefficients for indirect effects are in parentheses.

This study has proposed a new model to investigate the association between FWC and WFHP in Taiwan during the COVID-19 period. All proposed hypotheses in the research were found to be supported. The findings indicate that FWC negatively affects WE, SE, and WFHP because, according to role conflict theory and resource drain theory, people have a limited number of resources (in terms of time and energy) to allocate to various roles. Consequently, conflicting roles can cause stress and reduce employee engagement, efficiency, and productivity (Foy et al., 2019 ; Garg, 2015 ; Wang et al., 2022 ). Moreover, resource drain theory indicates that investing resources in one function raises the likelihood of not being able to fulfil the expectations of the other. Therefore, employees with FWC may exhibit reduced productivity. These findings echo the prior studies (Anderson et al., 2002 ; Bakker and Demerouti, 2014 ; Coetzee and De Villiers, 2010 ; Suan and Nasurdin, 2014 ; Mohsin and Zahid, 2012 ; Peng et al., 2010 ; Reina et al., 2017 ).

The results show that when WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic, employees could encounter conflicts with their family responsibilities which influenced their productivity, SE and WE (Graham et al., 2021 ; Karakose et al., 2021 ; Kulik and Ramon, 2022 ; Peng et al., 2010 ). In contrast, when these conflicts were controlled, SE, WE, and productivity were enhanced (Schieman et al., 2003 ). Furthermore, our study found that WE was an antecedent of WFHP, in that WE positively affects WFHP. This can be attributed to employees with a higher level of WE being enthusiastic about their work and happy to work every day (Hanaysha, 2016 ). Engaged employees are thus critical to increased work productivity in their organisations (Albrecht et al., 2015 ; Hanaysha, 2016 ; Takahashi et al., 2022 ). These findings echo the previous findings that work productivity and work performance are influenced by WE (Demerouti and Cropanzano, 2010 ; Geldenhuys et al., 2014 ). Similarly, the positive association between SE and WFHP was confirmed in our study. Various studies on HRM determined that a higher level of SE will increase a positive work attitude, performance, and productivity (Lim and Loo, 2003 ; Tabatabaei et al., 2013 ; Walumbwa et al., 2005 ), and our research confirms the relationship in the WFH context under COVID-19 conditions.

Our findings explored the partial mediation of WE in the relationship between FWC and WFHP. WE has been identified as a mediator between FWC and work performance or productivity (Aryee et al., 2016 ; Şahin and Yozgat, 2021 ). One of the interesting results of our research was the partial mediation of SE in the negative association between FWC and WFHP. As discussed in the literature review, there is currently little research assessing the mediation of SE in the link between FWC and WFHP, particularly in light of the current pandemic situation. Limited studies have discovered that SE plays a mediating function in the relationship between FWC and job satisfaction (Peng et al., 2010 ) or that there is a mediation function due to SE in the association between job performance and other input factors (Beltrán-Martín et al., 2017 ; Walumbwa and Hartnell, 2011 ). This is a striking finding in our research, specifically how SE mediates the negative association between FWC and WFHP, especially in the COVID-19 context.

Although not yet noted in studies on WFH in the pandemic context, our research has established the moderating role of working hours. The present study indicates that during the COVID-19 situation in Taiwan, an increase in FWC caused a decrease in WFHP and that this negative relationship was stronger for employees with more work-from-home days than for those with less. This is in line with the role conflict theory and resource drain theory perspectives (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985 ), and previous HRM studies (Collewet and Sauermann, 2017 ; Kattenbach et al., 2010 ). Further, WFHP was found to be higher for Taiwanese male employees than for females. This echoes the prior research on HRM (Bezabih et al., 2016 ; Sandström and Hällsten, 2008 ). However, although Taiwanese society is modernising, the responsibility of taking care of the family still belongs to women (Takeuchi and Tsutsui, 2016 ). This is one of the main causes of the differences in the results.

In conclusion, our findings have determined that WE and SE partially mediate the negative association between FWC and WFHP. The findings provide evidence for the importance of psychological factors when it comes to explaining the impact of family–work conflict on WFHP during the pandemic. Specifically, employees with higher levels of WE and SE are less likely to experience negative effects on their productivity as a result of FWC. One of our new findings, which has filled in the research gaps in the existing literature, is the partial mediating role of SE in the association between FWC and WFHP.

Additionally, the findings show that working hours moderate the association between FWC and WFHP, with the negative effects of FWC being stronger for employees who spend more time working from home. These findings are important for organisations and employees as they navigate the challenges of WFH arrangements in light of the pandemic.

Theoretical implications

Firstly, our study is one of the pioneers in terms of proposing a predictive model for WFHP among small and medium-sized enterprise employees in Taiwan during the COVID-19 period. We propose that our research adds to the knowledge base on remote work and remote worker productivity during the pandemic. Furthermore, the research results are notable because they show how family and work problems affect the productivity of workers who have had to switch to full-time WFH.

Secondly, our research answered Hanaysha’s ( 2016 ) call to focus on a larger sample of SME employees, a factor that is often neglected in previous studies on WFH, especially in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research fills in a gap in the literature on the regulatory role of working hours in the context of WFH, especially in terms of the association between FWC and WFHP during the pandemic, by showing that working hours are different when it comes to the relationship between FWC and WFHP. Although prior research has reported inconsistent results concerning whether WFHP differs between men and women, our study demonstrates that WFHP does vary between men and women, adding to the body of evidence for a gender difference in WFHP.

Thirdly, an important extension of our study can be found in the inclusion of SE in the predictive model of WFHP for workers in Taiwan during the pandemic. Our study adds to the body of knowledge about the mediation of SE in the negative association between FWC and WFHP that has largely been overlooked in previous research.

Managerial implications

Our findings provide some practical implications for managers, the government, and management.

Firstly, FWC was found to be one of the determinants of the decrease in WFHP. This implies that the harmonious resolution of family and work conflicts will contribute to improving the employees’ working productivity in the process of WFH. Therefore, it is necessary for Taiwanese SMEs to transfer family-friendly human resource management practices and related policies from Western contexts to Taiwan. Moreover, employers who consider their employees to be a competitive resource may consider implementing family-friendly policies to help their employees balance work and family tasks. Our results show that employers and managers should pay extra attention to how women employees balance their work and family responsibilities.

Secondly, the current study provides evidence that WE improve employee productivity significantly, even in an emergency situation like COVID-19. Therefore, companies should place a high value on employee engagement and monitor their progress on a regular basis to ensure positive working outcomes. To do so, we strongly recommend employers undertake frequent online surveys during WFH to gain a thorough understanding of their employees’ levels of job engagement and FWC. As a result of such actions, employers will be able to establish appropriate methods for addressing emergent difficulties more quickly. Employers should use an online two-way communication strategy with their employees throughout the WFH time to allow employees to communicate their thoughts on their employment, challenges, and any concerns that may impair their productivity. If such attention were paid to employees, they would be more interested in and motivated by their work.

Thirdly, SE was found to be a mediator in the negative association between FWC and WFHP. Hence, employers should recognise their employees’ SE and provide support to improve it during their WFH time. Schunk et al. ( 2012 ) indicated that verbal persuasion and vicarious modelling are two sources of SE that employers can focus on. Offering professional training and WFH skills development programmes can greatly boost employee confidence and SE (verbal persuasion) and by assigning mentors and team leaders who exhibit highly self-efficacious behaviours during the WFH period (vicarious modelling). Companies can also provide employees with continual encouragement and emotional support by setting up communication channels to hear their voices during WFH time. In addition, companies can prioritise SE in their recruitment process by conducting staff selection interviews and requiring candidates to complete SE tests. This will assist businesses in attracting strong-SE employees.

Finally, although WFH is considered to be an effective solution in the context of the pandemic, our study reported a stronger negative relationship between FWC and WFHP in employees with an excessive WFH duration. It may therefore be advisable for governments and employers to consider implementing specific regulations on how long each person should work from home in a week. The duration should not be too long to avoid affecting work efficiency or an increase in FWC.

Limitations and suggestions for further study

There were several limitations in the research. Firstly, we adopted a non-probability convenience sampling technique, which limits the generalisability of our findings. We recommend that future studies employ a random sampling technique. Secondly, the cross-sectional design was a limitation because while it allowed us to trace the links between the investigated constructs, it did not allow us to determine whether there were any causal links between the variables. In addition, future studies should also test the moderating role of some of the demographic variables such as gender and number of children. This study only examined employees in Taiwan, and future research can include samples from more than one country to enable researchers to compare and contrast the results in light of the differences in national contexts and levels of socioeconomic development.

Data availability

The datasets generated or analysed during the current study are available in the Dataverse repository: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SL0ZQD or upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Afrianty TW, Artatanaya IG, Burgess J (2022) Working from home effectiveness during Covid-19: evidence from university staff in Indonesia. Asia Pac Manag Rev 27(1):50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.05.002

Ahmadi F, Zandi S, Cetrez ÖA, Akhavan S (2022) Job satisfaction and challenges of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: a study in a Swedish academic setting. Workforce-Costa Mesa 71(2):357–370

Google Scholar  

Albrecht SL, Bakker AB, Gruman JA, Macey WH, Saks AM (2015) Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage. J Organ Eff 2(1):7–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2014-0042

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson SE, Coffey BS, Byerly RT (2002) Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: links to work–family conflict and job-related outcomes. J Manage 28(6):787–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800605

Aryee S, Walumbwa FO, Gachunga H, Hartnell CA (2016) Workplace family resources and service performance: the mediating role of work engagement. Afr J Manag 2(2):138–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2016.1175265

Bagozzi R, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structure equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16:74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Bakker AB, Demerouti E (2008) Towards a model of work engagement. Career Dev Int 13(3):209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Bakker AB, Demerouti E (2014) Job demands—resources theory. In: Wellbeing: a complete reference guide. pp. 1–28

Barnett RC (1994) Home-to-work spillover revisited: a study of full-time employed women in dual-earner couples. J Marriage Fam 56(3):647–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/352875

Bazeley P (2004) Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Qual Res Organ Manag 141:156

Beltrán-Martín I, Bou-Llusar JC, Roca-Puig V, Escrig-Tena AB (2017) The relationship between high performance work systems and employee proactive behaviour: role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation as mediating mechanisms. Hum Resour Manag J 27(3):403–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12145

Bezabih M, Holden S, Mannberg A (2016) The role of land certification in reducing gaps in productivity between male- and female-owned farms in rural Ethiopia. J Dev Stud 52(3):360–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1081175

Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ (2014) Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ 130(1):165–218

Bonacini L, Gallo G, Scicchitano S (2021) Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. J Popul Econ 34(1):303–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00800-7

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bozoğlu Batı G, Armutlulu İH (2020) Work and family conflict analysis of female entrepreneurs in Turkey and classification with rough set theory. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0498-0

Brodeur A, Gray D, Islam A, Bhuiyan S (2021) A literature review of the economics of COVID-19. J Econ Surv 35(4):1007–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12423

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Barnes CD, Collier EJ (2013) Investigating work engagement in the service environment. J Serv Mark 27(6):485–499. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2012-0021

Cheng HY, Jian SW, Liu DP, Ng TC, Huang WT, Lin HH (2020) Contact tracing assessment of COVID-19 transmission dynamics in Taiwan and risk at different exposure periods before and after symptom onset. JAMA Intern Med 180(9):1156–1163

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chien LC, Beÿ CK, Koenig KL (2020) Taiwan’s successful COVID-19 mitigation and containment strategy: achieving quasi population immunity. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.357

Choy LT (2014) The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR J Humanit Soc Sci 19(4):99–104

Coetzee M, De Villiers M (2010) Sources of job stress, work engagement and career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. South Afr Bus Rev 14:1

Cohen A, Kirchmeyer C (1995) A multidimensional approach to the relation between organizational commitment and nonwork participation. J Vocat Behav 46(2):189–202. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1012

Cohen A, Liani E (2009) Work‐family conflict among female employees in Israeli hospitals. Pers Rev 38(2):124–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910931307

Collewet M, Sauermann J (2017) Working hours and productivity. J Labor Econ 47:96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2017.03.006

Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2017) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, California

MATH   Google Scholar  

Cronbach L, Gleser G, Nanda HR, Rajaratnam M (1972) The dependability of behavioral measurements: The generalizability of scores profiles. Wiley, New York, pp. 1–33

Crosbie T, Moore J (2004) Work–life balance and working from home. Soc Policy Soc 3(3):223–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746404001733

Crouter AC (1984) Spillover from family to work: the neglected side of the work-family interface. Hum Relat 37(6):425–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678403700601

Davies A (2021) COVID-19 and ICT-supported remote working: opportunities for rural economies. World 2(1):139–152. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/2/1/10

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

de Vaus D (2001) Research design in social research. Sage, California

Demerouti E, Cropanzano R (2010) From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance. In: Bakker A, Leiter M (ed) Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research. Psychology Press, New York, pp. 147–163

DeVellis RF, Thorpe CT (2021) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage, California

Dockery AM, Bawa S (2014) Is working from home good work or bad work? Evidence from Australian employees. Aust. J Labour Econ 17(2):163–190

Dulock HL (1993) Research design: descriptive research. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 10(4):154–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/104345429301000406

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Farooq R, Sultana A (2021) The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work from home and employee productivity. Meas Bus Excell. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-12-2020-0173

Feng Z, Savani K (2020) Covid-19 created a gender gap in perceived work productivity and job satisfaction: implications for dual-career parents working from home. Gend Manag 35(7/8):719–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-07-2020-0202

Foy T, Dwyer RJ, Nafarrete R, Hammoud MSS, Rockett P (2019) Managing job performance, social support and work–life conflict to reduce workplace stress. Int J Product Perform Manag 68(6):1018–1041. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2017-0061

Galanti T, Guidetti G, Mazzei E, Zappalà S, Toscano F (2021) Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: the impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. J Occup Environ Med 63(7):e426–e432. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002236

Garg N (2015) Organizational role stress in dual-career couples: mediating the relationship between HPWPs, employee engagement and job satisfaction. IUP J Knowl Manag 13:3

Geldenhuys M, Taba K, Venter CM (2014) Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. J Ind Psychol 40(1):1–10

Graham M, Weale V, Lambert KA, Kinsman N, Stuckey R, Oakman J (2021) Working at home: the impacts of COVID 19 on health, family–work–life conflict, gender, and parental responsibilities. J Occup Environ Med 63(11):938–943. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002337

Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad Manage Rev 10(1):76–88. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4277352

Gutek BA, Nakamura CY, Nieva VF (1981) The interdependence of work and family roles. J Organ Behav 2(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020102

Gutek BA, Searle S, Klepa L (1991) Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family conflict. J Appl Psychol 76(4):560

Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, London

Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2019) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, London

Hair JFJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1995) Multivariate data analysis, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York

Hanaysha J (2016) Improving employee productivity through work engagement: evidence from higher education sector. Manag Sci Lett 6(1):61–70

Hill EJ, Ferris M, Märtinson V (2003) Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. J Vocat Behav 63(2):220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3

Hughes D, Galinsky E, Morris A (1992) The effects of job characteristics on marital quality: specifying linking mechanisms. J Marriage Fam 54(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/353273

Irawanto DW, Novianti KR, Roz K (2021) Work from home: measuring satisfaction between work–life balance and work stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Economies 9(3):96, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/9/3/96

Kahn RL, Wolfe DM, Quinn RP, Snoek JD, Rosenthal RA (1964) Organizational stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley

Karakose T, Yirci R, Papadakis S (2021) Exploring the interrelationship between COVID-19 phobia, work–family conflict, family–work conflict, and life satisfaction among school administrators for advancing sustainable management. Sustainability 13(15):8654, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8654

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kattenbach R, Demerouti E, Nachreiner F (2010) Flexible working times: effects on employees’ exhaustion, work–nonwork conflict and job performance. Career Dev Int 15(3):279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011053749

Kulik L, Ramon D (2022) The relationship between family–work conflict and spousal aggression during the COVID-19 pandemic. Community Work Fam 25(2):240–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2021.1985434

Kuo CC (2021) COVID-19 in Taiwan: economic impacts and lessons learned. Asian Econ Pap 20(2):98–117

Lei MK, Klopack ET (2020) Social and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: the experiences of Taiwan and Hong Kong. Psychol. Trauma 12(S1):S35

Somekhe B, Lewin C (2005) Research methods in the social sciences. Sage, London, pp. 215–225

Lim VKG, Leng Loo G (2003) Effects of parental job insecurity and parenting behaviors on youth’s self-efficacy and work attitudes. J Vocat Behav 63(1):86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00020-9

Ling Suan C, Mohd Nasurdin A (2014) An empirical investigation into the influence of human resource management practices on work engagement: the case of customer-contact employees in Malaysia. Int J Cult Tour Hosp Res 8(3):345–360. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-12-2013-0083

Marcoulides GA, Heck RH (1993) Organizational culture and performance: proposing and testing a model. Organ Sci 4(2):209–225

Markos S, Sridevi MS (2010) Employee engagement: the key to improving performance. Int J Bus Manag 5(12):89

Marks SR (1977) Multiple roles and role strain: some notes on human energy, time and commitment. Am Sociol Rev 42(6):921–936. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094577

Mathieu JE, Martineau JW, Tannenbaum SI (1993) Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: implications for training effectiveness. Pers Psychol 46(1):125–147. 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1993.tb00870.x

Mestre J (1998) Work at home. CIC 322:80–91

Mihalca L, Ratiu LL, Brendea G, Metz D, Dragan M, Dobre F (2021) Exhaustion while teleworking during COVID-19: a moderated-mediation model of role clarity, self-efficacy, and task interdependence. Oecon Copernic 12(2):269–306

Mohajan HK (2020) Quantitative research: a successful investigation in natural and social sciences. J Econom Dev Environ People 9(4):50–79

Mohsin M, Zahid H (2012) The predictors and performance-related outcomes of bi-directional work–family conflict: an empirical study. Afr J Bus 6:46

Morikawa M (2022) Work-from-home productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from Japan. Econ Inq 60(2):508–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13056

Mukhtar S (2020) Psychological health during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic outbreak. Int J Soc Psychiatry 66(5):512–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020925835

Nakrošienė A, Bučiūnienė I, Goštautaitė B (2019) Working from home: characteristics and outcomes of telework. Int J Manpow 40(1):87–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0172

Nardi PM (2018) Doing survey research: a guide to quantitative methods. Routledge

Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McMurrian R (1996) Development and validation of work–family conflict and family–work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol 81(4):400

Nguyen PV, Nguyen LT, Van Doan KN, Tran HQ (2021) Enhancing emotional engagement through relational contracts, management receptiveness, and employee commitment as a stimulus for job satisfaction and job performance in the public sector. Equilibrium 16(1):203–224

Nunnally JC (1978) An overview of psychological measurement. In: Wolman BB (ed) Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: a handbook. Springer, Boston, pp. 97–146

Chapter   Google Scholar  

O’Hara C (2014) 5 ways to work from home more effectively. Harv Bus Rev. https://hbr.org/2014/10/5-ways-to-work-from-home-more-effectively

Peng W, Lawler JJ, Kan S (2010) Work-family conflict, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and gender: evidences from Asia. J Leadersh Organ Stud 17(3):298–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810368546

Perrewé PL, Hochwarter WA, Rossi AM, Wallace A, Maignan I, Castro SL, Van Deusen CA (2002) Are work stress relationships universal? A nine-region examination of role stressors, general self-efficacy, and burnout. J Int Manag 8(2):163–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1075-4253(02)00052-2

Perry K S (1982) Employers and child care: establishing services through the workplace (No. 23). US Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879

Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36(4):717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

Purwanto A, Asbari M, Fahlevi M, Mufid A, Agistiawati E, Cahyono Y, Suryani P (2020) Impact of work from home (WFH) on Indonesian teachers performance during the Covid-19 pandemic: an exploratory study. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 29(5):6235–6244

Putri A, Amran A (2021) Employees work–life balance reviewed from work from home aspect during COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Inf Manage 1(1):30–34. https://doi.org/10.35870/ijmsit.v1i1.231

Queirós A, Faria D, Almeida F (2017) Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Eur J Educ Stud 3:369–387

Ramos JP, Prasetyo YT (2020) The impact of work-home arrangement on the productivity of employees during COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines: a structural equation modelling approach. In: The 6th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering, Macau. pp. 135–140

Reina CS, Peterson SJ, Zhang Z (2017) Adverse effects of CEO family-to-work conflict on firm performance. Manage Sci 28(2):228–243. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1114

Ren X, Foster D (2011) Women’s experiences of work and family conflict in a Chinese airline. Asia Pac Bus Rev 17(3):325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602380903462159

Rigotti T, Schyns B, Mohr G (2008) A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: structural and construct validity across five countries. J Career Assess 16(2):238–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305763

Rothbard NP, Edwards JR (2003) Investment in work and family roles: a test of identity and utilitarian motives. Personal Psychol Rev 56(3):699–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00755.x

Rupietta K, Beckmann M (2018) Working from home. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 70(1):25–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41464-017-0043-x

Şahin S, Yozgat U (2021) Work–family conflict and job performance: mediating role of work engagement in healthcare employees. J Manag Organ 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.13

Sandström U, Hällsten M (2008) Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74(2):75–189

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas 66(4):701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-romá V, Bakker AB (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud 3(1):71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

Schieman S, Glavin P (2008) Trouble at the border?: gender, flexibility at work, and the work–home interface. Soc Probl 55(4):590–611

Schieman S, McBrier DB, Gundy KV (2003) Home-to-work conflict, work qualities, and emotional distress. Sociol Forum (Randolph, NJ) 18(1):137–164. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022658929709

Schunk DH, Meece JR, Pintrich PR (2012) Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications. Pearson Higher Education, Boston

Shokoohi M, Osooli M, Stranges S (2020) COVID-19 pandemic: what can the west learn from the east. Int J Health Policy Manag 9(10):436–438. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.85

Singh R, Nayak JK (2015) Life stressors and compulsive buying behaviour among adolescents in India. South Asian. South Asian J Bus Res 4(2):251–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJGBR-08-2014-0054

Song Y, Gao J (2020) Does telework stress employees out? A study on working at home and subjective well-being for wage/salary workers. J Happiness Stud 21(7):2649–2668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00196-6

Stetz TA, Stetz MC, Bliese PD (2006) The importance of self-efficacy in the moderating effects of social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work Stress 20(1):49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600624039

Sutarto AP, Wardaningsih S, Putri WH (2021) Work from home: Indonesian employees’ mental well-being and productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Workplace Health Manag 14(4):386–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-08-2020-0152

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics. Harper Collins, California

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB (2007) Using multivariate statistics, vol 5. Pearson, Boston

Tabatabaei S, Jashani N, Mataji M, Afsar NA (2013) Enhancing staff health and job performance through emotional intelligence and self-efficacy. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 84:1666–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.011

Taiwan Centers for Disease Control (2022) Confirmed Covid-19 cases on 23 of July 2022. CDC. https://www.cdc.gov.tw/En/Bulletin/Detail/BfYetzBF23lIlj7dGFgnTw?typeid=158 . Accessed 30 Aug

Takeuchi M, Tsutsui J (2016) Combining Egalitarian Working Lives with Traditional Attitudes: Gender Role Attitudes in Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. Int. J. Jpn. Sociol 25:100–116

Takahashi K, Yokoya R, Higuchi T (2022) Mediation of work engagement towards productive behaviour in remote work environments during pandemic: testing the job demands and resources model in Japan. Asia Pac Bus Rev 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2022.2084848

Tan TW, Tan HL, Chang MN, Lin WS, Chang CM (2021) Effectiveness of epidemic preventive policies and hospital strategies in combating COVID-19 outbreak in Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(7):3456, https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3456

Tsang S-S, Liu ZL, Nguyen TVT (2023) Work-from-home intention during the COVID-19 pandemic: a perspective integrating inclusive leadership and protection motivation theory. Int J Manpow. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-11-2022-0541

van Meel J (2011) The origins of new ways of working. Facilities 29(9–10):357–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771111146297

Vyas L, Butakhieo N (2021) The impact of working from home during COVID-19 on work and life domains: an exploratory study on Hong Kong. Policy Des Pract 4(1):59–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1863560

Waizenegger L, McKenna B, Cai W, Bendz T (2020) An affordance perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. Eur J Inf Syst 29(4):429–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1800417

Walumbwa FO, Hartnell CA (2011) Understanding transformational leadership–employee performance links: the role of relational identification and self-efficacy. J Occup Organ Psychol 84(1):153–172. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910×485818

Walumbwa FO, Lawler JJ, Avolio BJ, Peng W, Kan S (2005) Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: the moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures. J Leadersh Organ Stud 11(3):2–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100301

Wang X, Zhang Z, Chun D (2022) How does mobile workplace stress affect employee innovative behavior? The role of work–family conflict and employee engagement. Behav Sci 12(1):2, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/12/1/2

White M, Hill S, McGovern P, Mills C, Smeaton D (2003) ‘High‐performance’ management practices, working hours and work–life balance. Br J Ind Relat 41(2):175–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8543.00268

Windeler JB, Chudoba KM, Sundrup RZ (2017) Getting away from them all: managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. J Organ Behav 38(7):977–995. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2176

Witt LA, Carlson DS (2006) The work–family interface and job performance: moderating effects of conscientiousness and perceived organizational support. J Occup Health Psychol 11(4):343

Wong SYS, Kwok KO, Chan FKL (2020) What can countries learn from Hong Kong’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic? CMAJ 192(19):E511–E515. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200563

Xiao Y, Becerik-Gerber B, Lucas G, Roll SC (2021) Impacts of working from home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation users. J Occup Environ Med 63(3):181–190. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002097

Yabe T, Tsubouchi K, Fujiwara N, Wada T, Sekimoto Y, Ukkusuri SV (2020) Non-compulsory measures sufficiently reduced human mobility in Tokyo during the COVID-19 epidemic. Sci Rep 10(1):18053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75033-5

Yilmaz K (2013) Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. Eur J Educ 48(2):311–325

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Seng-Su Tsang, Zhih-Lin Liu & Thi Vinh Tran Nguyen

Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages—Information Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Thi Vinh Tran Nguyen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation: Z-LL, S-ST. Methodology: Z-LL, S-ST, TVTN, Data analysis: TVTN. Writing—original draft preparation: Z-LL, S-ST. Writing—review and editing: Z-LL, S-ST, TVTN. Supervision: S-ST. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have read and approved the re-submission of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhih-Lin Liu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Our study was not medical research nor employed any experiments on humans, and we used a survey to collect data. According to the Declaration of Helsinki, our institution’s relevant body deemed ethical approval not required. Furthermore, the gathered information is strictly confidential and anonymous and is only used for research purposes.

Informed consent

We obtained informed consent from the participants by enclosing a confirmation question for the consent statement in the research questionnaire.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tsang, SS., Liu, ZL. & Nguyen, T.V.T. Family–work conflict and work-from-home productivity: do work engagement and self-efficacy mediate?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 419 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01929-y

Download citation

Received : 22 October 2022

Accepted : 11 July 2023

Published : 15 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01929-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Productivity dynamics of work from home: Firm-level evidence from Japan

• Open access
• Published: 29 February 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Masayuki Morikawa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9074-3040 1 , 2  

254 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This study documents the changes in work from home (WFH) practices since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic using panel data from original firm surveys in Japan. Particular attention has been given to the productivity dynamics of WFH. The results indicate the following: First, compared to when the first state of emergency was declared in the spring of 2020, at the end of 2021, the ratio of firms utilizing WFH and the intensity of WFH decreased substantially. Second, according to the firms’ evaluations, the mean productivity of WFH improved by more than 10 percentage points, although it was still approximately 20% lower than that of conventional workplaces. The selection effect arising from the exit from this practice among firms with low WFH productivity, and the improvement in productivity among WFH-continuing firms contributed almost equally to the average productivity growth. Third, the majority of firms are planning to discontinue WFH practices and revert to the conventional work style or to reduce WFH intensity after the end of COVID-19, and the gap between firms’ plans and the desire of remote workers is widening.

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of COVID-19 on Japanese firms: mobility and resilience via remote work

Daiji Kawaguchi, Sagiri Kitao & Manabu Nose

Working from home: small business performance and the COVID-19 pandemic

Ting Zhang, Dan Gerlowski & Zoltan Acs

Working from home for good? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and what this means for the future of work

Christian Kagerl & Julia Starzetz

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of firms and workers adopting work from home (WFH) practices increased substantially (see, for example, OECD 2021 ). Footnote 1 Remote work (or telework) refers to work performed outside the usual workplace, which includes the home, a satellite office, or a café. However, during the pandemic, governments have promoted WFH to ensure social distancing and reduce infections. Therefore, this study focuses solely on WFH, including hybrid (partial) WFH as well as full-time WFH. Footnote 2

Many studies have been conducted on WFH in parallel with its development. The trends in WFH practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, the characteristics of workers who perform WFH, and the effect of WFH on labor market outcomes have been well documented (e.g., Béland et al. 2022 ; Brynjolfsson et al. 2020 ; Janys et al. 2021 ; Petroulakis 2023 ). In Japan, Kawaguchi and Motegi ( 2021 ), Kikuchi et al. ( 2021 ), Morikawa ( 2022 , 2023 ), and Okubo et al. ( 2021 ) are examples of such studies. Overall, these studies indicate that high-skilled and high-wage white-collar workers tend to undertake WFH, which alleviates the negative impact of the pandemic on these workers.

Because WFH is an effective means of controlling the spread of infection and maintaining economic activity, many studies have found that increased use of WFH has mitigated its negative impact on GDP and employment (e.g., Eberly et al. 2021 ; Hoshi et al. 2021 ; Kawaguchi et al. 2022 ). Fujii and Nakata ( 2021 ) and Jones et al. ( 2021 ) used the susceptible–infectious–recovered (SIR) macro model to analyze the effects of WFH on the trade-off between output and infection. However, the effect of WFH in mitigating the trade-off between health and economic activity depends not only on the feasibility of WFH but also on its productivity.

Recently, the trade-off has become less severe as the impact of the pandemic has weakened and economic activity is normalizing around the world. However, WFH is still used at a substantially higher level than the pre-pandemic level. Against this backdrop, firms are exploring the appropriate use of WFH in normal times, with some firms trying to make this work style permanent, while others revert to traditional workplace work. Whether WFH will be widely used, even after the pandemic, depends heavily on the productivity of the work style.

However, as discussed in more detail in Section  2 , studies on WFH productivity are still in their infancy and are far from reaching a consensus. The future course of WFH productivity depends on the mechanisms that improve productivity, but the productivity dynamics of WFH – decomposition of productivity change into “selection effects” and “learning effects” – are not well documented. Therefore, this study focuses on the productivity dynamics of the WFH using panel data from surveys of Japanese firms. In addition, by observing changes in firms’ plan to use WFH, we attempt to predict the prospects of WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study finds that, first, at the end of 2021, the ratio of WFH-utilizing firms and the intensity of WFH decreased substantially compared to when the first state of emergency was declared in 2020. Second, the mean productivity of WFH improved by approximately 11 percentage points, although it was still approximately 20% lower than that at usual workplaces. To decompose productivity improvement, the selection effect arising from the exit from this practice among firms with low WFH productivity (selection effects) and productivity growth among WFH-continuing firms (within-effects) contributed almost equally to improved productivity at the aggregate level. Third, around three-quarters of firms are planning to discontinue the WFH practice and revert to the conventional work style or to reduce WFH intensity after the end of COVID-19, indicating that there is a large gap between firms’ intentions and the desires of remote workers. This result suggests a trade-off between the non-pecuniary benefit (or amenity value) of WFH for remote workers and the productivity of this work style.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section  2 selectively overviews the literature related to WFH, focusing on its productivity. Section  3 explains the design of the survey used in this study. Section  4 reports the results on the prevalence, frequency, and productivity of WFH, as well as firms’ plans for WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, section  5 summarizes the conclusions and discusses the implications of the study.

2 Literature review

WFH was practiced even before the COVID-19 pandemic and was regarded as a flexible work style; however, with the exception of self-employed and family workers, very few workers engaged in WFH until recently. Following the sudden and rapid diffusion of WFH triggered by the pandemic, starting with the pioneering work of Dingel and Neiman ( 2020 ), many studies have examined the number of jobs that can be performed at home (e.g., Boeri et al. 2020 ; Brussevich et al. 2022 ). Dingel and Neiman ( 2020 ) estimated that 34% of jobs in the United States could be performed at home. Boeri et al. ( 2020 ) indicated that between 23% (Italy) and 32% (Germany) of the jobs could potentially be carried out at home in major European countries. Brussevich et al. ( 2022 ) estimated the WFH potential of 35 countries, covering developed and emerging economies, from 16% (Turkey) to 32% (Finland). They indicated that there are significant differences in WFH feasibility by job type and that countries with higher income levels have a larger percentage of WFH-feasible jobs.

It should be mentioned that the number of full-time remote workers is small and hybrid WFH that combine work at home and at workplace is prevalent. Recent studies indicate that hybrid WFH is becoming popular in major countries (e.g., Aksoy et al. 2022 ; Barrero et al. 2023 ; Criscuolo et al. 2023 ). In this respect, Adams-Prassl et al. ( 2022 ) and Alipour et al. ( 2023 ) make noteworthy contributions. Adams-Prassl et al. ( 2022 ), using survey data from the United States and the United Kingdom, examined the share of job tasks that can be performed from home on a continuous 0–100% scale. They show that the mean shares are 43% and 41% for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively. Alipour et al. ( 2023 ) estimate Germany’s overall capacity to work from home by including not only full-time WFH-feasible jobs but also partial WFH-feasible jobs, and find that 56% of jobs can be done from home, at least partially.

However, as Dingel and Neiman ( 2020 ) point out, productivity at home may differ significantly from that in regular workplaces. Therefore, the productivity of WFH needs to be assessed to estimate the quantitative effects of mitigating the trade-offs between infection risk and economic activity as well as to consider the outlook of WFH after the pandemic.

Theoretically, the effects of WFH on productivity can be both positive and negative (e.g., Deole et al. 2023 ; Felstead and Reuschke 2023 ; Van der Lippe and Lippényi 2020 ). Worker productivity may increase owing to greater autonomy in allocating work time, the ability to concentrate on work without interruptions from colleagues, and reduced commute fatigue. In terms of overall firm productivity, the possibility of saving office space also contributes positively to TFP (Bloom et al. 2015 ). However, loss of face-to-face communication may negatively affect productivity, making it difficult to exchange informal tacit knowledge, build trust, and monitor workers. For employees who are suddenly forced to work from home by the COVID-19 pandemic, the limitations of their work environment and ICT infrastructure at home may also have a negative impact on their productivity. However, productivity may gradually improve through the diffusion of new ICT tools such as online meetings and through learning by experience.

Of course, WFH productivity differs by worker characteristics and depends on the nature of the occupation and the type of task, especially whether the work is self-contained or whether cooperation/coordination within a team is essential. Housing structure, family composition, and the personalities of workers also matter. Therefore, it is necessary to empirically clarify actual WFH productivity, how it is changing, and the factors that affect productivity.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Bloom et al. ( 2015 ), a representative study of WFH productivity, present evidence from a field experiment with call center operators in China that WFH enhanced the productivity of workers and organizations. However, since their study was based on a specific occupation in which WFH is relatively easy to implement, it is difficult to generalize their results to a wide variety of white-collar workers engaged in WFH during the pandemic.Van der Lippe and Lippényi ( 2020 ), using a survey in 2016 involving nine European countries, found that WFH reduced employees’ perceived efficiency. Dutcher ( 2012 ), based on a laboratory experimental approach, indicated that WFH may have a positive effect on productivity for creative tasks, but a negative impact on dull tasks.

Although not directly addressing WFH productivity, Atkin et al. ( 2022 ), Battiston et al. ( 2021 ), Brucks and Levav ( 2022 ), and Emanuel et al. ( 2023 ) demonstrate the importance of physical proximity and face-to-face communication. Atkin et al. ( 2022 ), using smartphone data to measure face-to-face interactions between workers in Silicon Valley, indicated that face-to-face meetings significantly contribute to knowledge flows between workers. Battiston et al. ( 2021 ), exploiting a natural experiment with a public sector organization in the United Kingdom (the Greater Manchester Police), find that productivity was higher when teammates were in the same room, particularly for urgent and complex tasks, and interpreted teleworking as unsuitable for tasks requiring face-to-face communication. In a laboratory experiment, Brucks and Levav ( 2022 ) showed that videoconferencing inhibits the production of creative ideas. Emanuel et al. ( 2023 ), using data for software engineers at a Fortune 500 firm, indicate that physical proximity increases not only in-person but also digital communication among co-workers.

Studies dealing with the impact of WFH on coordination within organizations include those by Teodorovic et al. ( 2022 ) and Van der Lippe and Lippényi ( 2020 ). analyzed the impact of WFH on workplace team performance based on a survey conducted in 2016 and found that teams work less efficiently when there are more colleagues working from home. Teodorovic et al. ( 2022 ), using a time-use survey, argue that the rapid shift to WFH associated with the COVID-19 pandemic increased coordination costs in the form of increased time devoted by managers to meetings.

Although studies on the productivity of WFH after the COVID-19 outbreak remain relatively scarce, Aksoy et al. ( 2022 ), Barrero et al. ( 2021 , 2023 ), Etheridge et al. ( 2020 ), Felstead and Reuschke ( 2023 ), Kitagawa et al. ( 2021 ), Morikawa ( 2022 ) are studies based on surveys of individual workers. Barrero et al. ( 2021 , 2023 ), using survey data from the United States, documented that most respondents who have used WFH practices report productivity equal to or higher than that of business premises. Aksoy et al. ( 2022 ) extended a similar survey to workers in 25 countries and found that the productivity of WFH was, on average, 7% higher than expected. Etheridge et al. ( 2020 ), using survey data from the United Kingdom, reported that the mean productivity of WFH, on average, is similar to productivity in the usual workplace, although the productivity of WFH is quite heterogeneous by worker characteristics. Felstead and Reuschke ( 2023 ), based on a survey of workers in the United Kingdom, indicated that about 70% of telecommuters reported no decrease in productivity as of June 2020 and about 85% as of September 2020. Footnote 3 Kitagawa et al. ( 2021 ), in a survey of employees from four large Japanese manufacturing firms, indicated that for the majority of employees engaged in WFH, productivity decreased relative to employees who did not use WFH. Morikawa ( 2022 ), using a survey of workers in Japan, reported that the mean WFH productivity relative to working in a usual workplace was approximately 60–70%.

Because these studies cover a wide range of occupations, productivity measures are based on workers’ self-assessments. Studies that use objective productivity measures include those of Bloom et al. ( 2022 ), Gibbs et al. ( 2023 ), Shen ( 2023 ), and Emanuel and Harrington ( 2023 ). Gibbs et al. ( 2023 ), using the achievement rate of assigned tasks divided by working hours as a measure of productivity, reported that measured productivity decreased by approximately 20% in a large IT firm in Asia. Bloom et al. ( 2022 ), based on a randomized control trial (2021–2022) for IT-related engineers of a large firm headquartered in China, indicated that physical productivity measured as the lines of computer code written increased by approximately 8% after the adoption of hybrid WFH (option to WFH on 2 days a week), although the increase arose mainly from the performance on non-WFH days. Using data from a large open-source software platform (GitHub), Shen ( 2023 ) found a negative but almost negligible change in individual-level output during state-imposed workplace closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Emanuel and Harrington ( 2023 ), using data for workers in a Fortune 500 firm’s call center, found that the physical productivity of formerly on-site workers declined by 4% after the closure of the call centers due to COVID-19. However, these studies have the limitation of focusing only on IT-related workers or call center operators, whose output can be quantitatively measured, and whose tasks are suited to be conducted at home, making it difficult to generalize to workers in other occupations, such as clerical and managerial positions. In summary, studies on WFH productivity after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic using worker-level data have produced very different results.

Bartik et al. ( 2020 ), Bergeaud et al. ( 2023 ), and Morikawa ( 2022 ) are examples of studies using firm surveys. Bartik et al. ( 2020 ) report that, on average, WFH reduced productivity by approximately 20%, based on a survey of small and medium-sized businesses in the United States. Bergeaud et al. ( 2023 ), using survey data from French firms, estimate that telework has a positive impact on firm productivity and that the relationship between telework intensity and productivity is non-linear (inverse J-shaped relationship). Morikawa ( 2022 ) found that among Japanese firms, the mean productivity of WFH was approximately 68% of productivity in their usual workplace, and that the lack of face-to-face interactions, poor telecommunication environment at home, and tasks that must be conducted in the office are the major reasons of lower productivity at home. However, these studies are based on surveys conducted in the early phase of the pandemic. WFH productivity may have changed through learning by experience and WFH-related investments as the COVID-19 pandemic prolonged. In addition, firms with low WFH productivity may selectively exit from WFH practices. In this respect, analyzing the change in productivity of this work style using panel data is important for evaluating the efficacy of WFH.

In the industrial organization literature, many studies use firm- or establishment-level panel data to analyze productivity dynamics (see Bartelsman and Doms ( 2000 ) for a survey of the literature on productivity dynamics).These studies decompose productivity growth at the aggregate-level into “within-effects” and “selection/reallocation effects.” Within-effects reflect the productivity growth of individual firms, and selection/reallocation effects arise from, for example, the entry of productive firms and the exit of unproductive firms. Studies on productivity dynamics generally indicate that both mechanisms contribute to productivity growth at the aggregate level.

However, to the best of my knowledge, no studies have used firm-level panel data to analyze the productivity dynamics of WFH. If there is large potential for increasing the productivity of WFH through within-effects, this work style is likely to prevail even after the pandemic. However, if selection effects dominate, the number of firms that continue to utilize WFH is likely to be limited. In this respect, unraveling productivity dynamics provides valuable information for drawing inferences about the future of this work style.

In addition to productivity, amenity value to workers also affects the prevalence of WFH. Amenity value is often measured by workers’ willingness to pay (WTP) or compensating wage differentials. In normal times, the amenity value of WFH is estimated to be 5–10% of wages (e.g., He et al. 2021 ; Mas and Pallais 2017 ). Studies after the COVID-19 pandemic have generally indicated that the value is not significantly different from that during normal times (e.g., Aksoy et al. 2022 ; Lewandowski et al. 2022 ; Moens et al. 2022 ). Footnote 4 When firms make decisions on WFH strategy after the pandemic, productivity is obviously important, but firms may also consider the amenity value of WFH to maintain good labor-management relations.

This study contributes to the research field by documenting the productivity dynamics of WFH since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic using panel data constructed from original firm surveys in Japan. Another contribution is presenting evidence of the change in firms’ plans to utilize WFH after the pandemic to clarify the gap with employees’ desires.

3 Design of the firm survey

This study uses data from the “Survey of Corporate Management and Economic Policy” (SCMEP), designed by the author of this paper, and conducted by the Research Institute of Economy, Trade, and Industry (RIETI) in 2020 and 2021. The implementation of the SCMEP was contracted from RIETI to Tokyo Shoko Research Ltd. The SCMEP sample firms were selected from the registered list of the Basic Survey of Japanese Business Structures and Activities (BSJBSA) conducted by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI). The BSJBSA is a representative government survey of all Japanese firms with 50 or more regular employees and capital of at least 30 million yen engaged in the mining, manufacturing, electricity and gas, wholesale, retail, and selected service industries. Approximately 30,000 firms are annually surveyed. Because firms registered in the BSJBSA have at least 50 employees, the SCMEP does not include small firms.

The 2020 SCMEP, a follow-up survey of the 2019 SCMEP, was conducted between August and September 2020. The 2020 SCMEP was sent to 2498 Japanese firms that responded to the SCMEP in 2019. Footnote 5 The responses of these firms to the 2020 SCMEP totaled 1579. The WFH questions asked about the situation in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic when the government declared its first statement of emergency. The 2021 SCMEP was conducted from October to December 2021 immediately after the fourth statement of emergency was lifted. The 2021 SCMEP was sent to 15,000 firms selected from the registered list of the 2019 BSJBSA, including those that responded to the 2020 SCMEP. The number of firms that responded to the 2021 SCMEP was 3194, of which 961 responded to both the 2020 and 2021 surveys (hereinafter referred to as “panel firms”). A comparison of SCMEP and BSJBSA firms is presented in Appendix Table 8 . In the following, we mainly use data from all firms that responded to the SCMEP, unless otherwise noted; however, the analysis of the dynamics of WFH is conducted for a subsample of panel firms.

The major survey questions related to WFH included the utilization of WFH practices, percentage of workers using WFH (coverage), mean frequency of WFH per week, mean productivity of WFH workers relative to their productivity at the usual workplace (office), and firms’ plans to continue WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey question simply refers to “work from home,” so interpretation is left to the respondent firms, but it does not include teleworking outside the home. Footnote 6 Since the survey was conducted while the government recommended not attending workplaces to ensure social distancing to reduce infection, there is little room for misunderstanding the question. Since the frequency per week of WFH was also asked, it naturally included hybrid (partial) WFH as well as full-time WFH.

In addition, the SCMEP collects information on various firm characteristics such as industry (manufacturing, information, and communications (I&C), wholesale, retail, services, and other industries), firm size (number of employees), composition of employees (female ratio, ratio of non-standard employees, and ratio of employees with university education or higher), existence of labor unions, and location of headquarters. These firm characteristics were used in the analysis.

This study documents the overall changes in WFH practices during the COVID-19 pandemic by linking data from these two surveys and conducting simple regressions (OLS and probit estimations) to analyze the relationships between various firm characteristics and the utilization, frequency, and productivity of WFH practices. Appendix Table 9 lists the major variables used in the regressions, along with their summary statistics.

4.1 Utilization and intensity of WFH

The SCMEP asked whether the firm utilized the WFH practice. The percentages of firms using WFH in the 2020 and 2021 surveys are summarized in Table  1 . For all firms that responded to the survey, this percentage decreased by approximately 15%, from 49.5% in 2020 to 34.5% in 2021. When the sample was limited to panel firms that responded to the two surveys, the WFH utilization rate decreased from 46.9 to 28.7% (the last row of the table). Footnote 7 However, it should be noted that only about 4% of Japanese firms utilized WFH practice before the pandemic (Morikawa 2022 ). Although the WFH utilization rate decreased relative to the rate in the early phase of the pandemic, the figure at the end of 2021 is very high compared to the pre-pandemic level.

The table also shows the WFH utilization rate by industry and firm size categories. The utilization rate is very different by industry but decreases between 2020 and 2021 in every industry. Larger firms have higher WFH utilization rates, but the rates declined for all size categories. However, the rate of decline is very small for firms with more than 1000 employees. The figures for the sample of panel firms are presented in Appendix Table 10 . Although the WFH utilization rates are different between the full sample and the subsample of panel firms, the decline in the WFH utilization rates by industry and firm size shows essentially the same pattern.

We can calculate the transition rate between WFH utilization and non-utilization for the sample of panel firms (961 firms): 26.0% continued WFH practices, 50.4% did not utilize WFH continuously, 20.9% exited WFH practices, and 2.7% newly adopted WFH practices. Firms reporting lower WFH productivity in the 2020 survey tend to become non-utilizers in the 2021 survey; the mean WFH productivity in 2020 of firms continue WFH and those discontinue WFH are 73.9 and 58.3, respectively, suggesting that a natural selection mechanism is functioning.

Table  2 presents the probit estimation results for the relationship between observable firm characteristics and WFH utilization for all firms responded to the SCMEP. Footnote 8 Manufacturing is the reference category for the industry dummies. Firm size is measured by the number of employees. To account for the possibility that the relationship with firm size is nonlinear, we use dummy variables for firm size categories (less than 100, from 100 to 299, 300–999, 1000 employees or more). The reference category is the firms with less than 100 employees. The characteristics of firms utilizing WFH were essentially the same in the 2020 and 2021 surveys, with the exception of labor unions. Footnote 9 Firms belonging to the information and communications (I&C) industry, large firms, firms headquartered in densely populated prefectures, and firms with a high share of employees with university or higher education have a higher probability of utilizing WFH. Firms in the retail industry, small firms, and firms with a high share of non-standard employees are less likely to utilize WFH. The coefficient for labor union is positive and significant in 2021, consistent with studies indicating the role of labor union on flexible working arrangements (e.g., Berg et al. 2014 ). Footnote 10

Even if a firm utilizes WFH practices, this work style is not necessarily applied to all employees, and the coverage of remote work differs by firm. The question regarding the coverage of WFH is “What percentage of your employees use WFH practice?” Row A of Table  3 presents the tabulation results. The mean percentage of employees engaged in WFH decreases from 30.7% in 2020 to 27.0% in 2021 (from 27.1% to 23.4% for the subsample of panel firms). Looking at the subsample of firms continuously utilizing WFH, the coverage level is relatively high; however, it decreases from 32.9% in 2020 to 24.8% in 2021. These figures suggest that many firms increased the share of employees working in their usual workplaces following the reduced risk of infection and lifting of the state of emergency. When looking at firms exiting WFH in 2021, the share of employees engaged in WFH was 20.0% in the 2020 survey, which was lower than that of firms continuously utilizing WFH (32.9%). As previously stated, the number of firms newly utilizing WFH practices in 2021 is small, and the coverage of employees engaged in WFH in 2021 is only 9.1%.

Column (1) of Table 4 reports the OLS estimation results to explain the coverage of employees engaged in WFH in 2021 by firm characteristics for the sample of all WFH-utilizing firms (the estimation result of the 2020 survey is presented in column (1) of Appendix Table 11 ). Coefficients for industry, location, share of nonstandard employees, and share of employees with university education or higher, most of which are associated with the utilization of WFH practices reported in Table  2 , are significant for the coverage of WFH. In other words, these firm characteristics are related to employees’ use of WFH through both extensive and intensive margins.

Even if employees use WFH, they do not necessarily work at home every day. The question on the mean frequency of WFH is “For those employees who are working from home, what is the number of days per week on average that they do so?” Row B of Table  3 reports the tabulation results. The mean frequency decreased by 1.2 days, from 3.67 days in 2020 to 2.60 days in 2021. When limiting the sample to firms continuously utilizing WFH practice, the mean frequency decreased about a day, from 3.87 in 2020 to 2.88 days in 2021. Since the answer is the average of the firm’s employees engaged in WFH, the frequency distribution within the firm is unknown, but the results suggest that hybrid WFH, in which employees commute to workplaces 2 or 3 days a week, was prevalent. The prevalence of hybrid WFH is consistent with findings in Europe and the United States (e.g., Aksoy et al. 2022 ; Barrero et al. 2023 ; Bergeaud et al. 2023 ; Bick et al. 2023 ; Criscuolo et al. 2023 ). Interestingly, the correlation coefficients between WFH coverage and WFH frequency are very small (0.181 in 2020 and 0.041 in 2021). Firms with a high percentage of remote workers are not necessarily high-frequency users.

The reduced frequency between 2020 and 2021 suggests that as the number of infections decreased, the state of emergency was lifted, and the government’s request for WFH weakened, there was more room for firms to adjust the frequency to the optimal level, and as a result, even employees who engaged in WFH increased the number of days working at their workplaces.

Column (2) of Table  4 shows the OLS estimation results of the 2021 survey to explain WFH frequency by firm characteristics (the estimation results of the 2020 survey are presented in Column (2) of Appendix Table 10 ). Most of the observable firm characteristics are insignificant, and the overall explanatory power is very limited; however, the coefficient of the I&C industry is positive and highly significant, indicating that this industry is exceptionally suitable for WFH.

By multiplying the coverage of WFH employees by the frequency of WFH (expressed as percentages), we can calculate “WFH intensity,” which is the ratio of WFH hours to total working hours. Footnote 11 The aggregate results are presented in Row C of Table  3 . The WFH intensity decreased significantly, from 23.7% in the 2020 survey to 13.8% in the 2021 survey. When limiting the sample to firms continuously utilizing WFH practices, WFH intensity decreased from 33.1 to 22.2%, but the level of WFH intensity is relatively high even in the fourth quarter of 2021. While not reported in the table, the OLS estimations to explain WFH intensity by firm characteristics are generally similar to the estimation of the WFH coverage, because WFH coverage and WFH intensity are highly correlated (the correlation coefficients are 0.944 and 0.889 in 2020 and 2021, respectively).

The contribution of WFH hours to the total labor input at the aggregate-level can be calculated using the number of firms’ employees as a weight and including WFH non-utilizers whose WFH intensity is regarded as zero. Table  5 presents the calculation results by industry. The results for all industries decreased from 18.1% in the 2020 survey to 6.1% in the 2021 survey. The figure for the I&C industry is the highest; however, even in this industry, the contribution of the WFH decreases from 45.9 to 22.5%. The figure for the retail industry was the lowest at 5.1% from the beginning; however, in the 2021 survey, it decreased to 1.2%. This confirms that industry characteristics strongly influence WFH utilization.

4.2 Productivity dynamics of WFH

The question regarding the productivity of WFH is the firms’ subjective evaluation of their remote workers’ mean productivity at home relative to productivity at the office. The specific wording of the question was, “If the productivity of your employees normally achieved in the workplace is 100, roughly how much is their productivity when working at home? Please respond with the average number of all tasks specified to be performed from home.” It is noted that “if your employees are more productive at home than at the workplace, please write a number greater than 100.”

Table 6 presents the tabulation results, showing that the mean WFH productivity of firms utilizing WFH practices improved by 11.5 points from 68.3 in the 2020 survey to 79.7 in the 2021 survey (Row A). Footnote 12 However, there is a large dispersion in firm evaluations: the standard deviation is 23.5 in 2020 and 20.3 in 2021. This result is essentially the same for the subsample of panel firms (Row B). When limiting the sample to firms continuously utilizing WFH practices (Row C), productivity improved by 5.5 points from 73.9 in 2020 to 79.4 in 2021. This figure corresponds to the contribution of “within-effects” in the analysis of productivity dynamics.

Our interpretation is that the improvement in productivity of firms continuing WFH arises from the learning effect and reallocation of work/tasks within the firm, such as returning employees and/or tasks with relatively low productivity at home to their usual workplaces. Footnote 13 The decrease in the share of employees engaged in WFH and the WFH frequency is consistent with such an internal reallocation mechanism. In other words, it is likely that in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, WFH exceeded optimal levels, and tasks that were efficiently carried out at the workplaces were also performed at home. Given that WFH is generally a hybrid type rather than full-time, the reshuffling of home and workplace use at the task level is likely to continue.

As the figure shows productivity at home relative to the office (= 100), the firms’ mean evaluation of remote workers’ productivity at home is still approximately 20% lower than productivity at usual workplaces. The results suggest that technical and institutional factors reduce the efficiency of WFH and that face-to-face information exchange is still important, even if various online communication tools have become available.

When looking at firms that utilized WFH practices in 2020 but exited from the practice in 2021, WFH productivity in 2020 was 58.3, which is far lower than that of firms continuously utilizing WFH (73.9). This result suggests that firms evaluating WFH productivity as lower selectively exit from the WFH practice. Footnote 14 Quantitatively, the contribution to the mean productivity of WFH arising from firms with low WFH productivity quitting WFH is 6.9 points, which is larger than the contribution of within-effects (5.5 points). The number of firms that did not utilize WFH practices in 2020 and started WFH in 2021 was small, with only 2.7% of firms responding to the two surveys. Their WFH productivity in 2021 was 64.8, which is lower than that of firms that continuously utilize WFH (79.4). Therefore, new entrants slightly reduced the mean WFH productivity in 2021; the quantitative contribution to the mean WFH productivity in 2021 was – 1.4 points. Therefore, the total contribution of the “selection effects,” the sum of exit from and entry into WFH, is 5.5 points. In short, the within and selection effects contributed almost equally to the improvement in the mean WFH productivity (11.1 points).

4.3 Firms’ plan to utilize WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic

Finally, the survey asked about the firms’ plans to use WFH after the pandemic. The specific question was “How do you think the WFH practice after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides?” The three choices are “We will utilize WFH the same or more than when there is the impact of COVID-19,” “We will continue to utilize WFH even after the end of COVID-19, but for fewer employees and/or fewer days,” and “As a rule, we will return to working at the usual workplace as before COVID-19.”

Table 7 presents the tabulation results; the percentage of firms that responded “the same or more” increased from 12.9% in the 2020 survey to 24.4% in the 2021 survey (Row A column (1)). Footnote 15 In both the 2020 and 2021 surveys, a large majority of firms chose return to working at the usual workplace or to reduce the coverage of employees and/or the WFH frequency (Columns (2) and (3)). For the subsample of firms that continue WFH (Row C), the percentage of firms choosing the same or more” is relatively high, but the change is small (from 20.8% to 22.8%). These figures suggest that a large number of firms with intention to return to pre-pandemic traditional work style in 2020 exited from the WFH practice before late 2021. In fact, among the sample of panel firms, the percentages of firms exited from WFH in 2021 by their response in 2020 (1–3 in Table 7 ) are 13.3, 26.9, and 62.3%, respectively.

This is in sharp contrast to the findings of the employee survey reported by Morikawa ( 2023 ), which indicates that the percentage of remote workers who want to continue frequent WFH substantially increased from 38.1% in 2020 to 62.6% in 2021, suggesting a non-pecuniary benefit or amenity value of WFH for remote workers. Footnote 16 There is a large gap between employers and employees regarding their intentions to use WFH practices after the COVID-19 pandemic. Traditionally, Japanese firms tend to give importance to coordination through informal information sharing. In relation to this practice, job descriptions of employees are not necessarily documented. The firms’ plan to reduce WFH intensity may reflects the desire of Japanese firms to maintain frequent face-to-face communication at the workplace.

However, the result is, at least qualitatively, consistent with Aksoy et al. ( 2022 ), Criscuolo et al. ( 2023 ), and Lewandowski et al. ( 2023 ). Aksoy et al. ( 2022 ), based on surveys for 25 countries, pointed out the mismatch in employers’ and employees’ preferences for WFH frequency. Criscuolo et al. ( 2023 ), using survey data of managers and workers in 25 countries, indicate that both managers and workers expect more widespread telework in the future compared to the pre‑COVID period, but that employees’ expectation is more positive than managers. Lewandowski et al. ( 2023 ), in their analysis of Polish workers and employers, showed that firms and workers differ in their demand for remote work.

As indicated in the previous subsection, many firms have evaluated that workplace productivity is higher than WFH productivity. Therefore, firms’ plan to reduce WFH intensity is unsurprising, but remote workers’ own productivity may not be the only one reason. As referred to in Section  2 , some studies suggest that WFH has a negative impact on team performance. In this respect, it is possible that firms are planning WFH policies based not only on the productivity of individual workers but also on the spillover effects on coworkers and the performance of workplace teams.

From the viewpoint of the balance between productivity and wages as well as the theory of compensating wage differentials, a decline in the relative wages of remote workers is expected. As mentioned in Section  2 , many studies have examined workers’ WTP for remote work (e.g., He et al. 2021 ; Mas and Pallais 2017 ). In addition, some studies indicate that remote work has a negative impact on wages in the United States (e.g., Barrero et al. 2022 ; Golden and Eddleston 2020 ; Kouki 2023 ; Oettinger 2011 ). However, in practice, it is extremely difficult to accurately evaluate the productivity and amenity value of remote workers. Therefore, there will be serious conflicts between employers and employees regarding the use of WFH after the pandemic.

5 Conclusion

This study uses panel data from original firm surveys to document changes in the utilization, intensity, and productivity of WFH since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Particular attention was paid to the productivity dynamics of WFH. Additionally, this study presents evidence of the change in firms’ plans to use WFH after the pandemic to clarify the differences with employees’ desires.

The major findings are summarized as follows: First, at the end of 2021, both the ratio of WFH-utilizing firms and WFH intensity decreased substantially compared with when the first state of emergency was declared in the spring of 2020. Second, the mean productivity of WFH improved by approximately 11 percentage points through the learning effect, reallocation of tasks within firms, and the exit of low WFH productivity firms from this practice. However, firms’ evaluation of productivity at home was still approximately 20% lower than that at the usual workplace, which is quite similar to the results obtained from employee surveys. Third, around three-quarters of firms are planning to discontinue WFH practices and revert to the conventional work style or to reduce WFH intensity after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that there is a large gap between firms’ intentions and the desire of remote workers.

These results indicate that a natural selection mechanism based on productivity is functioning. We expect that firms with low WFH productivity will continue to return to traditional workplace work, select WFH-eligible workers, and reallocate tasks at home and in the workplace to establish optimal hybrid WFH practices. As a result, although the percentage of workers engaged in WFH will continue to decline gradually, those who are productive at home and those who appreciate the amenity value of this work style will continue to work at home frequently. WFH, especially the hybrid type, is expected to continue at higher levels than before the COVID-19 pandemic. In this process, through the balance between productivity and wages as well as the mechanism of compensating wage differentials, wage adjustment could occur, which would lower the relative wages of remote workers.

A limitation of this study is that the productivity of WFH is the firms’ subjective assessment. Although it is extremely difficult to find objective measure of productivity of white-collar workers who perform a large variety of tasks, measurement errors are unavoidable. However, since employees’ productivity when working from home was asked as a relative measure to their productivity at the business premises, not as a comparison with employees not using WFH, I believe the reporting bias is not serious.

Data availability

The data used in this study are available from the author upon request.

According to surveys in Japan, the percentage of employees performing WFH or telework before the COVID-19 pandemic were only 4–6% (Morikawa 2022 ; Okubo et al. 2021 ).

The firm survey used in this study asked solely on WFH, but according to the recent official statistics (the Employment Status Survey 2022 conducted by the Statistics Bureau of Japan), around 94% of teleworkers are those who work at home.

Deole et al. ( 2023 ), using the same survey data (the Understanding Society COVID-19 Study) extended to September 2021, found that the increased frequency of working from home is positively associated with employees’ self-reported productivity.

Barrero et al. ( 2022 ) present evidence that the amenity value gains associated with the recent rise of WFH moderate wage growth pressures in the United States.

The SCMEP in 2019 was sent to 15,000 firms which were randomly selected from the registered list of the 2016 BSJBSA.

As noted in the introduction, teleworking outside the home (e.g., satellite office) accounts for around 6% of teleworking in Japan.

A possible reason for the difference between all firms and the subsample of panel firms is the difference in firm size distribution.

Since a relatively large number of firms did not provide the percentage of workers with a university or higher education, the inclusion of this variable reduces the sample size.

The results are almost the same when the sample is restricted to the panel firms. Since the COVID-19 shock are partly industry specific, I also calculate standard errors clustered by industry. In this case, the coefficients for wholesale, services, and other industries are statistically significant, but significance of the coefficients for other variables are unchanged.

However, Han ( 2023 ) indicates that union workers were less likely to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

The frequency of WFH expressed in percentage is calculated as dividing the mean weekly frequency of WFH by five. A small number of firms responded that the weekly frequency of WFH as 6 or 7 days. In these cases, the frequency of WFH is treated as 100%.

Morikawa ( 2023 ), using data obtained from employee survey, reports that WFH productivity relative to office productivity is 77.5 in 2021. The employees’ self-assessed productivity of WFH in 2021 is close to the firms’ evaluation presented in this study.

Another possible interpretation is the “learning effect” in firms’ evaluation of WFH workers. In the early phase of the pandemic, firms may have difficulty in monitoring WFH workers’ performance, but the accuracy of the performance evaluation may have improved as they became more familiar with WFH.

When we run probit estimation to explain the exit from WFH where productivity of WFH in 2020 is included as an explanatory variable, the coefficient for WFH productivity is negative and highly significant. The result confirms that after controlling for other firm characteristics, firms with lower WFH productivity selectively discontinued WFH.

According to an estimation of ordered-probit model to explain firms’ plan to continue WFH practice, high WFH intensity, and high WFH productivity firms, tend to have positive intention to continue frequent WFH after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The survey used in Morikawa ( 2023 ) does not have a question about the specific reason of the employees’ desire/intention to use WFH.

Adams-Prassl A, Boneva T, Golin M, Rauh C (2022) Work that can be done from home: Evidence on variation within and across occupations and industries. Labour Econ 74:102083

Article   Google Scholar  

Aksoy CG, Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ, Dolls M, Zarate P (2022) Working from home around the world. Brook Pap Econ Act Fall 2022:281–360

Alipour JV, Falck O, Schüller S (2023) Germany’s capacity to work from home. Eur Econ Rev 151:104354

Atkin DM, Chen K, Popov A (2022) The returns to face-to-face interactions: Knowledge spillovers in Silicon Valley. NBER Working Paper 30147

Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ (2021) Why working from home will stick. NBER Working Paper 28731

Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ, Meyer B, Mihaylov E (2022) The shift to remote work lessens wage-growth pressures. NBER Working Paper 30197

Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ (2023) The evolution of work from home. J Econ Perspect 37(4):23–50

Bartelsman EJ, Doms M (2000) Understanding productivity: Lessons from longitudinal microdata. J Econ Lit 38(3):569–594

Bartik AW, Cullen ZB, Glaeser EL, Luca M, Stanton CT (2020) What jobs are being done at home during the Covid-19 crisis? Evidence from firm-level surveys. NBER Working Paper 27422

Battiston D, Vidal JBI, Kirchmaier T (2021) Face-to-face communication in organizations. Rev Econ Stud 88(2):574–609

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Béland L-P, Brodeur A, Wright T (2022) The short-term economic consequences of COVID-19: Exposure to disease, remote work and government response. Can J Econ 55(S1):214–247

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Berg P, Kossek EE, Misra K, Belman D (2014) Work-life flexibility policies: Do unions affect employee access and use? Ind Labor Relat Rev 67(1):111–137

Bergeaud A, Cette G, Drapala S (2023) Telework and productivity before, during and after the COVID-19 crisis. Econ Stat 539:73–89

Google Scholar  

Bick A, Blandin A, Mertens K (2023) Work from home before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Am Econ J: Macroeconomics 15(4):1–39

Bloom N, Liang J, Roberts J, Ying ZJ (2015) Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q J Econ 130(1):165–218

Bloom N, Han R, Liang J (2022) How hybrid working from home works out. NBER Working Paper 30292

Boeri T, Caiumi A, Paccagnella M (2020) Mitigating the work-safety trade-off. Covid. Economics 2:60–66

Brucks MS, Levav J (2022) Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature 605:108–112

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brussevich M, Dabla-Norris E, Khalid S (2022) Who will bear the brunt of lockdown policies? Evidence from tele-workability measures across countries. IMF Econ Rev 70(3):560–589

Brynjolfsson E, Horton JJ, Ozimek A, Rock D, Sharma G, TuYe H-Y, (2020) COVID-19 and remote work: An early look at US data. NBER Working Paper 27344

Criscuolo C, Gal P, Leidecker T, Losma F, Nicoletti G (2023) The role of telework for productivity during and post COVID-19. Econ Stat 539:51–72

Deole SS, Deter M, Huang Y (2023) Home sweet home: Working from home and employee performance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Labour Econ 80:102295

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dingel JI, Neiman B (2020) How many jobs can be done at home? J Public Econ 189:104235

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dutcher EG (2012) The effects of telecommuting on productivity: An experimental examination. The role of dull and creative tasks. J Econ Behav Organ 84(1):55–363

Eberly JC, Haskel J, Mizen P (2021) Potential capital, working from home, and economic resilience. NBER Working Paper 29431

Emanuel N, Harrington E (2023) Working remotely? Selection, treatment, and the market for remote work. FRB New York Staff Report 1061

Emanuel N, Harrington E, Pallais A (2023) The power of proximity to coworkers: Training for tomorrow or productivity today? NBER Working Paper 31880

Etheridge B, Tang L, Wang Y (2020) Worker productivity during lockdown and working from home: Evidence from self-reports. Covid Econ 52:118–151

Felstead A, Reuschke D (2023) A flash in the pan or a permanent change? The growth of homeworking during the pandemic and its effect on employee productivity in the UK. Inform Technol People 36(5):1960–1981

Fujii D, Nakata T (2021) COVID-19 and output in Japan. Jpn Econ Rev 72(4):609–650

Gibbs M, Mengel F, Siemroth C (2023) Work from home and productivity: Evidence from personnel & analytics data on information technology professionals. J Polit Econ Microecon 1(1):7–41

Golden TD, Eddleston KA (2020) Is there a price telecommuters pay? Examining the relationship between telecommuting and objective career success. J Vocat Behav 116(February):103348

Han ES (2023) What did unions do for union workers during the COVID-19 pandemic? Br J Ind Relat 61(3):623–652

He H, Neumark D, Weng Q (2021) Do workers value flexible jobs? A field experiment. J Labor Econ 39(3):709–738

Hoshi K, Kasahara H, Makioka R, Suzuki M, Tanaka S (2021) Trade-off between Job losses and the spread of COVID-19 in Japan. Jpn Econ Rev 72(4):683–716

Janys L, Zimpelmann C, von Gaudecker H-M, Siflinger B, Holler R (2021) Hours and income dynamics during the Covid-19 pandemic: The case of the Netherlands. Labour Econ 73(December):102055

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jones CJ, Philippon T, Venkateswaran V (2021) Optimal mitigation policies in a pandemic: Social distancing and working from home. Rev Financ Stud 34(11):5188–5223

Kawaguchi D, Motegi H (2021) Who can work from home? The roles of job tasks and HRM practices. J Jpn Int Econ 62:101162

Kawaguchi D, Kitao S, Nose M (2022) The impact of COVID-19 on Japanese firms: Mobility and resilience via remote work. Int Tax Public Finance 29(6):1419–1449

Kikuchi S, Kitao S, Mikoshiba M (2021) Who suffers from the COVID-19 shocks? Labor market heterogeneity and welfare consequences in Japan. J Jpn Int Econ 59:101117

Kitagawa N, Kuroda S, Okudaira H, Owan H (2021) Working from home: Its effects on productivity and mental health. RIETI Discussion Paper 21-E-024

Kouki A (2023) Beyond the ‘comforts’ of work from home: Child health and the female wage penalty. Eur Econ Rev 157:104527

Lewandowski P, Lipowska K, Smoter M (2022) Working from home during a pandemic: A discrete choice experiment in Poland. IZA Discussion Paper 15251

Lewandowski P, Lipowska K, Smoter M (2023) Mismatch in preferences for working from home: Evidence from discrete choice experiments with workers and employers. IZA Discussion Paper 16041

Mas A, Pallais A (2017) Valuing alternative work arrangements. Am Econ Rev 107(12):3722–3759

Moens E, Verhofstadt E, Ootegem LV, Baert S (2022) Disentangling the attractiveness of telework to employees: A factorial survey experiment. IZA Discussion Paper 15190

Morikawa M (2022) Work-from-home productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Japan. Econ Inq 60(2):508–527

Morikawa M (2023) Productivity dynamics of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ind Relat 62(3):317–331

OECD (2021) Measuring telework in the COVID-19 pandemic. OECD Digital Economy Paper 314

Oettinger GS (2011) The incidence and wage consequences of home-based work in the United States, 1980–2000. J Human Resour 46(2):237–260

Okubo T, Inoue A, Sekijima K (2021) Teleworker performance in the COVID-19 era in Japan. Asian Econ Pap 20(2):175–192

Petroulakis F (2023) Task content and job losses in the great lockdown. ILR Rev 76(3):586–613

Shen L (2023) Does working from home work? A natural experiment from lockdowns. Eur Econ Rev 151:104323

Teodorovic T, Sadun R, Kun AL, Shaer O (2022) How does working from home during COVID-19 affect what managers do? Evidence from time-use studies. Human-Comput Interact 37(6):532–557

Van der Lippi T, Lippényi Z (2020) Co-workers working from home and individual and team performance. New Technol Work Employ 35(1):60–79

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editor (Bart Verspagen) and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Open access funding provided by Hitotsubashi University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo, 186-8601, Japan

Masayuki Morikawa

Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI), 1-3-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8901, Japan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masayuki Morikawa .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

I declare that the research in this paper is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (18H00858, 20H00071, 21H00720, 23K17548)

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morikawa, M. Productivity dynamics of work from home: Firm-level evidence from Japan. J Evol Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-024-00849-7

Download citation

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 29 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-024-00849-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Work from home
• Productivity dynamics
• Amenity value

JEL Classification

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

Study shows working from home results in less productivity

S ince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of American workers packed up their things and transferred their work duties to the comfort of their own home. In the months since, with the threat of infection no longer a widespread concern, more companies —  and even the Biden administration  — are calling on workers to return to the office.

Some argue that working from home is best. Others claim being in the office is best. And some more extreme views allege remote work should even be scorned. But regardless which side you're on, it could come down to productivity — and one new study looks to settle that debate.

In a working paper  published by the National Bureau of Economic Research,  economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) looked at two groups of data entry workers in India — one of which worked remotely while the other group worked in-office. 

Over the course of eight weeks, researchers found that the productivity of those working from home was 18% lower than those in the office.

SEE MORE: 10 companies that will let you work from home and are hiring now

The economists observed a total of 235 entry-level workers who were randomized across skill level and divided into two groups, according to the study. The primary factor used to determine productivity was "net typing speed," which researchers defined by the number of correct entries the workers typed per minute. Ultimately, the workers in-office proved more effective.

However, the study noted some negative effects of office-based work that can partially be contributed to subgroups that have children or other responsibilities at home, as well as poorer households. But overall, workers who preferred being remote were substantially less effective at home than at the office.

One of the possible explanations to this drop-off in productivity could be communication challenges that arise from virtual work. Researchers call it  "power in proximity."

SEE MORE: More office spaces set to be converted into apartments

In an earlier study, economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York paired up with researchers from the University of Iowa and Harvard to study software engineers at an unnamed Fortune 500 firm. 

Before the pandemic, researchers found engineers in the same building as their supervisors received 21% more comments on their programs than those working in other buildings. But once the pandemic shuttered offices, feedback drastically shrank even more, suggesting that proximity played a role. 

The "power in proximity" paper also calls hybrid models into question, finding that if just one person was remote, the entire team operated as it was remote, affecting feedback for everyone. Additionally, the lack of mentorship could also hurt a business's bottom line, as the paper found a decline in feedback made remote employees more likely to quit.

To boost efficiency, the economists recommend teams be either fully remote or fully in-office. 

Nevertheless, both studies above could bolster the case that more organizations are making efforts to get workers back into the office. 

In contrast, one survey found  an overwhelming majority of workers  preferred hybrid models or not returning to the office at all, meaning the demands we're seeing from some employers may lead to greater drop-off as people seek more flexible job opportunities.

This is paid content. It was written and produced in collaboration with the sponsor. If you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

8 Tips to Boost Your Work-From-Home Productivity

When you're smart with your workload, you'll free up time and attention for the things that matter most.

Since the arrival of COVID-19, many people now either work remotely or work in a hybrid setting. Working from home comes with its own set of challenges, and maintaining your productivity when surrounded by distractions can be tricky.

The gut instinct is to work harder to get it all done. But hard work isn't always the solution. Taking frequent breaks, breaking up tasks into smaller chunks and cultivating a pleasurable work environment can boost your productivity by a healthy margin.

Here are 8 valuable tips to help you remain productive during your work hours.

Set SMART Goals

Set goals that are easy to measure and easy to follow.

One popular approach is to set SMART goals: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timely. Personalized and well-defined goals prevent you from simply drifting through tasks and keep you focused.

When you set a goal that challenges you but is still within your reach, it suddenly becomes an exciting milestone to work towards.

Stick to the 2-Minute Rule

Letting tasks pile up is one of the most common ways people find themselves overwhelmed at the end of a busy week. The 2-minute rule is a productivity tip that helps you tackle your tasks one step at a time by ensuring smaller tasks aren't left for later.

The rule is simple: If any task will take 2 minutes or less to complete, do it right away. In addition to clearing up your to-do list, you'll save a ton of mental energy by not having to remember all those tiny tasks. Whether it's responding to an email, jotting down something important or even just tidying up, avoid leaving 2-minute tasks for later.

Bigger Screen Space Equals Better Productivity

A larger screen offers numerous productivity advantages by enabling users to view more information at once. This size also reduces eye strain by minimizing the need for constant scanning back and forth. The 24.5-inch monitor size equipped on MSI's Pro MP251 is considered optimal because of its balance between ample multitasking space and a comfortable viewing distance.

There are also curved monitor options that provide a more immersive and comfortable viewing experience. The curvature aligns with the natural curve of the human eye, potentially reducing distortion and enhancing clarity at the screen's edges.

Create a Dedicated Workspace

Creating a dedicated workspace is especially important in a home office setting. Now that many of us work from home, it's important not to lose. A dedicated workspace helps put you into a work mindset when you sit down,  which helps you get things done.

Ensure that you don't compromise your posture, health and eyesight when optimizing productivity. MSI has a " Spark Your Productivity " collection to give you inspiration.

Eliminate and Minimize Distractions

With various apps constantly pinging us with notifications, it's safe to say that distractions are always within arm's reach.

Identify your primary source of distractions and minimize them during your productive time to get work done. Eliminate things that interrupt your flow to ensure you're more productive. This helps you reach your goals faster and free up more time for leisure.

Maintain a Clutter-Free and Wire-Free Workspace

Clearing up your workspace and ridding it of clutter can significantly impact your attitude when you sit down to work. However, if you need to accommodate a work laptop, your own desktop and maybe even a gaming console, wire management can quickly become a pain.

A monitor with a built-in KVM switch like MSI's Modern MD272QXP Business Monitor reduces the number of input devices you need to control all your devices. It allows you to plug your peripherals into your monitor directly, then control any devices connected to that monitor. In addition to the productivity boost you get from a clutter-free workspace, you can also enjoy a minimal work setup that looks aesthetically pleasing when you sit down to work.

Get Your Hardware to Focus on What You Need

You're more productive when you focus on a single task, and your PC is too. Applications like MSI Center have built-in tools to help your hardware focus on the task at hand, freeing up resources to maximize performance for whatever you're trying to do. It means less time spent waiting around for things to open or process, helping you get the job done.

Minimize Blue Light Exposure

The blue light emitted by monitors can adversely affect our eyes. Extended exposure may lead to digital eye strain, disturbance in sleep patterns and an elevated risk of age-related macular degeneration.

Fortunately, there are several measures to safeguard our eyes from blue light. These include limiting screen time, opting for MSI All-in-One PCs or monitors equipped with less blue light technology or wearing blue light filtering glasses. By adopting these simple practices, we can minimize exposure to blue light and contribute to the protection of our eyes from potential harm. Explore MSI's Business and Productivity monitors to learn more.

Other Wellness Guides

• Best Places to Buy Glasses Online
• Best Places to Buy Contacts Online
• Best Prescription Sunglasses
• Best Place to Buy Replacement Prescription Lenses
• Best Blue Light Blocking Glasses
• Best Electric Toothbrush
• Best Invisible Braces
• Best Sunscreen
• Best Mattress
• Best Mattress for Back Pain
• Best Adjustable Mattress
• Purple Mattress
• Saatva Mattress
• Best Headphones for Sleeping
• Best Pillow
• Best Sheets
• Best Elliptical
• Best Treadmill
• Best Rowing Machine
• Best Peloton Alternative
• Best Adjustable Dumbbells
• Best Weightlifting Shoes
• Best Massage Gun
• Theragun Review
• Best Meal Kit Delivery Service
• Best Healthy Meal Delivery Service
• Best Cheap Meal Delivery Service
• Best Plant-Based Meal Delivery Service
• Best Keto Meal Delivery
• Best DNA Test
• Ancestry vs 23 and Me
• Best Continuous Glucose Monitors
• Best Blood Pressure Monitor
• Best Prescription Delivery Services
• Best Portable Humidifiers
• Best Mental Health Apps
• Best Teas for Stress and Anxiety
• Best Fidget Toys for Anxiety
• Best Online Therapy
• Amazon Promo Codes
• Air Up Coupons

Working nine to thrive

At a glance.

• Health can be meaningfully modified by factors outside traditional healthcare systems, including work factors.
• Employers have considerable opportunities to improve health through six modifiable drivers: social interaction, mindsets and beliefs, productive activity, stress, economic security, and sleep.
• Globally, improving employee health and well-being could create $3.7 trillion to $11.7 trillion in economic value.

Imagine a world in which employers make evidence-based investments in the health of their employees. In return, they reap a manifold benefit to those investments: their employees thrive, their business thrives, and the societies in which they operate thrive. There's a positive opportunity that arises when employers address the inherent interconnectedness between work and health.

The 23 drivers of health

The McKinsey Health Institute has identified 23 drivers of health across six categories. 1 Lars Hartenstein and Tom Latkovic, “ The secret to great health? Escaping the healthcare matrix ,” McKinsey Health Institute, December 20, 2022. All of them are considered modifiable]:[[footnote 2]

• physical inputs: diet, supplementation, and substance use
• movement: mobility, exercise, and sleep
• daily living: productive activity, social interaction, content consumption, and hygiene
• exposure: nature, atmosphere, sensory stimulation, materials, and stress
• state of being: mindsets and beliefs, body composition, physical security, and economic security
• healthcare: vaccination, detection and diagnosis, clinical intervention, adherence

Together, the drivers of health have a broad influence on holistic health (mental, physical, social, and spiritual health) and apply to settings beyond the workplace. Other research on holistic health  has explored a smaller ecosystem of factors that are directly measurable within an organization. 3 Jacqueline Brassey, Brad Herbig, Barbara Jeffery, and Drew Ungerman, “ Reframing employee health: Moving beyond burnout to holistic health ,” McKinsey Health Institute, November 2, 2023; Sanne Magnan, “Social determinants of health 101 for health care: Five plus five,” National Academy of Medicine, October 9, 2017.

The McKinsey Health Institute (MHI) has previously identified 23 drivers of health  (see sidebar “The 23 drivers of health”). 1 Lars Hartenstein and Tom Latkovic, “ The secret to great health? Escaping the healthcare matrix ,” McKinsey Health Institute, December 20, 2022. Employment can greatly influence some of these drivers, such as social interaction and sleep. In this article, we zoom in on six drivers of health that employers can influence and could be wise to support. By improving employees’ health, employers could add trillions of dollars to the global economy and have a positive impact on society. When employers and employees work together to improve modifiable drivers of health, everyone benefits.

Modifiable drivers of health in the workplace: What does the research say?

Six modifiable drivers of health in the workplace—social interaction, mindsets and beliefs, productive activity, stress, economic security, and sleep—were identified from the growing body of research that connects the dots among drivers of health and the workplace. Researchers are building a greater understanding of how employers can address modifiable drivers to create change in favor of optimal employee health.

Considering that the average person spends a third of their life at work (more than 90,000 hours in a lifetime), 2 “How many hours does the average person work per week?,” FreshBooks, April 17, 2023. employment can be a critical piece of the puzzle when working toward the goal of improving global health. MHI analyzed 26 workplace factors  to understand how they influence a range of health- and work-related outcomes across 30 countries. 3 Jacqueline Brassey, Brad Herbig, Barbara Jeffery, and Drew Ungerman, “ Reframing employee health: Moving beyond burnout to holistic health ,” McKinsey Health Institute, November 2, 2023. In this article, any McKinsey Health Institute research not otherwise cited comes from this source. That research showed there are important differences between the workplace factors that lead to poor health and those that lead to good health. Our analysis found that employee self-efficacy, adaptability, and feelings of belonging at work were top predictors of good health, whereas toxic workplace behaviors, role ambiguity, and role conflict at work were top predictors of poor health.

Previously, researchers at the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre analyzed data from more than 15 million employees on their well-being and the underlying workplace factors driving it. 4 “How to use the Work Wellbeing Score on Indeed company pages,” Indeed, May 1, 2023. The researchers identified and tested 11 factors, including compensation, flexibility, purpose, inclusion, achievement, support, trust, belonging, management, and learning. The three top factors for the companies that scored best on well-being were feeling energized, belonging, and trust. Interestingly, they are different from the top drivers that employees think will make them happy and drive well-being at work: pay and flexibility. 5 “The key drivers of workplace wellbeing: Tapping into the hidden gems of happiness,” Indeed, July 6, 2021.

Together, all the research led us to identify six drivers of health that employers can most easily influence.

Employers can improve employee health through six modifiable drivers

Our analysis shows that employers can effect significant change through six modifiable drivers of health: social interaction, mindsets and beliefs, productive activity, stress, economic security, and sleep. 6 We recognize that employers can influence other modifiable drivers of health not specifically addressed here (for example, diet and mobility) but are focusing this article on the drivers most likely to create considerable opportunities for employers to improve health.

Social interaction

The positive effects of regular social interactions on health have been widely reported. For instance, a study reviewing mortality rates has documented an average 50 percent increase in likelihood for survival if participants have strong social relationships. 1 Julianne Holt-Lunstad, J. Bradley Layton, and Timothy B. Smith, “Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review,  PLOS Medicine , July 2010, Volume 7, Number 7. Furthermore, social integration during childhood is related to lower blood pressure and body mass index in adulthood. 2 For more, see Jenny M. Cundiff and Karen A. Matthews, “Friends with health benefits: The long-term benefits of early peer social integration for blood pressure and obesity in midlife,” Psychological Science , May 2018, Volume 29, Number 5.

Social interactions at work experienced by employees strongly influence health and workplace outcomes. Feeling connected at work is associated with greater innovation, engagement, and quality of work—and may be especially impactful for those with smaller social networks outside of their jobs. 3 For more, see  Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community , US Office of the Surgeon General, May 3, 2023. MHI’s 2023 research shows experiencing toxic workplace behavior is a strong predictor of negative health outcomes at work, including loneliness at work, the intention to leave an organization, and burnout symptoms.

Toxic workplace behavior is a critical workplace driver to combat. If left unaddressed, it can mitigate the benefits of any health and well-being initiatives pursued. Examples of interventions to counter toxic workplace behavior include establishing a zero-tolerance policy for it and creating anonymous feedback processes through which employees can report it—which also normalizes a culture of providing concrete, specific feedback to colleagues. 4 For more, see Amy Gallo, “How to manage a toxic employee,”  Harvard Business Review , October 3, 2016, and Deepa Purushothaman and Lisen Stromberg, “Leaders, Stop Rewarding Toxic Rock Stars,”  Harvard Business Review , April 20, 2022.

Meanwhile, experiencing psychological safety  on a team and support from coworkers and managers predicts positive health outcomes, including better holistic health . In 2023, MIT Sloan School of Management researchers outlined proven social-health initiatives that helped managers build psychological safety on their teams. 5 Chris Rider et al., “Proven tactics for improving teams’ psychological safety,”  MIT Sloan Management Review , March 27, 2023. They included training managers to use one-on-one meetings to increase employee individuation 6 “Individuation” refers to treating employees as unique individuals. by asking employees what was important to them and where they needed support. Another use of the meetings was to remove blockers for employees by helping them prioritize among tasks. Interestingly, individuation has been shown to increase psychological safety the most when psychological safety is relatively low, while removing blockers is more effective when psychological safety is relatively high.

Mindsets and beliefs

Research, including MHI analysis, has demonstrated a connection between positive mindsets and beliefs and better health experience. 1 For more, see Mathias Allemand, Patrick L. Hill, and Brent W. Roberts, “Examining the pathways between gratitude and self-rated physical health across adulthood,”  Personality and Individual Differences , January 2013, Volume 54, Number 1; Lisa A. Williams and Monica Y. Bartlett, “Warm thanks: Gratitude expression facilitates social affiliation in new relationships via perceived warmth,”  Emotion , February 2015, Volume 15, Number 1; and David S. Yeager et al., “A synergistic mindsets intervention protects adolescents from stress,”  Nature , July 2022, Volume 607, Number 7,919. This includes the positive effects of a growth mindset on mental health and the benefits of gratitude on physical health. Positive mindsets and beliefs in the workplace are also greatly influential in good holistic health.

In fact, good holistic health isn’t achieved by completely avoiding workplace stressors. Instead, it can be maintained through creating positive experiences at work, such as experiencing high self-efficacy, high adaptability, a feeling of meaning, and a feeling of belonging at work. For example, an individual may be able to tolerate the stress of a looming deadline on a big project if they believe that they have the support of their team.

Employers can foster meaning and belonging by engaging employees through compelling storytelling and fostering a connection to an organization’s mission. Purpose-driven companies that excel at this grow two times faster than their competitors do and achieve gains in employee satisfaction, employee retention, and consumer trust. 2 Scott Mautz, “Patagonia has only 4 percent employee turnover because they value this 1 thing so much,”  Inc. , March 30, 2019; Graham Staplehurst, “The evolution of purpose,” Kantar, August 27, 2020; “This is what work-life balance looks like at a company with 100% retention of moms,” Quartz, October 16, 2016. Some of these outcomes may be attributed to employees who are intrinsically motivated and able to maintain better well-being over time, creating a positive performance loop. 3 For more, see Emma L. Bradshaw et al., “A meta-analysis of the dark side of the American dream: Evidence for the universal wellness costs of prioritizing extrinsic over intrinsic goals,”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , April 2023, Volume 124, Number 4. Additionally, employee self-efficacy and adaptability are capabilities that can be cultivated among employees to make a more resilient and healthy workforce. 4 For more, see Jacqueline Brassey, Aaron De Smet, and Michiel Kruyt,  Deliberate Calm: How to Learn and Lead in a Volatile World , New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2022.

Productive activity

Productive activity includes employment- and nonemployment-related activities. Examples include volunteering, caregiving, spending time on hobbies, worshiping, spending time on activism, playing music, and traveling.

Employment has been linked to improved life expectancy. 1 For more, see “Relationship between employment and health,” Health Foundation, October 5, 2022. According to MHI research, one of the top contributors to productivity at work is an individual’s sense of self-efficacy—an employee’s belief that they can cope with difficult or changing situations. Self-efficacy can be improved through interventions, suggesting that employers can target self-efficacy to improve employee productivity. 2 For more, see Jacqueline Brassey et al., “Emotional flexibility and general self-efficacy: A pilot training intervention study with knowledge workers,”  PLOS One , 2020, Volume 15, Number 10.

Furthermore, employers have the opportunity to help the people in their communities connect to meaningful and productive activities that support their long-term health and well-being. Enjoyable leisure activities are also associated with improved psychosocial and physical measures that support good health and well-being, including greater life satisfaction and engagement and lower rates of depression, blood pressure, cortisol, and physical function. 3 For more, see Sarah D. Pressman et al., “Association of enjoyable leisure activities with psychological and physical well-being,”  Psychosomatic Medicine , September 2009, Volume 71, Number 7.

In discussing workplace stressors, it’s important to acknowledge that stress itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it’s actually needed to learn, grow, and develop. 1 For more, see R. B. Zajonc, “Social facilitation,”  Science , July 1965, Volume 149, Number 3,681. Optimal levels of stress can contribute to better performance. After that point, the benefits diminish into worse well-being because of the excessive demands of high stress and lack of replenishment of energy resources. The employer’s role is to ensure that employees are stimulated, challenged, and motivated—but not overwhelmed—by the demands they experience in the workplace.

Chronically elevated levels of stress can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease, and metabolic disease. 2 For more, see Fan Tian et al., “Association of stress-related disorders with subsequent risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A population-based and sibling-controlled cohort study,”  Lancet Regional Health–Europe , May 2022, Volume 18. Job strain and effort–reward imbalance can predict several common mental disorders. 3 For more, see Bridget Candy and Stephen Stansfeld, “Psychosocial work environment and mental health—a meta-analytic review,”  Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health , December 2006, Volume 32, Number 6. Additionally, MHI research shows that an increase in workplace demands is the driver most predictive of burnout and distress symptoms at work.

Some jobs are high in demand by structure. For example, some organizations have seasonal or other cyclical patterns in work demand. In these situations, interventions should focus on building in recovery time so that employees can regain their energy after high-demand periods.

Economic security

Economic opportunity and economic security can influence many facets of health and productivity. For example, high-income individuals are five times more likely than low-income individuals to report strong health. 1 Steven H. Woolf et al.,  How are income and wealth linked to health and longevity? , a joint report from Urban Institute and Virginia Commonwealth University, April 13, 2015. Employees who are struggling financially are more likely than others to experience signs of poor mental health that might affect their ability to function at work. 2 For more, see Lu Fan and Soomin Ryu, “The relationship between financial worries and psychological distress among U.S. adults,”  Journal of Family and Economic Issues , 2023, Volume 44, Number 1. A lack of job stability links with poor mental health, as well as poor physical well-being (for example, cardiovascular disease). 3 For more, see Susan J. Ashford, Guo-Hua Huang, and Cynthia Lee, “Job insecurity and the changing workplace: Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research,”  Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , January 2018, Volume 5; Imma Cortès-Franch et al., “Employment stability and mental health in Spain: Towards understanding the influence of gender and partner/marital status,”  BMC Public Health , April 2018, Volume 18, Number 1; Marnie Dobson, Paul Landsbergis, and Peter L. Schnall, “Globalization, work, and cardiovascular disease,”  International Journal of Health Services , October 2016, Volume 46, Number 4; and Jose A. Llosa et al., “Job insecurity and mental health: A meta-analytical review of the consequences of precarious work in clinical disorders,”  Anales de Psicología , 2018, Volume 34, Number 2. Any short-term rise in employee performance fueled by job insecurity is often negated by the additional burden on employee physical and mental health. 4 Mindy Shoss et al., “Job insecurity harms both employees and employers,”  Harvard Business Review , September 6, 2022.

MHI research shows that the greatest contributor to employees’ feelings of financial insecurity is whether they are paid sufficiently to cover their basic needs. While what it takes to feel economically secure is unique to each person, employers can reduce feelings of financial insecurity by ensuring that compensation covers basic needs.

There’s a strong association between sleep hours and both employee health and workplace outcomes. The cost to employers when employees have insufficient or poor-quality sleep can be substantial.

Employees with untreated insomnia cost employers an average of $2,280 more annually than employees without untreated insomnia because of absenteeism, “presenteeism,” poor performance, and increased incidents of accident and injury. 1 Ronald C. Kessler et al., “Insomnia and the performance of US workers: Results from the America Insomnia Survey,”  Sleep , September 2011, Volume 34, Number 9. According to the MHI 2023 survey, 31 percent of employees across the world average fewer than seven hours of sleep per night. Although everyone has unique needs, this falls below the ballpark number of hours recommended to maintain good health. 2 We acknowledge that every individual is different, but there are some indications of recommended average hours of sleep that may benefit health. For more, see Eric J. Olson, “How many hours of sleep are enough for good health?,” Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER), February 21, 2023. Researchers have shown severe sleep loss can even lead to death, as our bodies conduct necessary reparative processes when we sleep. 3 For more, see Alexandra Vaccaro et al., “Sleep loss can cause death through accumulation of reactive oxygen species in the gut,”  Cell , June 2020, Volume 181, Number 6.

The MHI survey found that one of the main contributors to an employee’s average number of sleep hours is the experienced volume of work required of them. Furthermore, one of the top contributors to an employee’s satisfaction with their sleep is their ability to adjust to unexpected changes. This may suggest that employee programs that look to improve adaptability may in turn improve employees’ satisfaction with their sleep.

Employers have additional interventions they can consider if their employees are struggling with getting consistent, high-quality sleep. They include creating work environments with ample natural light and access to healthy foods, limiting or disabling employees from being online after hours, creating incentives for employees who prioritize sleep, and encouraging and rewarding leaders who model the prioritization of sleep over work.

Many employers are already investing in employee health and well-being, but we would encourage them to reflect on where they currently provide support and if they might want to change resources or add more interventions. For example, many employee assistance programs (EAPs) provide coverage of interventions for factors such as stress and economic security but less coverage of those for factors such as social interactions at work. Additionally, while EAPs are widely available, they tend to be underused by employees and focus on a reactive instead of a proactive approach to health. 7 For more, see James Kenney, “Why most employee assistance programs don't work,” Forbes , July 6, 2022; and Stephen Sokoler, “Reimagining traditional employee assistance programs,” Forbes , March 17, 2023.

In rethinking a workplace strategy on employee health and well-being, current EAP offerings can be useful starting points for action but are unlikely to be the full solution. They are also unlikely, by themselves, to yield the ROI that employers increasingly expect. Strengthening the measurement of intervention outcomes may also help guide an organization’s overall investment strategy.

In rethinking a workplace strategy on employee health and well-being, current EAP offerings can be useful starting points for action but are unlikely to be the full solution.

Improving global employee health can create trillions of dollars of economic value

It makes good business sense to invest in employee health and well-being. We estimate that the total global opportunity for optimizing employee health and well-being is $3.7 trillion to $11.7 trillion, which is equivalent to raising global GDP by 4 to 12 percent. Together, high- and middle-income economies represent 95 percent of this total opportunity (exhibit).

While it may not be feasible in the near term to bring all employees everywhere to optimal well-being, capturing just 10 percent of the total opportunity could yield up to $1.17 trillion of annual value and raise the global GDP by more than 1 percent (see sidebar “Business case methodology”).

Business case methodology

To size the economic value that could be created if addressing health and well-being at the global level, we first established the metric for all economies by summing the positive economic effects of increased employee attraction, productivity, and retention with the savings created if absenteeism, attrition, and “presenteeism” were reduced.

Using a similar methodology, we sized the economic value of medium- and high-income economies. We calculated the economic value of low-income economies by subtracting that of the medium- and high-income economies from that of all economies. However, there’s low confidence in current estimates for low-income economies because of insufficient and unreliable data collected in these countries.

The economic value possible by addressing each driver was calculated as follows:

• attrition: the total turnover multiplied by the cost of turnover per employee
• absenteeism: the estimated number of working days lost because of work-related ill health and nonfatal workplace injuries multiplied by the average daily pay
• presenteeism: the estimated number of productive days lost when employees are present at work but can’t be fully productive multiplied by the average daily pay
• attraction: the total premium by employees for employers with an above-average happiness score multiplied by the total turnover
• productivity: the increase in productivity associated with increased well-being multiplied by the average value of productivity
• retention: the total turnover multiplied by the benefit of retention

In addition to contributing to increased productivity at work, our calculations indicate that investing in employee health and well-being provides a positive opportunity for attracting and retaining talent. As noted in McKinsey research, employees facing mental-health and well-being challenges are four times more likely than others to want to leave their organizations . 8 Patrick Guggenberger, Dana Maor, Michael Park, and Patrick Simon, “ The State of Organizations 2023: Ten shifts transforming organizations ,” McKinsey, April 26, 2023.

Better health correlates with higher productivity across countries and workplace settings and is also strongly correlated with workforce participation  at all ages. 9 For more, see Dan Chisholm et al., “Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: A global return on investment analysis,” Lancet Psychiatry , May 2016, Volume 3, Number 5; Clément S. Bellet, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, and George Ward, “Does employee happiness have an impact on productivity?," Management Science , May 11, 2023; Miriam Dickinson, Kathryn Rost, and Jeffrey L. Smith, “The effect of improving primary care depression management on employee absenteeism and productivity: A randomized trial,” Medical Care , December 2004, Volume 42, Number 12; and “ Prioritizing health: A prescription for prosperity ,” McKinsey Global Institute, July 8, 2020. Every 1 to 3 percent increase in global workforce participation is worth a further $1.4 billion to $4.2 billion, 10 Assumes additional labor force is employed at the same unemployment rate and generates the same average GDP per employee as the current labor force. benefiting employees, their health, the societies in which they live, and government finances. 11 For more, see Lixin Cai, “The relationship between health and labour force participation: Evidence from a panel data simultaneous equation model,” Labour Economics , January 2010, Volume 17, Number 1.

To capture these economic benefits fully, employers need to move from a sole focus of protecting against incidental risk and illness to helping employees achieve more optimal health. This is particularly important when considering that employees move along a continuum of health over time and may draw upon different workplace resources throughout their employment with a company. Ultimately, a focus on improving health could lead to a virtuous circle of positive change, as employees gain health literacy, and employers in turn respond to employee health concerns.

To capture the economic benefits of good health fully, employers need to move from a sole focus of protecting against incidental risk and illness to helping employees achieve more optimal health.

Acting now also reduces future brand and business risk. In Australia, a lawsuit resulted in a fine for an organization that tolerated a toxic workplace culture. 12 For more, see Naomi Neilson, “Court Services Victoria fined $380k for ‘toxic’ workplace,” Lawyers Weekly, October 19, 2023. Recently, the European Union adopted the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, requiring organizations by law to report on working conditions such as working time, social dialogue, and work–life balance. As employees develop higher standards for what is tolerable in the workplace, more pushback and litigation may be possible.

Furthermore, investors such as asset managers, private equity companies, and venture capitalists are increasingly weighing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations in their investment decisions. They are guided by ESG ratings released by various agencies and standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board.

Improving employee health and well-being involves more than just employers

We have highlighted practical examples of how employers can play a role in changing norms and catalyzing innovation around employee health and well-being. However, employers alone can’t complete this task. Employees, policy makers, and local governments will need to help.

Employees can play a role in their own health by taking advantage of the workplace resources that do exist and helping cultivate a community and culture of healthy practices among colleagues. They can make their desires known to employers as a means of holding leaders accountable for responding to the health needs and aspirations of their workforces. These might include benefits such as paid parental leave and caregiving support, which aim to help employees balance work and family responsibilities while tending to their own overall health and well-being.

Policy and decision makers may want to consider a variety of ways to protect and promote employee health. Possibilities include mandating upper limits on total working hours, health coverage paid by employers, and employee access to therapy and other psychological resources. 13 For more, see Richard Layard, “Wellbeing as the goal of policy,” LSE Public Policy Review , December 2021, Volume 2, Number 2. Enhancing standards and transparency could enable employees to make informed choices about their employment while also allowing policy makers to audit progress on a wider scale.

Through investment in public health (such as funding and grants), policy makers can encourage and enable employers to take employee health seriously and professionalize how they track the impact of their initiatives on employee health and well-being. Finally, policy and decision makers can lead by example in acting to promote their own employees’ health. This may be done in partnership with both private and other public sector employers, such as those that play a critical role in educating individuals about health—school systems, healthcare systems, and community programs—down to the city level.

City governments can play an important role in unlocking positive health  outcomes. Given that most large employers are concentrated in cities, there’s a unique opportunity for companies and employees to come together to set broader aspirations on health and identify targeted interventions to pursue jointly.

Employment can and does have a profound impact on health, both positive and negative. Adapting how and where people work to support optimal employee health could result in billions of employees and their families around the world living longer, higher-quality lives—and simultaneously benefiting their employers and the societies in which they live.

Jacqueline Brassey is a coleader of employee health at the McKinsey Health Institute (MHI) and a senior fellow in McKinsey’s Luxembourg office, Barbara Jeffery is a coleader of employee health at MHI and a partner in the London office, Lars Hartenstein is a global leader of MHI and a senior fellow in the Paris office, and Patrick Simon is a senior partner in the Berlin office.

The authors wish to thank Erica Coe, Aaron De Smet, Martin Dewhurst, Arne Gast, Brad Herbig, Anna Hextall, Ashini Kothari, Tom Latkovic, May Lim, Robyn Macrae, Dana Maor, Roxy Merkand, Hannah Mirman, Lucy Pérez, and Brooke Weddle for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Hannah Buchdahl, an associate editor in the Washington, DC, office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Reframing employee health: Moving beyond burnout to holistic health

The secret to great health? Escaping the healthcare matrix

The trends defining the $1.8 trillion global wellness market in 2024