research proposal on remote working

What’s next for remote work: An analysis of 2,000 tasks, 800 jobs, and nine countries

For many workers, COVID-19’s impact has depended greatly on one question: Can I work from home or am I tethered to my workplace? Quarantines, lockdowns, and self-imposed isolation have pushed tens of millions around the world to work from home, accelerating a workplace experiment that had struggled to gain traction before COVID-19 hit.

Now, well into the pandemic, the limitations and the benefits of remote work are clearer. Although many people are returning to the workplace as economies reopen—the majority could not work remotely at all—executives have indicated in surveys that hybrid models of remote work  for some employees are here to stay. The virus has broken through cultural and technological barriers that prevented remote work in the past, setting in motion a structural shift in where work takes place, at least for some people.

Now that vaccines are awaiting approval, the question looms: To what extent will remote work persist ? In this article, we assess the possibility for various work activities to be performed remotely. Building on the McKinsey Global Institute’s body of work on automation, AI, and the future of work, we extend our models to consider where work is performed. 1 The future of work in Europe: Automation, workforce transitions, and the future geography of work , McKinsey Global Institute, June 2020; The future of work in America: People and places, today and tomorrow , McKinsey Global Institute, July 2019; Jobs lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation , McKinsey Global Institute, December 2017. Our analysis finds that the potential for remote work is highly concentrated among highly skilled, highly educated workers in a handful of industries, occupations, and geographies.

More than 20 percent of the workforce could work remotely three to five days a week as effectively as they could if working from an office. If remote work took hold at that level, that would mean three to four times as many people working from home than before the pandemic and would have a profound impact on urban economies, transportation, and consumer spending, among other things.

The virus has broken through cultural and technological barriers that prevented remote work in the past, setting in motion a structural shift in where work takes place, at least for some people.

More than half the workforce, however, has little or no opportunity for remote work. Some of their jobs require collaborating with others or using specialized machinery; other jobs, such as conducting CT scans, must be done on location; and some, such as making deliveries, are performed while out and about. Many of such jobs are low wage and more at risk from broad trends such as automation and digitization. Remote work thus risks accentuating inequalities at a social level.

The potential for remote work is determined by tasks and activities, not occupations

Remote work raises a vast array of issues and challenges for employees and employers. Companies are pondering how best to deliver coaching remotely and how to configure workspaces to enhance employee safety, among a host of other thorny questions raised by COVID-19. For their part, employees are struggling to find the best home-work balance and equip themselves for working and collaborating remotely.

In this article, however, we aim to granularly define the activities and occupations that can be done from home to better understand the future staying power of remote work. We have analyzed the potential for remote work—or work that doesn’t require interpersonal interaction or a physical presence at a specific worksite—in a range of countries, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We used MGI’s workforce model based on the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) to analyze more than 2,000 activities in more than 800 occupations and identify which activities and occupations have the greatest potential for remote work.

The potential for remote work depends on the mix of activities undertaken in each occupation and on their physical, spatial, and interpersonal context. We first assessed the theoretical extent to which an activity can be done remotely. This depends on whether a worker needs to be physically present on-site to do a task, interact with others, or use location-specific machinery or equipment.

Many physical or manual activities, as well as those that require use of fixed equipment, cannot be done remotely. These include providing care, operating machinery, using lab equipment, and processing customer transactions in stores. In contrast, activities such as information gathering and processing, communicating with others, teaching and counseling, and coding data can theoretically be done remotely.

Additionally, employers have found during the pandemic that although some tasks can be done remotely in a crisis, they are much more effectively done in person. These activities include coaching, counseling, and providing advice and feedback; building customer and colleague relationships; bringing new employees into a company; negotiating and making critical decisions; teaching and training; and work that benefits from collaboration, such as innovation, problem-solving, and creativity. If onboarding were to be done remotely, for instance, it would require significant rethinking of the activity to produce outcomes similar to those achieved in person.

For instance, while teaching has moved to remote work during the pandemic, parents and teachers alike say that quality has suffered. Similarly, courtrooms have functioned remotely but are unlikely to remain online going forward out of concern for legal rights and equity—some defendants lack adequate connectivity and lawyers, and judges worry about missing nonverbal cues in video conferences.

So we have devised two metrics for remote work potential: the maximum potential, including all activities that theoretically can be performed remotely, and a lower bound for the effective potential for remote work, which excludes activities that have a clear benefit from being done in person (Exhibit 1).

To determine the overall potential for remote work for jobs and sectors, we use the time spent on different activities within occupations. We find that remote work potential is concentrated in a few sectors. Finance and insurance has the highest potential, with three-quarters of time spent on activities that can be done remotely without a loss of productivity. Management, business services, and information technology have the next highest potential, all with more than half of employee time spent on activities that could effectively be done remotely (Exhibit 2). These sectors are characterized by a high share of workers with college degrees or higher.

Remote work potential is higher in advanced economies

The potential for remote work varies across countries, a reflection of their sector, occupation, and activity mix. Business and financial services are a large share of the UK economy, for example, and it has the highest potential for remote work among the countries we examined. Its workforce could theoretically work remotely one-third of the time without a loss of productivity, or almost half the time but with diminished productivity. (Exhibit 3). Other advanced economies are not far behind; their workforces could dedicate 28 to 30 percent of the time to working remotely without losing productivity.

In emerging economies, employment is skewed toward occupations that require physical and manual activities in sectors like agriculture and manufacturing. The potential for time spent on remote work drops to 12 to 26 percent in the emerging economies we assessed. In India, for instance, the workforce could spend just 12 percent of the time working remotely without losing effectiveness. Although India is known globally for its high-tech and financial services industries, the vast majority of its workforce of 464 million is employed in occupations like retail services and agriculture that cannot be done remotely.

Although India is known globally for its high-tech and financial services industries, the vast majority of its workforce of 464 million is employed in occupations like retail services and agriculture that cannot be done remotely.

A hybrid model that combines some remote work with work in an office is possible for occupations with high remote work potential

For most workers, some activities during a typical day lend themselves to remote work, while the rest of their tasks require their on-site physical presence. In the US workforce, we find that just 22 percent of employees can work remotely between three and five days a week without affecting productivity, while only 5 percent could do so in India. In contrast, 61 percent of the workforce in the United States can work no more than a few hours a week remotely or not at all. The remaining 17 percent of the workforce could work remotely partially, between one and three days per week (Exhibit 4).

Consider a floral designer. We estimate that between half and one-quarter of his job can be done remotely. He can take orders by phone or online and contract for delivery through an app, but floral arrangement itself requires being in a shop where the flowers are stored in a refrigerated case and ribbons, moss, vases, and other materials used to create a floral design are at hand. To make a floral designer’s job more remote would require dividing his various tasks among all employees in a flower shop. In contrast, credit analysts, database administrators, and tax preparers, among others, can do virtually all of their work remotely. In general, workers whose jobs require cognitive thinking and problem solving, managing and developing people, and data processing have the greatest potential to work from home. These employees also tend to be among the highest paid.

The ability to work remotely also depends on the need to use specialized equipment. According to our analysis, a chemical technician could work remotely only a quarter of the time because much of her work must be done in a lab housing the equipment she needs. Among healthcare occupations, general practitioners who can use digital technologies to communicate with patients have a much greater potential for remote work than surgeons and x-ray technicians, who need advanced equipment and tools to do their work. Thus, among health professionals overall, the effective remote work potential is just 11 percent.

Even for the same activity, the context in which a job is done matters. Consider the activity “analyzing data or information,” which can be done remotely by a statistician or financial analyst but not by a surveyor. Crime scene analysts and workers who analyze consumer trends both engage in what O*NET describes as “getting, processing, analyzing, documenting and interpreting information,” but the former must go to the location of, say, a murder while the latter can do his work in front of a computer at home. A travel agent can calculate the cost of goods or services from a kitchen table, but a grocery clerk does that from behind a counter in a store.

And then there are jobs that require workers to be on-site or in person more than four days a week. Due to the physical nature of most of their work activities, occupations such as transportation, food services, property maintenance, and agriculture offer little or no opportunity for remote work. Building inspectors must go to a building or construction site. Nursing assistants must work in a healthcare facility. Many jobs declared essential by governments during the pandemic—nursing, building maintenance, and garbage collection, for example—fall into this category of jobs with low remote work potential.

This mixed pattern of remote and physical activities of each occupation helps explain the results of a recent McKinsey survey of 800 corporate executives  around the world. Across all sectors, 38 percent of respondents expect their remote employees to work two or more days a week away from the office after the pandemic, compared to 22 percent of respondents surveyed before the pandemic. But just 19 percent of respondents to the most recent survey said they expected employees to work three or more days remotely. This suggests that executives anticipate operating their businesses with a hybrid model  of some sort, with employees working remotely and from an office during the workweek. JPMorgan already has a plan for its 60,950 employees to work from home one or two weeks a month or two days a week, depending on the line of business.

Hybrid remote work has important implications for urban economies

Currently, only a small share of the workforce in advanced economies—typically between 5 and 7 percent—regularly works from home. A shift to 15 to 20 percent of workers spending more time at home and less in the office could have profound impacts on urban economies. More people working remotely means fewer people commuting between home and work every day or traveling to different locations for work. This could have significant economic consequences, including on transportation, gasoline and auto sales, restaurants and retail in urban centers, demand for office real estate, and other consumption patterns.

A McKinsey survey of office space managers conducted in May found that after the pandemic, they expect a 36 percent increase in worktime outside their offices, affecting main offices and satellite locations. This means companies will need less office space, and several are already planning to reduce real estate expenses. Moody’s Analytics predicts that the office vacancy rate in the United States will climb to 19.4 percent, compared to 16.8 percent at the end of 2019, and rise to 20.2 percent by the end of 2022. A survey of 248 US chief operating officers found that one-third plan to reduce office space in the coming years as leases expire.

The impact of that will reverberate through the restaurants and bars, shops, and services businesses that cater to office workers and will put a dent in some state and local tax revenues. For example, REI plans to sell off its new corporate headquarters before even moving in and instead begin operating from satellite offices. In contrast, Amazon recently signed leases for a total of 900,000 feet of office space in six cities around the United States, citing the lack of spontaneity in virtual teamwork.

As tech companies announced plans for permanent remote work options, the median price of a one-bedroom rental in San Francisco dropped 24.2 percent compared to a year ago, while in New York City, which had roughly 28,000 residents in every square mile at the start of 2020, 15,000 rental apartments were empty in September, the most vacancies in recorded history.

Nor is residential real estate immune from the impact of remote work. As tech companies announced plans for permanent remote work options, the median price of a one-bedroom rental in San Francisco dropped 24.2 percent compared to a year ago, while in New York City, which had roughly 28,000 residents in every square mile at the start of 2020, 15,000 rental apartments were empty in September, the most vacancies in recorded history. Conversely, bidding wars are breaking out in suburbs and smaller cities as remote workers seek less harried, less expensive lifestyles and homes with a room that can serve as an office or gym—though it is unclear how successful companies will be with workers scattered in far-flung locales.

Remote workers may also shift consumption patterns. Less money spent on transportation, lunch, and wardrobes suitable for the office may be shifted to other uses. Sales of home office equipment, digital tools, and enhanced connectivity gear have boomed.

Whether the shift to remote work translates into spreading prosperity to smaller cities remains to be seen. Previous MGI research in the United States and Europe has shown a trend toward greater geographic concentration of work  in megacities like London and New York and high-growth hubs, including Seattle and Amsterdam . These locales have attracted many of the same type of younger, highly educated workers who can best work remotely. It remains to be seen whether the shift to remote work slows that trend, or whether the most vibrant cities remain magnets for such people.

Organizations will have to adjust their practices to capture potential productivity gains from remote work

Is remote work good for productivity? Ultimately, the answer may determine its popularity, especially given the long period of waning labor productivity  that preceded the pandemic. So far, there is scant clarity—and widespread contradiction—about the productivity impact. Some 41 percent of employees who responded to a McKinsey consumer survey in May said they were more productive working remotely than in the office. As employees have gained experience working remotely during the pandemic, their confidence in their productivity has grown, with the number of people saying they worked more productively increasing by 45 percent from April to May.

With nine months of experience under their belts, more employers are seeing somewhat better productivity from their remote workers. Interviews with chief executives about remote work elicited a mixed range of opinions. Some express confidence that remote work can continue, while others say they see few positives to remote work.

With nine months of experience under their belts, more employers are seeing somewhat better productivity from their remote workers.

One impediment to productivity may be connectivity. A researcher at Stanford University found that only 65 percent of Americans surveyed said they had fast enough internet service to support viable video calls, and in many parts of the developing world, the connectivity infrastructure is sparse or nonexistent. Developing digital infrastructure will require significant public and private investment.

For women in particular, remote work is a mixed blessing. It boosts flexibility—not needing to be physically co-located with fellow workers enables independent work and more flexible hours—as well as productivity, with less time wasted commuting. Yet remote work also may increase gender disparity in the workplace, exacerbating the regressive effects of COVID-19. The female workforce in many economies is more highly concentrated in occupational clusters like healthcare, food services, and customer service that have relatively low potential for remote work. Previous MGI research on gender parity found that jobs held by women are 19 percent more at risk than jobs held by men simply because women are disproportionately represented in sectors most negatively affected by COVID-19.

Some forms of remote work are likely to persist long after COVID-19 is conquered. This will require many shifts, such as investment in digital infrastructure, freeing up office space, and the structural transformation of cities, food services, commercial real estate, and retail. It also risks accentuating inequalities and creating new psychological and emotional stresses among employees, including from isolation. For most companies, having employees work outside the office  will require reinventing many processes and policies. How long before someone invents the virtual watercooler?

The authors wish to thank Olivia Robinson, Gurneet Singh Dandona, and Alok Singh for their contributions to this article.

This article was edited by Stephanie Strom, a senior editor at the McKinsey Global Institute.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

What 800 executives envision for the postpandemic workforce

Ten things to know about gender equality

The future of work in America: People and places, today and tomorrow

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

Consequences of COVID-19 on Employees in Remote Working: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities An Evidence-Based Literature Review

The COVID-19 pandemic forced organizations across all sectors and sizes to undertake crucial changes in order to remain productive during the emergency. Among these, the shift towards remote working arrangements is still present in our workplaces, impacting employees’ well-being and productivity. This systematic review aims to describe the pandemic’s consequences on work organization by analyzing whether and how the shift towards remote or home-working impacted employees’ productivity, performance, and well-being. Furthermore, it describes the role of individual and organizational factors in determining employees’ adjustment to remote work. Sixty-seven peer-reviewed papers published from 2020 to 2022, written in English, were selected through the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Findings describe how remote working arrangements, the workplace and organizational factors, and the employees’ individual traits and skills impacted employees’ productivity and well-being. Furthermore, they provide a description of the organizational enforcement actions reported in the literature. Managerial and practical implications, such as enforcement actions, team management strategies, and initiatives to promote employees’ physical and mental health, will be discussed in the paper.

1. Introduction

At the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a pandemic: it began in Wuhan, China, but rapidly spread all over the world. On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic as a public health emergency of international concern [ 1 ]. Considering the severe consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals’ physical health as well as on public health and social systems, governments adopted strict prevention measures. There were however differences between countries, also in relation to the different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 2 ]. Some people could not go outside of their houses, while in other countries lockdowns did not last long and reached only specific economic sectors [ 3 ]. Among the most recurrent measures to contrast the COVID-19 pandemic was the mandatory closure of schools, the interruption of all nonessential productions and commercial activities, and the transformation of the workplace from a physical office space into a virtual place [ 4 ].

The national lockdowns that were implemented to stop the spread of the virus forced many organizations to turn suddenly into remote work, pushing towards a much greater use of technology [ 5 ]. At the same time, before the pandemic, most workers had little remote working experience, nor were they or their organizations prepared to support these practices [ 6 ].

The sudden spread of technology-based working arrangements resulted in a high number of international reports and scientific papers describing employees’ working conditions, using several different terms, such as remote working [ 7 , 8 ], teleworking [ 9 , 10 ], and working from home [ 11 , 12 ]. Despite the differences among them (for example, remote or teleworking not necessarily imply that the employee is working from home), it is not possible to universally define technology-based work arrangements [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. For this reason, throughout this paper we will use remote working and teleworking as synonyms and will refer to work from home or home-working when the papers we are citing used such terms.

Apart from the issues linked to definitions of remote working, most organizations were not ready or willing to move in this direction. Nevertheless, the changes endorsed because of the pandemic generated a new workplace panorama. It is improbable that the previous organizational assets will be restored due to the substantial changes that the pandemic has somehow imposed and promoted. Current research and reports, indeed, suggest that remote working or, more generally, flexible forms of work will be implemented even after the pandemic’s end. In other words, different forms of hybrid work are becoming a stable feature of the workplace [ 16 , 17 ].

In this light, it is interesting to understand the challenges, opportunities, and risks related to remote working that impacted organizations during the COVID-19 onset and spread [ 18 ]. The organizational changes enforced now are the result of two processes. On one hand, they refer to organizations’ answers to an exceptional period, to find ways to survive or even grow. On the other, they are new forms of working that have proven to be effective in the short run but require attention regarding employees’ well-being and organizational productivity. It is then essential to understand which lessons are to be learned from remote work, which seems to be the most relevant change introduced in the workplace [ 9 ].

Of course, the different lockdowns or periods in which a number of restrictions were imposed were themselves a stressful event. However, the push towards remote work and, in general, towards new ways of working linked with information and communication technology (ICT) emerged during this phase and generated knowledge and experiences that need to be capitalized upon [ 19 ]. Therefore, this stage is highly needed: the phase of dramatic change may be over, but there are changes due to the widespread remote work that will still continue to have an impact.

Work organization has dramatically been re-arranged, following different schemes, depending on different dimensions: the availability of ICT and employees’ skills before the pandemic; the actual feasibility of this change according to the sector in which the organizations operate. For example, the remote working transition was possible mainly among office-based work but not among production plants or manufacturing sites [ 5 , 10 ]. Consistently, an ILO policy brief published in 2020 showed that only 20 to 34% of the workforce could work from home, based on the tasks and characteristics of different types of jobs [ 20 ].

The relative feasibility of the remote transition for office-based organizations implied that some organizations or employees moved from office-based work to full-time home-based work [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. In some cases, employees were allowed to choose whether they wanted to work from home; in other instances, it was required either by national laws to counter the pandemic or it was mandatory as a result of organizational decisions [ 24 , 25 ]. Finally, there were different phases, where employees had to stay at home, while in other periods, employees could go back partially or totally to the office to work [ 26 ].

While in some cases the tasks involved in the remote working phase were just the same as the ones pursued before the pandemic onset, in most cases, new tasks were added due to the general changes faced by the organizations [ 27 , 28 ]. Furthermore, new strategies were implemented to introduce higher flexibility or innovation, for example, when establishing new forms of social support from colleagues or supervisors to overcome difficulties and problems arising from ICT use [ 27 , 28 ].

In any of these cases, remote or home-based work requires changes in the strategies implemented to monitor employees’ work and performance. Remote working makes it impossible to use well-known, office-based performance evaluation strategies [ 29 , 30 ].

Overall, studies and reports on the pandemic’s impact on organizations (across all sectors and sizes) highlight the profound changes that organizations were forced to undertake to remain productive during the different lockdowns [ 8 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. As stated before, these changes still inform our workplaces. Thus, this review aims to describe the pandemic’s consequences on work organization by analyzing whether and how the shift towards remote or home-working impacted the employees’ productivity, performance, and well-being. Furthermore, even in consideration of the unexpectedness of the COVID-19-related events, this study describes the role of individual and organizational factors in determining employees’ adjustment to remote work.

The paper selection process followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement [ 34 ]. Eligibility criteria were empirical studies published in peer-reviewed full-length articles from 2020 to 2022, written in English. The period of literary research lasted from May 2020 to July 2022.

2.1. Information Sources and Search Strategy

Databases and search engines employed for the search were: EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and Web of Science. Each database required a different detailed strategy. At the same time, the following generic combination of keywords covered the focus of our research:

“Remote working” or “telework” or “eworking” or “e-working” or “work from home” or “home-based tele-work” or “virtual working” or “telecommuting” or “smart working” or “agile working” or “agile work” or “smart work” or “teleworking” or “ework” or “e-work” or “home working” or “home work” or “home-based work” or “home based work” or “home-based working” or “home based working” “home-working” or “home-work”

“Psychosocial risks” or “well-being” or “wellbeing” or “stress” or “technostress” or “tecnostress”

The keywords were searched in the publication title or abstract according to the needs.

2.2. Data Collection Process

All references were gathered in a Mendeley database. Two authors independently reviewed selected references, thus obtaining the final list of documents to be analyzed. As the chosen databases allowed to preselect full-text availability, year, and language of publication, this manual selection procedure mainly regarded paper content. Papers in which the content was not entirely within the scope of this review (e.g., theoretical position paper, prescriptive approaches, best practices) and did not include empirical research were eliminated. Furthermore, the authors scrutinized the reference section of selected papers, looking for further works written in English that could fit the eligibility criteria. They also read their abstracts to check whether they could be included in the review.

Figure 1 [ 35 ] shows the whole workflow that brought about the final paper selection.

Study selection workflow.

2.3. Study Selection

After applying the inclusive and exclusive criteria ( Figure 1 ), 67 papers were determined as eligible and were included in the review (included papers are marked with an asterisk in the references list).

Seven main themes emerged from the content analysis of the papers. Figure 2 shows how the papers are distributed across the categories. As shown, almost all the papers (N = 64) refer to employee well-being conditions, whether impacted by the workplace, the individual or the organizational factors. A total of 37 papers, instead, described the impact of remote working experiences and conditions on productivity and performance. Furthermore, Figure 2 indicates how many papers include contents specifically related to one category among the ones individuated (Papers exclusively in this category in Figure 2 ). With this regard, it is interesting to observe that several papers focus on one category (N of papers addressing only one category = 43), with categories on the impact on employee well-being being the most represented across the papers.

Papers distribution across categories.

3.1. Impact of Remote Work on Individual Performance and Productivity

Several research contributions among the ones selected for this review describe the effects of remote or home-working on employee productivity.

Before considering the effects of such working arrangements on performance and productivity, a first reflection on the performance assessments has to be done. From the paper analysis, it emerges that the assessment by employees of their quality of work and productivity is not the same across different professional groups. For example, in a study in Italy, teachers reported a lower perceived quality of work than other professionals [ 36 ]. On the other hand, when the job tasks are usually pursued in an office, the work-from-home arrangement seems to boost the perceived performance [ 36 ]. These differences likely depend on the tasks usually performed at work and the ICT literacy of the employees. In the case of teachers, despite having potential good ICT skills because of the use of technology in the classroom, videoconferencing tools to interact with students may have negatively impacted the quality of their work.

Concerning the effects of remote working on employees, many selected papers describe issues related to stress and anxiety conditions, mainly due to the consequences of full or partial national lockdowns that forced remote or home-work, or the fast switch to the use of ICT. Overall, such conditions affected employees’ well-being and, in turn, their productivity [ 19 , 37 ].

At the same time, some studies showed that when employees were satisfied with their telework conditions, they experienced higher subjective well-being and better self-reported performance [ 38 ]. Further, subjective well-being emerged also to partially mediate the relationship between telework satisfaction and self-reported performance [ 38 ].

Interestingly, in a study performed among a group of employees working from home in Hong Kong, stress did not directly impact productivity but promoted non-work-related activities during working hours, such as caring for children, doing housework, or playing video games and sports. However, performing these non-work-related activities did not affect productivity, suggesting that this may effectively counteract stress [ 39 ].

In this regard, the participants of a Czech study reported that they found their work from home more efficient than in the office. Moreover most of the 90 employees interviewed showed a positive perception of home office employees with regards to saving time, or the feeling of freedom, while confirming the adverse effects of isolation [ 40 ].

These findings are interesting since they show that remote work per se does not bring positive or negative outcomes, but rather that the consequences depend on many individual and work factors. Therefore, the following sections will describe individual and organizational factors that contribute to shaping the effect of remote working on employee performance during the pandemic.

3.2. Impact of Individual Factors on Individual Performance and Productivity

In line with the previous literature on job satisfaction, employees’ satisfaction with remote work has also emerged as being strongly linked with productivity [ 41 , 42 ].

For instance, employees satisfied with the ICT tools at work are more willing to explore additional features of their systems while also seeking more effective ways to execute their work tasks, thus enhancing their performance and innovativeness [ 19 , 43 ].

In the same line, a longitudinal study carried out in Colombia on employees who compulsorily switched to teleworking because of the pandemic showed that work–home conflict and work overload generated strain, which decreased job satisfaction with telework, and thus perceived job performance [ 44 ].

Concerns about contracting the virus have also proven to play a role in productivity: remote work satisfaction in an Italian group of employees was higher for employees with higher perceived productivity and lower concern about the virus [ 42 ]. In other words, the relationship between work satisfaction and perceived productivity is moderated by concern about the virus [ 42 ]. Not surprisingly, satisfaction with COVID-19 countermeasures among employees working in the office, and thus with employees’ perceived safety, was significantly associated with work productivity [ 45 ].

Regarding individual performance, in a study carried out among academic staff in Indonesia, it emerged that digital orientation (i.e., an individual’s commitment towards the application of digital technology to support the accomplishment of the job) impacts employees’ digital capability, which in turn affects their productivity. In other words, digital capability mediates the relationship between digital orientation and productivity [ 12 ]. Consistently, a study on software engineers showed low to no suffering due to the home-working condition, thanks to the high familiarity with ICT tools that allowed them to create the best possible conditions at home to pursue their goals [ 46 ].

Another factor affecting performance is procrastination, which exerts a highly detrimental impact on individuals’ work effectiveness from home [ 8 ]. Indeed procrastination emerged as a problem with productivity at work when not counterbalanced with self-discipline [ 8 , 40 ].

Finally, it emerged also that work-home interference plays a detrimental role in performance. From the interviews collected in the study, it emerged that working parents faced a more significant challenge in balancing work and family duties, especially when working at home and at the same time having to take care of children who were out of school because of the lockdowns. More than that, more working hours were required very often. These interferences between work and family domains could make people feel exhausted and, therefore, less productive [ 8 , 40 ].

3.3. Impact of Organizational and Workplace Factors on Individual Performance and Productivity

Generally speaking, the organizational contexts supporting mental, physical, and social functioning have increased employee productivity during the pandemic. In addition, some papers focused on enforcement actions that positively affected employees’ productivity and job satisfaction [ 37 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ].

The pandemic induced occupational discomfort, namely the lack of proper telework conditions from home, which impacted job performance. Occupational discomfort refers to the lack of clear policy about working from home, experiencing poor ICT connectivity, inadequate personal space, time management, limited guidance, poor ergonomic premises, and no peer communication [ 41 , 48 ]. Furthermore, all types of multitasking and interruptions from colleagues, supervisors, and their family members, were mentioned as detrimental to employee productivity. It is interesting to note that women are more exposed to these latter problems [ 52 ].

Not surprisingly, productivity was enhanced among organizations that provided resources to create a proper work environment at home as well as technical assistance and specific training for the new ways of working [ 37 , 48 , 49 , 50 ].

Leadership, of course, plays a relevant role in determining employees’ productivity.

Leaders promoting a sustainable way of working for their employees boosted their organizational commitment and extra-role behavior, which, in turn, are antecedents of higher productivity [ 5 ]. Sustainable leadership refers mainly to the ability to offer guidance and avoid intrusive monitoring [ 8 , 47 ]. Positive and effective leadership behavior examples included the ability to acknowledge the quality and quantity of the work done by employees, despite not having the chance to monitor them directly, and, consequently, assigning the right amount of work to prevent workload [ 7 , 10 , 26 , 36 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ].

Another valuable leadership skill reported in the papers includes monitoring and promoting social support, especially in sharing digital support among employees [ 58 ]. Thanks to these initiatives, employees are helped to overcome reluctance and apprehensiveness related to the use of ICT and their dependency [ 59 ]. A further issue tackled by positive and effective leadership leading to productivity is the handling of teams. Introducing new norms and standards about online communication and asynchronous collaboration could overcome conflicts among team members related to delays, interruptions, different individual work rates, or workloads not distributed equally. These problems were a serious menace to team performance and productivity [ 47 ].

Finally, communication is another organizational factor linked to performance. A study in China showed that ineffective organizational communication negatively impacted individuals’ work effectiveness from home [ 8 ], specifically when employees did not receive the necessary instructions and information to perform their duties.

3.4. Impact of the Workplace on Well-Being

Several studies highlight how productivity in the workplace is strongly linked with employees’ physical and mental well-being [ 39 , 45 , 50 , 60 ]. The pandemic changed the workers’ routines and lifestyle, generating problems both in physical and mental/psychological health [ 24 ].

Regarding physical distress/problems among workers during the lockdowns, several studies report confinement to home and sedentary activity leading to the discomfort of different body parts [ 61 ]. Musculoskeletal pain emerged as a consequence of the imposed sedentarism and the inadequacy of the physical premises available at home, such as lack of ergonomic chairs, proper lights, or a private space to work [ 11 ]. In addition, new ways of working were introduced in most cases very rapidly, without the opportunity to organize and revise them to prevent distress both at physical and psychological levels [ 62 ].

These sudden changes affected working routines and habits. For example, a study in Japan reported that employees who worked remotely instead of in the office because of the pandemic spent less time doing physical exercises compared to colleagues who already worked remotely before the COVID-19 restrictions and those who worked from the office [ 63 ]. This finding is in line with the worsening of sleep quality, decrease in work-related health, and decline in physical functioning found in other studies [ 64 ]. Consistently, a study in Canada flags screen fatigue problems [ 65 ] due to longer work hours while working from home than in the office.

In many cases, the new way of remote work affected the quality of working life due to the difficulties in disconnecting from work, thus working longer hours.

A number of factors related to organizational factors also affected the psychological well-being of employees. For example, a study developed in Romania has shown a positive relationship between remote working and perceived professional development levels, job satisfaction, and well-being [ 66 ].

At the same time, several organizational factors affected employees’ well-being, generating depression, anxiety, and stress among employees [ 19 ]. These factors include: working extra hours, having a heavier workload, feeling socially isolated, worsening feelings of job security, experiencing difficulties in accessing the necessary work tools from home [ 67 ], and feeling a strong demand for new ICT-related skills to cope with the new ways of working. However, it is important to first acknowledge the role of the pandemic itself and the fear of contracting the virus. A study differentiated between the sources of ill-being, showing that a significant part of the anxious and depressive symptoms was due to COVID-19-related conditions instead of work arrangements [ 37 ].

Furthermore, factors such as longer working hours and the general home-working arrangement impacted employees’ well-being even in other forms, for example, by compromising work-life balance or reducing the time devoted to leisure, family duties, and friends [ 68 ].

The pandemic-related arrangements impacted the quality of work life as well. Isolation made it more challenging to receive and ask for help from colleagues and reduced the quality of interpersonal exchange; isolation also meant problems connected with poor or difficult communication due to the sudden changes in the organization of work [ 8 ]. Isolation also undermined the sense of belonging to the organization, which, in turn, caused depressive symptoms [ 69 ]. Following this line of thinking, a study carried out among administrative and teaching staff of Iraqi universities found that telework only reduces job stress when employees do not believe it will lead to social isolation [ 70 ].

Job demands for new ICT skills and procedures elicited a sense of professional inadequacy among employees, as well as the fear of losing their job and facing financial instability. The latter was also connected to the financial difficulties faced by the organization or the automation of certain job tasks, or the competition with colleagues having higher ICT skills [ 7 ]. Several studies refer specifically to techno-stressors, that is, stress factors linked directly to the use of ICT. These include techno-overload, related to the intensification and increased workload connected with the introduction of ICT, and techno-invasion, related to the blurring of boundaries between work and private contexts due to ICT use (see i.e., [ 16 , 28 , 65 , 71 ]). Some papers refer to work overload, which is the perception of having too many work-role tasks to fulfill, due to the new way of working and not having enough time to do them, despite the time saved for commuting or going to the office [ 52 ]. Linked with it is also reported a required high level of multitasking, as well as work-based interruptions (such as these linked to family tasks), generating lower performance [ 52 ].

3.5. Impact of Individual Factors on Well-Being

It has to be noted that these factors did not emerge as affecting all workers in the same way. In fact, some groups of workers were more affected than others.

Some studies analyzed the role of gender in the risk for employees’ physical and mental health problems. For example, in a study carried out in India, it emerged that women were more affected by organizational and social stress [ 72 ]. Moreover, in a study carried out in Egypt among university staff members, high levels of technostress were linked with the female gender and a lousy workplace environment [ 73 ]. Studies comparing women and men show quite a consistent pattern, where women report more stress and more difficulties, worsened by a bad workplace environment [ 26 , 52 , 66 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ] as well as a higher number of hours devoted to child care and home tasks [ 72 ] in comparison with men. Similarly, a Canadian study showed that marginalized workers (women, migrants, and people facing financial hardships) reported lower job security, which was related to lower well-being scores [ 76 ].

Even other demographic factors impacted the quality of work and life during the pandemic. For example, a study carried out in Germany and Switzerland reported that younger age, living alone, reduction of leisure time, and changes in the quantity of time devoted to caring duties were associated with more detrimental psychological outcomes on personal life. On the other hand, living with a partner or family, short-time work, increase in leisure time, and caring duties were associated with positive mental well-being [ 18 ].

Social conditions were reported as well. For instance, among a group of school teachers in Chile, more than half suffered from poor mental health, but those more prone to psychological problems were working in private-subsidized schools, working overtime hours [ 77 ].

In line with previous literature on stress, a couple of studies addressed the relevance of employees’ activation of proactive coping strategies, such as help-seeking and active problem-focused coping, recreation, and relaxation activities to cope with work-related stress [ 57 , 78 ].

Employees’ cognitive appraisal of their work is also linked to individual well-being: in the case of telework, a study developed in Romania reported a positive relationship between professional development and competencies, job satisfaction, and well-being, and a negative relationship between the emotional dimension, commitment, autonomy, and well-being [ 66 ].

Other studies dealt with dispositional traits related to individual well-being. For example, from a study carried out among a group of employees working from home, it emerged that those with a “solitary profile” (i.e., high levels of preference for solitude and neuroticism, low levels of extraversion and agreeableness, and moderate levels of conscientiousness and openness) reported higher loneliness at work, higher levels of stress, and lower levels of job satisfaction and work engagement than those with an “affiliative” profile (i.e., low levels of preference for solitude and neuroticism, high levels of extraversion and agreeableness, and moderate levels of conscientiousness and openness) [ 79 ].

Another powerful personal resource affecting individual well-being is self-discipline. Workers who considered themselves self-disciplined claimed to be more able to deal positively with the work-family balance, than those who described themselves as less self-disciplined, completing their work more efficiently and timely [ 8 , 80 ].

Self-compassion also emerged as a competence able to promote employees’ well-being: workers with a higher score in self-compassion show lower levels of depression and loneliness. This association is because self-compassionate employees are more likely to feel connected with others during the challenging experience of work loneliness imposed by the lockdowns. Moreover, they also tend to be more aware of and more ready to accept their feeling of loneliness [ 69 ].

In line with this, mindfulness turned out to be positively related to job satisfaction and negatively associated with technostress [ 19 , 41 ]. Although mindful employees are more likely to assess their working conditions, they are more able to respond more objectively to the demands and challenges posed by the new situations, thus lowering the impact of techno stressors and feeling more competent about them their professional skills [ 19 ].

Similarly, emotional intelligence has also been shown to reduce the negative impact of social isolation on employees’ well-being [ 81 ]: in fact, people who hold a higher level of emotional intelligence are more able to perceive, empathize and regulate their emotions, thus becoming more able to develop stronger and more positive relationships with others which, in turn, promotes their well-being [ 81 ].

3.6. Impact of Organizational Factors on Well-Being

The pandemic has had different effects on employees’ personal lives according to the extent to which it generated dramatic changes and, more than that, on the degree to which employees experienced an opportunity to influence their work and life. How organizations changed and managed employees’ work during the pandemic has proven to impact employees’ well-being [ 76 ]. In this line, perceived autonomy and job crafting correlate negatively with stress and positively with workload [ 82 ], showing that workers who feel unable to contribute constructively to their job are more prone to psychological distress [ 83 ].

Job crafting is crucial when used to grow flexibility and spend more time with family. In these cases, employees show a higher level of psychological health than those who struggle to balance their private life with their working life due to the interference between home and work during remote work and an increase in daily working hours [ 52 ]. Consistently, work hours can extend easily when the employees work at home. Hence, leading to an increase in daily working hours [ 84 ]. This factor is often combined with another work stressor: role overload. Role overload refers to the extension of the duties and tasks required when the employees work from home, and it was reported to be especially frequent during the pandemic [ 41 , 52 , 67 ].

Another valuable dimension is job autonomy. Job autonomy, indeed, is negatively correlated to loneliness, suggesting that employees who are, to some extent, free to organize their workday feel a higher sense of connection and relatedness than those who are subjected to different ways of working [ 8 ]. On the other hand, in a study carried out in Japan, it emerged that those who were forced to move from office work to telework were less satisfied than those who continued working from home, independently from the outbreak [ 63 ].

Job autonomy also refers to employees being able to take care of their mental well-being and alleviate the perception of cognitive overload by implementing “digital detox measures”. Employees applied limits on their use of technologies, for example, switching off notifications, powering off electronic devices at a specific time in the evening, or responding to emails only at a predefined time [ 85 ].

Interestingly, autonomy in another study emerged as being correlated negatively with employees’ well-being in the case of telework [ 66 ]. Unfortunately, the studies mentioned above do not report on the extent of the autonomy granted to the employees. However, this factor might be related to another factor: the role played by the leadership. The degree of monitoring procedures implemented by leaders, indeed, may undermine a positive work-life balance [ 86 ] by impacting employees’ stress and well-being, mainly when performed in an intrusive [ 8 ] or authoritative [ 7 ] way. Moreover, quality leadership has proven to contrast counterproductive work behaviors and promote organizational citizenship behaviors through internal marketing [ 51 ]. At the same time, a lack of “ COVID-19-related informational justice” by the management led to depressive symptoms [ 69 ].

On the contrary, positive and effective leadership impacts employees’ well-being [ 26 ], contrasting and preventing stress. At the same time, when leaders can promote and sustain organizational and social support, they increase the perception of psychological safety [ 8 , 32 ]. Employees who feel their organization is taking care of them and their work develop positive emotional resources. In these cases, a present and caring leadership style represents a form of adequate organizational support [ 41 ].

Moreover, coworkers’ support is linked to a lower workload perception and a more positive work-home balance [ 8 ]. Finally, social support elicits emotional resources, making employees more able to cope with the challenges and demands of work [ 32 ].

Quality in interpersonal relationships among colleagues and managers has also proven to bring other positive effects. For example, a study carried out in Poland involving 220 IT employees showed that good employee relationships can have a positive effect on job satisfaction. Also, interpersonal trust in managers mediates the relationship between employee relations and job satisfaction [ 53 ]. Consistently, another study showed that quality interpersonal relationships with colleagues boost positive coping strategies (i.e., help-seeking and active coping), which promote well-being and quality of work life [ 57 ].

In terms of more general management, a study showed the relevance of organizational communication. This factor indeed emerged to be positively associated with employees’ self-efficacy and negatively with technostress and psycho-physical disorders [ 87 ]. Furthermore, good organizational communication has also proven to prevent and contrast the feeling of being neglected by the employees, since their commitment to work may be questioned because they are not physically present. Recognizing the work done, in turn, contrasts occupational stress and is linked with employees’ loyalty [ 88 ].

4. Discussion

This literature review aims to systematize the substantial body of research focusing on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote working arrangements.

Due to the limitations imposed by the pandemic, workers suddenly switched from working in an office to remote or home-working. Overall, the studies analyzed show heterogeneous consequences on employees’ well-being, productivity and performance. Interestingly, in addition to papers that explored the positive or negative effects of remote working on well-being, productivity or performance [ 36 , 39 , 40 , 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 ], other categories of studies have also emerged [ 42 , 57 , 68 , 78 ]. These examined how employees’ characteristics shape their remote working experiences, thus influencing their productivity, performance, and well-being. In other words, how individual factors such as personal living conditions (e.g., the management of domestic spaces) [ 40 ], personal resources (e.g., coping strategies) [ 57 , 78 ], and perception of ability with ICT [ 46 ] influenced their evaluations of remote work. Similarly, organizational factors such as leadership style [ 5 , 7 , 47 ], co-workers’ support [ 8 ], and job autonomy [ 8 , 66 ] have also positively or negatively influenced employees’ perceptions about the transition and implementation of remote work. From this, it can be concluded that remote or home-working is not intrinsically fruitful or harmful, but that personal or organizational factors have characterized its perception. Consequently, during the lockdown periods, remote working represented an opportunity for some employees to increase their quality of life [ 66 , 76 , 83 ] and a source of personal or work distress for others [ 8 , 51 , 63 ]. While organizations cannot intervene on personal dispositions towards stress sensitivity, these data are helpful, as they underline which dimensions can be linked to a higher risk while teleworking and which can lead to a higher adaptation and well-being. The organizational factors promoting or mining a fruitful use of remote working can be reorganized and strategically planned to reduce employees’ risks and improve their productivity, performance, or well-being.

An interesting reflection concerns the role of technologies and their perception by employees.

It must be noted that the shift towards remote work through ICT has mainly been addressed during the pandemic as a necessary but also challenging choice for helping firms’ financial and operational sustainability [ 5 ]. On the other hand, the impact of a rapid and sudden introduction of ICT in the workplace has often been perceived (and addressed) in relation to the negative consequences of reduced interpersonal interaction among members of the same organization [ 8 ]. In this respect, in fact, such an innovation has been often perceived as a serious risk of stress and burnout [ 19 , 37 ]. In reality, the use of technology in most cases was almost the only way to preserve interaction and interpersonal relationships among workers during the lockdowns [ 27 , 28 ]. ICT can also be addressed as a new, different way of interacting among workers, thus presenting not only difficulties but also points of strength [ 89 , 90 ]. The condition under which ICT may jeopardize or promote social support is an aspect that would deserve to be further explored in the future.

On the other hand, a factor that was little explored but could have had a combined effect with work-related stress was the concern for COVID-19 experienced by employees. Fear of getting infected likely made employees feel insecure about their health and safety [ 91 ].

Toscano and Zappalà [ 42 ] showed a relationship between stress, perceived productivity, remote job satisfaction, and concern for COVID-19. Building on this, it is likely that this aspect influenced findings from other studies not addressing the COVID-19 concerns. Consequently, it would have been helpful to investigate to what extent the pandemic threatened employee productivity and well-being and to verify the specific role of remote work arrangements on the same outcomes. In the other words, it may be useful to distinguish between different factors: the stress generated by the workers’ fear of deteriorating their financial condition in relation to the consequences of the pandemic [ 7 ], the concern for their health due to the spread of the COVID-19 [ 91 ], the difficulties in dealing with a new way of working (namely, using ICT) [ 7 ], as well as the new ways of interacting with other members of the same organization [ 89 ].

Future studies on remote working arrangements in different phases of the pandemic management may help figure out how remote conditions themselves impact employees’ experiences of work and its integration with private life.

A further interesting line of study is the role played by interpersonal trust in promoting employees’ well-being and mental health [ 53 , 57 ]). Indeed, as shown in previous studies, interpersonal trust in the workplace has emerged as a strong protective factor after another catastrophic financial event which was the 2008 worldwide financial and economic crisis [ 92 , 93 , 94 ].

Finally, to the best of our knowledge, only two longitudinal studies [ 44 , 95 ] have been conducted about the effects of remote working on productivity and well-being. Further studies may help to understand the pandemic’s extended consequences and the remote working arrangements, likely allowing to model the specific effects of each condition.

Next to the mentioned detrimental effects, several studies showed how the pandemic led to an unexpected and forced organizational change that created multifaceted conditions of performance, productivity and well-being related to remote working [ 5 ]. Even involuntary and unplanned changes imply organizational structure or process transformations [ 96 ]. They can be addressed through a cycle of structured actions, including establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful leading coalition, creating and communicating a vision, enabling others to act on the vision, planning and creating short-term victories, consolidating improvements to bringing about more change, and institutionalizing new approaches [ 97 ]. These models highlight that a deep understanding of employee attitudes and behaviors towards such changes is essential to address them successfully and minimize negative consequences [ 98 ]. On the contrary, if this condition is not satisfied, employees may show adverse reactions, such as resistance, resentment, and disengagement, that can inhibit the successful implementation of organizational change [ 99 ].

A general consideration must be made about the type of remote working conditions studied during the pandemic. COVID-19-related remote working conditions, indeed, required a peculiar form of adaptation and adjustment for several reasons [ 48 ]. Firstly, remote working before the pandemic represented an alternative to office work offered to employees to promote a higher work-life integration [ 100 ]. During the pandemic, instead, it became a full-time mandatory practice, thus losing the voluntary nature that characterized it [ 48 ]. Secondly, remote working was considered the only tool to ensure corporate continuity during the crisis. However, several organizations were not ready (from a strategic, instrumental, and technological point of view) to implement this new arrangement [ 6 ]. In this regard, the organizations that showed valuable abilities to manage the change process related to the pandemic were even able to reduce the impact of potential stressors on the employees by driving them in the change and implementing practical actions to support their well-being, performance, and productivity [ 49 , 50 ].

5. Conclusions

It is unknown what will be left of remote work and in which organizational contexts it will persist since many national contexts are still elaborating laws and regulations to define the administrative boundaries of such practices [ 101 , 102 ].

Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic and the following organizational changes brought positive consequences. Organizations, especially leaders, confirmed that many good practices concerning increasing ad hoc skills in managing remote work and strategies and positive habits promoting psychological and physical well-being could be implemented. In this regard, the review’s collected studies have shown a wide range of mental and physical health promotion programs, new approaches to online training, and creative ways of socializing at a distance. These strategies have been shown to effectively alleviate potential work stressors and improve the workers’ adjustment to remote work [ 27 , 37 , 49 , 50 , 103 ]. At the same time, virtual learning and development, communication exercises, live sessions for training new skills, digital classroom training modules, e-learning modules, and many other creative learning sessions have been the starting point to sustain teleworkers’ performance during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 49 ]. Moreover, such programs were often paired with technical and ergonomic resource provision, even through technical assistance and specific trainings [ 37 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. These practical forms of support boosted other forms of organizational communications around the vision of change and rewarding procedures involving employees [ 51 ]. Overall, the studies showed that organizations that provided both instrumental and relational support have effectively managed organizational change and allowed the employees to adjust to remote work.

The enforcement actions developed during the pandemic will be described in more detail in the following section dealing with managerial implications. In fact, they can also represent useful intervention methods in the future context of hybrid work.

5.1. Managerial Implications

Organizational factors that promote or hinder an effective use of remote working can be strategically reorganized and planned to improve employees’ productivity and well-being. Our results highlight which dimensions can be considered obstacles in the remote or home-working practice and which ones can lead to a greater adaptation and well-being.

Several studies showed how some organizations endorsed positive actions with COVID-19-related work issues and supported employees’ well-being and productivity.

During the pandemic, organizations supported employees’ social well-being by implementing engagement actions and promoting a culture of trust and collaboration, thus promoting their social well-being [ 37 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 ].

Most of these programs have focused on promoting employees’ mental and social well-being [ 27 , 37 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 103 ].

Some organizations have introduced webinars focusing on anxiety and stress, online meditation classes, and training to develop new daily habits about health, hygiene, and the positive work-life balance of employees [ 49 ]. Other organizations have also provided access to yoga and fitness instructors to compensate for sedentary lifestyles and lack of physical activity in teleworkers, which, together with harmful eating habits, can lead to severe issues (such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus) [ 50 ].

Some activities aimed to empower workers, increase awareness of the current situation, and analyze the pros and cons of remote/home-working [ 37 , 49 ]. In the academic context, the researchers were involved in virtual empowering sessions on different topics, such as individual differences in addressing the COVID-19 challenges, managing the crisis, and how to thrive during and not just survive [ 37 ].

Other developed actions to motivate the teams have been weekly alignment sessions, team meet-ups, virtual challenges and competitions, online courses, sharing content such as TED Talks or online books, webinars with industry experts, and online counseling sessions. Organizational support was also expressed through “family engagement practices” as intended online babysitting, in which employee kids were kept engaged for a few hours while parents worked from home [ 49 ]. At the same time, other practices had a more informal and playful character [ 50 ]. For example, in some organizations, the leaders organized team-building activities and virtual events such as lunch in a video conference [ 49 ], online happy hour, hidden talent show, virtual karaoke, and campfire challenges [ 50 ].

Each of these actions helped develop a positive relationship between superiors and employees so that these last members felt free to discuss any issues and concerns [ 50 ].

More frequently, team leaders had more individual online meetings with other members to check their mental health and assess the team’s mood [ 53 ]. Teams have also independently developed peer support actions [ 21 , 47 ].

Employees established fifteen-minute “online morning huddles”. The purpose of these informal meetings was to take care of others and check their well-being through questions that concerned not the work but the personal sphere of colleagues (e.g., family). In addition to stemming the sense of loneliness, this good practice has helped develop a compassionate culture among members and created cohesion [ 21 ].

These listed are examples of good practices that have had a positive impact on employees working outside the workplace during the pandemic. These executive actions, developed in a pandemic context, could continue to be used even in the context of normal life or still characterized by restrictions representing precious approaches to intervention for promoting employees’ productivity and well-being in a sort of “heterogeneity of purposes” [ 104 ].

5.2. Practical Implications

A section of this paper deals with effective ways and interventions to address stress and challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, in the hope that such information will constitute a resource for managers and HR consultants.

5.3. Challenges, Risks and Opportunities

The main challenge will be to adapt these new ways of working in a post-pandemic situation. This process could include various factors, such as the type of organization, the size of the organization, the organizational culture, and the implicit norms already present within each organizational reality. Furthermore, leaders could model the perception of ICT use, helping employees to perceive technology as a means of facilitating the performance of tasks and professional and social interactions.

However, as highlighted by some studies in this review, the main risk is to organize flexible work arrangements forgetting their initial assumptions instead of increasing the employees’ autonomy and flexibility and improving their work-life integration.

Regarding the opportunities, organizations could further apply the enforcement actions developed during the pandemic. These good practices can have positive effects on employees’ well-being and productivity also in a post-pandemic work environment.

Furthermore, the consistent post-pandemic use of flexible work arrangements can promote research on the impact of technology-mediated strategies promoting employees’ flexibility and autonomy on their well-being and productivity. In this regard, longitudinal research designs could be used to have a better picture of the phenomenon.

5.4. Limitations and Strengths

Our study took into consideration peer-reviewed papers, published in English in international journals. We realized, though, that there is much more material published in other languages, which might have offered interesting insights. Moreover, other papers about the pandemic’s consequences on the workplace and employees’ well-being may be published soon. On the other hand, it was important to start a reflection based on the studies already carried out and deepen the knowledge about this topic.

This is exactly the main strength of this paper. Having a detailed view of workplace changes and valuable indicators such as employees’ performance, productivity and well-being can enable future work organization development and how to deal with new challenges.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent 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.

• 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: Where Managers and Employees Disagree About Remote Work

• Nicholas Bloom,
• Jose Maria Barrero,
• Steven Davis,
• Brent Meyer,
• Emil Mihaylov

Part of the disconnect hinges on how productivity is measured.

Survey research suggests that managers and employees see remote work very differently. Managers are more likely to say it harms productivity, while employees are more likely to say it helps. The difference may be commuting: Employees consider hours not spent commuting in their productivity calculations, while managers don’t. The answer is clearer communication and policies, and for many companies the best policy will be managed hybrid with two to three mandatory days in office.

Remote work is one of the biggest changes to working since World War II, but it’s being held back by a major disconnect between managers and employees. Case in point is Elon Musk. He decreed in November that employees must come into the office, only to walk it back after it threatened to speed up the pace of resignations. It was a “hardcore” mistake by Musk, but a less dramatic version of the same story is playing out across the economy.  

• Nicholas Bloom is a professor of economics at Stanford University.
• JB Jose Maria Barrero is assistant professor of finance at Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México.
• SD Steven Davis is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
• BM Brent Meyer is an assistant vice president and economist in the research department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
• EM Emil Mihaylov is a Senior Economic Research Analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Partner Center

Challenges and opportunities of remotely working from home during Covid-19 pandemic

Affiliation.

• 1 Product Innovation Centre, Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom.
• PMID: 34870136
• PMCID: PMC8626352
• DOI: 10.1016/j.glt.2021.11.001

The demand of online remote working from home significantly increased in 2020/21 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This unforeseen situation has forced individuals and organisations to rapidly train employees and adopt the use of on-line working styles, seeking to maintain the same level of productivity as working from the office. The paper outlines a survey conducted amongst people working from home to identify the challenges and opportunities this change in workstyle offers. At the beginning of the pandemic, many employees faced difficulties adapting to using online tools and combining their working hours with daily routines and family commitments. However, the results show that within a short period of time the respondents had managed to develop the necessary experience and knowledge for digital working utilising tools such as collaboration platforms and video conferencing. A large proportion of respondents recognised the advantage of eliminating travelling time when working remotely from home which also has a positive impact on the environment and CO2 emissions. However, some drawbacks have been identified such as the lack of face-to-face discussion and informal meetings during working days. The Self-Determination Theory is discussed within the context of this paper and it has been found that the theory could provide an explanation of the efficient and rapid adaptation of the technology be employees.

Keywords: Conferencing; Coronavirus; Covid-19; Digital technology; Lockdown; On-line; Working from home.

© 2021 The Authors.

The impact of communication software usage on work engagement in remote work: the mediating role of distraction and FOMO

• Published: 10 May 2024

Cite this article

• Wan Jin 1 ,
• Pingping Li 2 ,
• Hang Ma 1 &
• Mingyue Qin 1  

48 Accesses

Explore all metrics

With the increasing demand for work-life balance and the development of information technology, remote work has become a widely adopted work mode, which has made communication software the primary means of communication for employees. However, previous research has not fully explored the impact of communication software usage (CSU) in remote work on work engagement, which is a crucial factor influencing employee performance. Therefore, this study, based on the Job Demands-Resources Theory, investigated the effects and mechanisms of CSU on work engagement in remote work. We collected a single time-point data set of 519 individuals with remote working experience and a dual time-point data set of 325 individuals in China. The results obtained from both datasets are consistent and indicate the following: (1) CSU in remote work has a significant negative impact on employee work engagement. (2) Distraction and fear of missing out (FOMO) mediate the relationship between CSU in remote work and work engagement respectively. (3) Intrinsic motivation moderates the negative effects of distraction and FOMO on work engagement. When employees have high intrinsic motivation, the negative effects of CSU in remote work through distraction and FOMO on work engagement diminishes. This study contributes to the research on the outcomes of CSU in remote work, deepens the understanding of the underlying mechanisms linking CSU and work engagement, and expands the knowledge of their boundary conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Remote Working in the COVID-19 Era

The Moderating Role of Workplace (Hybrid/ Remote) on Employee Engagement and Employee Turnover Intention

A Systematic Literature Review of Potential and Emerging Links Between Remote Work and Motivation

Data availability.

The data that support the findings of this study will be made available, without undue reservation.

Abbasi, A. Z., Rehman, U., Hussain, A., Ting, D. H., & Islam, J. U. (2021). The impact of advertising value of in-game pop-up ads in online gaming on gamers’ inspiration: An empirical investigation. Telematics and Informatics , 62 , 101630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101630

Article   Google Scholar  

Albulescu, P., Macsinga, I., Rusu, A., Sulea, C., Bodnaru, A., & Tulbure, B. T. (2022). Give me a break! A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of micro-breaks for increasing well-being and performance. Plos One , 17 (8), e0272460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272460

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Al-Furaih, S. A., & Al-Awidi, H. M. (2021). Fear of missing out (FOMO) among undergraduate students in relation to attention distraction and learning disengagement in lectures. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (2), 2355–2373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10361-7

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 16 (2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alonzo, R., Hussain, J., Stranges, S., & Anderson, K. K. (2021). Interplay between social media use, sleep quality, and mental health in youth: A systematic review. Sleep Medicine Reviews , 56 , 101414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101414

Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior , 49 , 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.201

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of personality and social psychology , 66 (5), 950.

Anderson, H. J., & Bolino, M. C. (2023). Haunted by the past: How performing or withholding organizational citizenship behavior may lead to regret. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 44 (2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2631

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22 (3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 22 (3), 273. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Bhatia-Lin, A., Boon-Dooley, A., Roberts, M. K., Pronai, C., Fisher, D., Parker, L., & Darnell, D. (2019). Ethical and regulatory considerations for using social media platforms to locate and track research participants. The American Journal of Bioethics , 19 (6), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1602176

Bhutto, T. A., Farooq, R., Talwar, S., Awan, U., & Dhir, A. (2021). Green inclusive leadership and green creativity in the tourism and hospitality sector: Serial mediation of green psychological climate and work engagement. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 29 (10), 1716–1737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1867864

Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review , 37 (1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.006

Budnick, C. J., Rogers, A. P., & Barber, L. K. (2020). The fear of missing out at work: Examining costs and benefits to employee health and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior , 104 , 106161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106161

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.069

Cheng, Y. S., & Cho, S. (2021). Are social media bad for your employees? Effects of at-work break activities on recovery experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 96 , 102957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102957

Chen, Y., Li, S., Xia, Q., & He, C. (2017). The relationship between job demands and employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effect of psychological detachment and job anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1890. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01890

Chiou, W. B., Lee, C. C., & Liao, D. C. (2015). Facebook effects on social distress: Priming with online social networking thoughts can alter the perceived distress due to social exclusion. Computers in Human Behavior , 49 , 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.064

Chu, M., Li, H., Lin, S., Cai, X., Li, X., Chen, S. H., & Chiang, Y. C. (2021). Appropriate strategies for reducing the negative impact of online reports of suicide and public opinion from social media in China. Frontiers in Public Health , 9 , 756360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.756360

Côté, K., Lauzier, M., & Stinglhamber, F. (2021). The relationship between presenteeism and job satisfaction: A mediated moderation model using work engagement and perceived organizational support. European Management Journal , 39 (2), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.001

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (3), 499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Demircioglu, M. A. (2018). Examining the effects of social media use on job satisfaction in the Australian public service: Testing self-determination theory. Public Performance & Management Review, 41 (2), 300–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1400991

Dhir, A., Yossatorn, Y., Kaur, P., & Chen, S. (2018). Online social media fatigue and psychological wellbeing—A study of compulsive use, fear of missing out, fatigue, anxiety and depression. International Journal of Information Management , 40 , 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.012

Dingel, J. I., & Neiman, B. (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Public Economics , 189 , 104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

Faraz, N. A., Ying, M., & Mehmood, S. A. (2021). The interplay of green servant leadership, self‐efficacy, and intrinsic motivation in predicting employees’ pro‐environmental behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(4), 1171-1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2115

Feng, S., Wong, Y. K., Wong, L. Y., & Hossain, L. (2019). The internet and Facebook usage on academic distraction of college students. Computers & Education , 134 , 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.005

Fishbach, A., & Woolley, K. (2022). The structure of intrinsic motivation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 9 , 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091122

Fraccastoro, S., Gabrielsson, M., & Pullins, E. B. (2021). The integrated use of social media, digital, and traditional communication tools in the B2B sales process of international SMEs. International Business Review , 30 (4), 101776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101776

Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 1–53. 10.1016/ B978-0-12-407236-7.00001–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001–2

Fridchay, J., & Reizer, A. (2022). Fear of missing out (FOMO): Implications for employees and job performance. The Journal of Psychology , 156 (4), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2022.2034727

Fujimoto, Y., Ferdous, A. S., Sekiguchi, T., & Sugianto, L. F. (2016). The effect of mobile technology usage on work engagement and emotional exhaustion in Japan. Journal of Business Research , 69 (9), 3315–3323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.013

Gao, Q., Dai, Y., Fan, Z., & Kang, R. (2010). Understanding factors affecting perceived sociability of social software. Computers in Human Behavior , 26 (6), 1846–1861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.022

Gatt, G., & Jiang, L. (2021). Can different types of non-territorial working satisfy employees’ needs for autonomy and belongingness? Insights from self-determination theory. Environment and Behavior , 53 (9), 953–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916520942603

Gori, A., Topino, E., & Griffiths, M. D. (2023). The associations between attachment, self-esteem, fear of missing out, daily time expenditure, and problematic social media use: A path analysis model. Addictive Behaviors , 141 , 107633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107633

Ágoston, C., Csaba, B., Nagy, B., Kőváry, Z., Dúll, A., Rácz, J., & Demetrovics, Z. (2022). Identifying types of eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, eco-grief, and eco-coping in a climate-sensitive population: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (4), 2461. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042461

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

Herlambang, M. B., Cnossen, F., & Taatgen, N. A. (2021). The effects of intrinsic motivation on mental fatigue. PloS One , 16 (1), e0243754. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243754

Holmes, J., Guy, J., Kievit, R. A., Bryant, A., Mareva, S., Gathercole, S. E., & CALM Team. (2021). Cognitive dimensions of learning in children with problems in attention, learning, and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology , 113 (7), 1454. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000644

Hur, W. M., Rhee, S. Y., Lee, E. J., & Park, H. (2022). Corporate social responsibility perceptions and sustainable safety behaviors among frontline employees: The mediating roles of organization-based self‐esteem and work engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 29 (1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2173

Hwang, M. Y., Hong, J. C., Tai, K. H., Chen, J. T., & Gouldthorp, T. (2020). The relationship between the online social anxiety, perceived information overload and fatigue, and job engagement of civil servant LINE users. Government Information Quarterly , 37 (1), 101423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101423

Ilies, R., Huth, M., Ryan, A. M., & Dimotakis, N. (2015). Explaining the links between workload, distress, and work–family conflict among school employees: Physical, cognitive, and emotional fatigue. Journal of Educational Psychology , 107 (4), 1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000029

Jiang, Z., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Le, H. (2023). Perceived red tape and precursors of turnover: The roles of Work Engagement and Career Adaptability. Journal of Business and Psychology , 38 (2), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09834-y

Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23.

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 14 (3), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311

Lee, S., Zhou, Z. E., Xie, J., & Guo, H. (2021). Work-related use of information and communication technologies after hours and employee fatigue: The exacerbating effect of affective commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 36 (6), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2019-0677

Levenson, J. C., Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., & Primack, B. A. (2016). The association between social media use and sleep disturbance among young adults. Preventive Medicine , 85 , 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.01.001

Lin, H. C., & Chang, C. M. (2018). What motivates health information exchange in social media? The roles of the social cognitive theory and perceived interactivity. Information & Management , 55 (6), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.03.006

Lin, Y. J., & Wang, H. C. (2021). Using virtual reality to facilitate learners’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in an EFL classroom. Education and Information Technologies , 26 (4), 4487–4505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10472-9

Liu, C., Chen, H., Zhou, F., Long, Q., Wu, K., Lo, L. M., & Chiou, W. K. (2022). Positive intervention effect of mobile health application based on mindfulness and social support theory on postpartum depression symptoms of puerperae. BMC Women’s Health , 22 (1), 413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01996-4

Liu, H., Fan, J., Fu, Y., & Liu, F. (2018). Intrinsic motivation as a mediator of the relationship between organizational support and quantitative workload and work-related fatigue. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries , 28 (3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20731

Liu, S. X., Zhou, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhu, Y. Q. (2020). Multiple mediating effects in the relationship between employees’ trust in organizational safety and safety participation behavior. Safety Science , 125 , 104611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104611

Luna, D., Figuerola-Escoto, R. P., Sienra-Monge, J. J. L., Hernández-Roque, A., Soria-Magaña, A., Hernández-Corral, S., & Toledano-Toledano, F. (2023). Burnout and Its Relationship with Work Engagement in Healthcare Professionals: A Latent Profile Analysis Approach. In Healthcare, 11 (23), 3042. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11233042 . MDPI.

Lyngdoh, T., El-Manstrly, D., & Jeesha, K. (2023). Social isolation and social anxiety as drivers of generation Z’s willingness to share personal information on social media. Psychology & Marketing , 40 (1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21744

Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2015). Giving too much social support: Social overload on social networking sites. European Journal of Information Systems , 24 (5), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.3

McCarthy, J. M., Trougakos, J. P., & Cheng, B. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology , 101 (2), 279. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000044

Methot, J. R., Rosado-Solomon, E. H., Downes, P. E., & Gabriel, A. S. (2021). Office chitchat as a social ritual: The uplifting yet distracting effects of daily small talk at work. Academy of Management Journal , 64 (5), 1445–1471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1474

Milyavskaya, M., Saffran, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. (2018). Fear of missing out: Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion , 42 (5), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9683-5

Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. (2012). Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach. Computers in Human Behavior , 28 (4), 1097–1102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.016

Oksa, R., Kaakinen, M., Savela, N., Ellonen, N., & Oksanen, A. (2021). Professional social media usage: Work engagement perspective. New Media & Society , 23 (8), 2303–2326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820921938

Orhan, M. A., Castellano, S., Khelladi, I., Marinelli, L., & Monge, F. (2021). Technology distraction at work. Impacts on self-regulation and work engagement. Journal of Business Research , 126 , 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.048

Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of web users. International Journal of human-computer Studies , 60 (3), 327–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.08.005

Prentice, M., Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2019). Integrating whole trait theory and self - determination theory. Journal of personality , 87 (1), 56-69.

Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001

Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67 (7), 545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974

van Egmond, M. C., Berges, N., Omarshah, A. T., & J, Benton. (2017). The role of intrinsic motivation and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs under conditions of severe resource scarcity. Psychological Science, 28 (6), 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617698138

Von Krogh, G. (2012). How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21 (2), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2012.04.003

Rabiul, M. K., & Yean, T. F. (2021). Leadership styles, motivating language, and work engagement: An empirical investigation of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 92 , 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102712

Raza, A., Farrukh, M., Iqbal, M. K., Farhan, M., & Wu, Y. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior: The role of organizational pride and employee engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 28 (3), 1104–1116. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2109

Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). The social media party: Fear of missing out (FoMO), social media intensity, connection, and well-being. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 36 (4), 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1646517

Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013b). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 (6), 2501–2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21 (7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

Saleem, S., Feng, Y., & Luqman, A. (2021). Excessive SNS use at work, technological conflicts and employee performance: A social-cognitive-behavioral perspective. Technology in Society , 65 , 101584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101584

Sanders, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1975). The motivating effects of distraction on task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 32 (6), 956. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.956

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 66 (4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316440528247

Schumann, F., Steinborn, M. B., Kürten, J., Cao, L., Händel, B. F., & Huestegge, L. (2022). Restoration of attention by rest in a multitasking world: Theory, methodology, and empirical evidence. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 867978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.867978

Shin, Y., & Hur, W. M. (2021). When do job-insecure employees keep performing well? The buffering roles of help and prosocial motivation in the relationship between job insecurity, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology , 36 , 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09694-4

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal , 38 (5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

Sun, Y., Wu, L., & Jeyaraj, A. (2022). Moderating role of enterprise social media use in work engagement. Information Processing & Management , 59 (1), 102793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102793

Syrek, C. J., Kühnel, J., Vahle-Hinz, T., & De Bloom, J. (2018). Share, like, twitter, and connect: Ecological momentary assessment to examine the relationship between non-work social media use at work and work engagement. Work & Stress , 32 (3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1367736

Tisu, L., Lupșa, D., Vîrgă, D., & Rusu, A. (2020). Personality characteristics, job performance and mental health: The mediating role of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 153 , 109644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109644

Tokunaga, R. S. (2016). Interpersonal surveillance over social network sites: Applying a theory of negative relational maintenance and the investment model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 33 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514568749

Trabelsi, K., Ammar, A., Boujelbane, M. A., Khacharem, A., Elghoul, Y., Boukhris, O., & Terry, P. C. (2022). Ramadan observance is associated with higher fatigue and lower vigor in athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology , 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.2106790

Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: Examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition , 39 (3), 832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029669

Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review , 11 (1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033

Wang, J., Wang, P., Yang, X., Zhang, G., Wang, X., Zhao, F., & Lei, L. (2019). Fear of missing out and procrastination as mediators between sensation seeking and adolescent smartphone addiction. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction , 17 , 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00106-0

Wehner, B., Ritter, C., & Leist, S. (2017). Enterprise social networks: A literature review and research agenda. Computer Networks , 114 , 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2016.09.001

Wei, S., Chen, X., & Liu, C. (2022). What motivates employees to use social media at work? A perspective of self-determination theory. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 122 (1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-06-2020-0322

Wu, T. J., Yuan, K. S., Yen, D. C., & Yeh, C. F. (2023). The effects of JDC model on burnout and work engagement: A multiple interaction analysis. European Management Journal , 41 (3), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.02.001

Xu, J., Xie, B., & Chung, B. (2019). Bridging the gap between affective well-being and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of work engagement and collectivist orientation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 (22), 4503. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224503

Xu, Y., Liu, D., & Tang, D. S. (2022). Decent work and innovative work behaviour: Mediating roles of work engagement, intrinsic motivation and job self-efficacy. Creativity and Innovation Management , 31 (1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12480

Yousaf, S., Rasheed, M. I., Kaur, P., Islam, N., & Dhir, A. (2022). The dark side of phubbing in the workplace: Investigating the role of intrinsic motivation and the use of enterprise social media (ESM) in a cross-cultural setting. Journal of Business Research , 143 , 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.043

Yue, Z., Lee, D. S., Xiao, J., & Zhang, R. (2023). Social media use, psychological well-being and physical health during lockdown. Information. Communication & Society , 26 (7), 1452–1469. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.2013917

Zeng, D., Takada, N., Hara, Y., Sugiyama, S., Ito, Y., Nihei, Y., & Asakura, K. (2022). Impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on work engagement: A cross-sectional study of nurses working in long-term care facilities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (3), 1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031284

Zhang, J., Jiang, R., Wu, X., & Jiang, J. J. (2023). The moderating role of enterprise social media functionalities on employees’ social-related use during work time. Information & Management , 60 (3), 103770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103770

Zijlstra, F. R., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 72 (2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166581

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72161014; 72162017), and the Social Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province(22JY23).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Economics and Management, East China Jiaotong University, 330013, Nanchang, China

Wan Jin, Hang Ma & Mingyue Qin

College of Management, Shenzhen University, 518061, Shenzhen, China

Pingping Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Wan Jin contributed to the design of the framework, and the collection of primary materials. Pingping Li contributed to the empirical work and the analysis of the results. Hang Ma contributed to the writing of the first draft. Mingyue Qin contributed to the investigation and data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pingping Li .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jin, W., Li, P., Ma, H. et al. The impact of communication software usage on work engagement in remote work: the mediating role of distraction and FOMO. Curr Psychol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06035-z

Download citation

Accepted : 21 April 2024

Published : 10 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06035-z

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

• Remote work
• Communication software usage
• Distraction
• Intrinsic motivation
• Work engagement
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• I Tried Both: Apple Watch 9 vs Fitbit Charge 6
• Best Places to Print Photos Online

What to Include in a Remote Work Proposal

Show that you'll be a productive work-at-home employee

• Queens College
• Harvard University Extension School

• Wichita Technical Institute

In This Article

Jump to a Section

• General Remote Work Proposal Tips
• Describe Your Work Plan
• List Any Extenuating Circumstances
• Show How the Company Will Benefit
• Outline Your Availability
• Describe Your Home Office Setup
• Be Clear About What You'll Need From the Employer
• Include Additional Assurances and Strategies

A remote work proposal is a written request to work from home or some other virtual office location outside of the corporate location. Detailed remote work proposals can help convince your supervisor or employer to allow you to telecommute , at least part-time.

Write the work-from-home proposal from your employer's perspective and answer any questions or concerns about your not being physically at the office.

There are some things you should know before asking to work from home.

Remote Work Proposal Tips

Below are the questions you should answer in your remote work proposal. The idea is to answer what your supervisor will most likely be wondering when it comes to whether or not you should be given a work from home position.

What's Your Work Plan?

Give a description of the proposed work plan, with details on the length of the plan and the proposed trial period.

This is important because you want the proposal to be framed as a trial only. You're not suggesting an ultimatum or putting pressure on the company to make a decision right now. They can gauge your performance while you work from home and see if it'll ultimately be a benefit.

Here's an example:

I would like to explore the possibility of performing my duties as a web developer from my home office for three days a week. I propose that we can do a three-month trial telecommuting arrangement starting on March 1st and then evaluate continuing that work arrangement based on my productivity and quality of work.

Are There Any Extenuating Circumstances?

If you have pressing reasons why you need to work from home, go ahead and mention them, but if not, don't make them up.

Maybe you're pregnant but you want to keep getting your work done while at home with your baby. Or, maybe your wife or child just passed away — or you were recently injured and can barely walk — working from home would help ease the transition from homestay to going back to work.

Another reason could be that it's hard to deal with your co-workers. Maybe they're extremely distracting or unhelpful, and working from home would provide you that much-needed peace of mind. However, be sure to really consider whether this is worth mentioning because it could cause a rift between you and the other workers or even your boss.

How Will the Company Benefit?

An important question your employer will most definitely be wondering is how advantageous to the department and company your working from home will be. If it doesn't benefit them financially, it's probably a no-go.

State everything you can think of for how telecommuting will benefit the business. Here are some ideas that might apply to your situation:

• Cost savings : They won't be buying your coffee, or taking you out to lunch, or ordering office supplies for your desk, or paying for your electricity and water usage, etc. The same is true for you: you won't have to pay for gas to get to work, or train/ Uber /bus fees.
• Increased productivity : Many people who work from home explain that with fewer distractions and zero over-the-shoulder management, it's easier to get work done and stay on task for extended periods of time. Describe how you think your work will improve being away from the office.
• Greater employee morale : It can be hard to be enthusiastic about your work when you're surrounded by downer employees and the typical office setting. Explain in your remote work proposal that being at home or in a more relaxed setting is exactly what you need to stay motivated and excited about your work.
• Flexible schedule : Some people who work from home manage to arrange with their company that they'll work the hours they want so long as the work gets done on time. This type of schedule can be really helpful to the company because they can rely on you basically any time of day, or even on the weekends.

Reinforce that you have been a valuable staff member and that you believe you can maintain or even increase your productivity and work quality from home, where there are fewer interruptions than at the office. If your company already has a telecommuting policy, incorporate facts about it here.

How Will You Communicate With the Office?

Indicate whether your current schedule will stay the same or not and any effect it may have on workflow. For example, note if you'll be in the office on days when regular meetings tend to happen or if you'll be available for meetings on other days in person or via remote conferencing.

Assure your employer that you will remain available from home during regular business hours for keeping in touch with your supervisor, co-workers, and customers.

How Will Your Home Office Function?

Provide a description of your work address, location, and phone number(s), as well as your workspace. Emphasize the ways in which it ensures privacy, allows freedom from diversions, and enhances focus.

It might even be a good idea to set up your home office ahead of time, even if you're unsure whether your remote work proposal will be accepted so that you can get a feel for how it looks and feels. This will help you explain how it all works.

What Will You Need From Us?

Do you need equipment and other resources from the company? Outline your current setup and what the company might need to provide.

For example, your home office might be fully equipped with everything needed to perform your job efficiently and effectively: broadband internet access , a computer, a dedicated work phone number, and a webcam.

However, you might have to propose that you'll need to use the company's established VPN setup to connect to the office desktop and transfer files securely over the network.

Mention any hardware or software needed for your specific job duties. You probably don't need a desk or a computer chair, but if you have lots of items that need printed and taken into the office every few weeks, for example, you might ask about printer paper and ink. Or, if your work computer runs specific software that you'll need at home, you'll have to request that, too.

VPNs and other remote access software would be useful in this situation. Instead of requesting software copies for your home computer, you could explain that remote access programs let you use your work computer from home; no additional software licenses or installations needed.

Additional Assurances

Include any facts about your job that are suited particularly well to telecommuting and your strategies for staying productive and accountable.

For example, you might mention emailing weekly status reports and maintaining availability through instant messaging.

Get the Latest Tech News Delivered Every Day

• New Microsoft Places Uses AI for Hybrid Work Collaboration
• What Is Telecommuting?
• The 10 Best Working From Home Tips in 2024
• What Does Telework Mean?
• How to Negotiate a Remote Work Arrangement
• Best Jobs for Telecommuting
• The Top 6 Benefits to Telecommuting
• Differences Between Telecommuting and Telework
• How to Participate in an X (formerly Twitter) Chat
• Home Office Layout Design Ideas
• Should You Buy a Tablet?
• The Computer Equipment You Need to Work From Home
• 6 Things to Consider Before Buying a New Printer
• Should You Get a Consumer or Business Class PC?
• How to Choose the Best Internet Service Provider
• Tax Implications of Cross-Border Telecommuting

More From Forbes

Remote work reduces innovation. how to increase innovation wherever you work.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Distance degrade innovation.

Hybrid and remote work are effective for plenty of tasks—but not for everything. In fact, comprehensive global research finds that working at a distance degrades innovation and reduces breakthrough discoveries.

It’s an important insight, because remote, hybrid and distance work are certainly here to stay. But the world of work has also become more competitive, intense and volatile—and it’s critical to innovate, adapt and adjust continuously to keep up.

When you know how you and your team work best, you can plan your work and ensure success. In addition, when you do your best innovative work, you’re contributing to results, but also to your own esteem, fulfillment and happiness.

Innovation Declines with Distance

Research has demonstrated that remote teams are significantly less able to make breakthrough discoveries compared with those who work in the same location. This is true across sizes of teams, fields and departments and periods of time—and it is true consistently. All of this is according to a meta-analysis of 20 million research articles and four million patent applications across the world in the last 50 years—published in the journal Nature .

Interestingly, business leaders are coming to the same conclusion. Nike’s CEO recently blamed remote work for the company’s lack of breakthrough ideas.

When Is The Voice Season 25 Finale All About The Star Studded Event

Echoing nazi germany biden campaign calls out trump s truth social video mentioning unified reich, wayfair outdoor furniture sale: the best early memorial day deals this week, how to increase innovation no matter where you work.

Knowing the process for innovation —and what it takes to do it successfully can help you innovate no matter where you’re working and ensure breakthrough even at a distance.

1. Plan for a Range of Innovative Tasks

First, it’s helpful to remember that innovation isn’t just brainstorming. It actually involves a broad range of tasks and responsibilities that contribute to the overall process.

Successful innovation requires idea search, idea generation, reflection, communication, enlisting others, implementation and overcoming obstacles, according to research at the University of Economics and Aston University.

Increase your innovation by considering where you are in the process and planning for how you’ll get the work done both for the tasks you can do alone and those you’ll do with others. In general, earlier stages of the process or parts of the process that trigger debate or dialogue are best-served by being in person.

2. Create New Ideas Together

Another way to amplify innovation is to ensure you’re in person with teammates when you’re generating and conceiving of new ideas. This was one of the areas which impeded innovation most, according to the Nature research.

Increase your innovation by getting together to talk about your ideas, brainstorm and connect dots. Carve out meaningful, focused and face-to-face time to share your diverse perspectives and disruptive thinking—and build on each other’s thoughts in order to generate fresh, new concepts.

Distance can impede idea generation and knowledge integration.

3. Design Research Together

You can improve your innovation by ensuring you’re face-to-face in order to design research as well. This too was a stage that had been degraded by distance, according to the research in Nature .

Increase your innovation by protecting in-person time to determine what you need to study and how you can create experiments that will generate insights as well as credibility.

Great innovation requires establishing clear questions and methods to explore what’s happening today, and how your potential solution might change or improve things. This deep thinking and planning will benefit from being face-to-face.

4. Share Knowledge Together

In addition, you can expand your innovation by taking steps to have team members get to know each other, develop empathy , share expertise and dig into each other’s unique backgrounds and perspectives.

Tacit knowledge is the information you gain from experience and that is often hard to put into words. It tends to emerge during projects, through interactions and in the midst of deeper discussions. More knowledge of each other will create the raw material for innovation—it’s the dots that you’ll connect as a team.

In addition, when people perceive greater closeness and less distance (literally or figuratively), they tend to follow up, follow through and complete tasks more effectively, according to reserach by Lojeski and Reilly .

Increase your innovation by getting to know each other both virtually and in person, asking plenty of questions about experiences and exploring each person’s unique and embedded knowledge. Build trust and proximity. These will help you produce new and disruptive ideas more effectively.

5. Know Where to Work

You can also up your innovation game by planning your work—and what you’ll do face-to-face or from a distance—based on what you need to accomplish.

• Complex Work. Remote work tends to work best when tasks are routine or solitary, but when you need to innovate on things that are more complex, high-pressure or require speed or collaboration, you’ll get better results face-to-face, according to research by Maastricht University and Erasmus University .
• Inspiration. Face-to-face work contributes to innovation when you need to get inspired and increase performance, based on a study published in the Journal of Labor Economics . People tend to achieve better outcomes with the engagement that occurs face-to-face.
• Technical Processes. The research in Nature found that teams were able to more easily accomplish work from a distance when it was later-stage in the innovative process and when it was more technical or more codified—that is, known, written down and captured.

Increase your innovation by being intentional about what you need to accomplish and where you’ll work best.

Choose Well To Be More Innovative

Individuals and teams can do great work in a hybrid or a remote model, but for the best innovation—especially innovation that is more disruptive—you’ll want to be intentional about what you do in person and what you do from a distance.

Your success will be driven by your ability to navigate the new landscape of work—and working innovatively will set you apart for sure.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Blog Home |

KPMG Personalization

• Cross-Border Remote Work in Switzerland

Cross-border remote work brings complex labor law considerations. Explore our insights on managing these complexities.

• KPMG Switzerland Blog
• Shirin Yasargil , Director |
• Kristina von Büren , Senior Manager |

Today, employees have the flexibility to work from anywhere, including across international borders. Such a situation raises complex labor law considerations. This blog provides essential labor law insights to help employers navigate these complexities.

Cross-Border Remote Work in Switzerland: Key Labor Law Insights for Employers

In today's interconnected world, many employees can work remotely, including across international borders. But this flexibility entails complex legal considerations: taxes, social security, and often overlooked labor laws. Explore these important labor law considerations in our blog. 

A variety of remote work scenarios

This article provides insights into the labor law implications of remote working in Switzerland, highlighting two key scenarios:

• Workation : an employee who works for a non-Swiss employer is working remotely from Switzerland for personal reasons, with no ties to the Swiss market. For instance, working in Switzerland for a few days after a vacation.
• Remote hire : a non-Swiss employer hires an employee who works primarily from a Swiss home office without having any ties to the Swiss market.

In both scenarios, the employment contracts are assumed to be governed by non-Swiss law. 

It's important to note that if – in contrast to the above scenarios – the employee is working in Switzerland for business rather than for purely personal reasons, the employee may be considered an international assignee under Swiss law, triggering additional applicability of Swiss employment and international assignment laws as well as immigration requirements.

Does Swiss employment law apply?

The first step in determining the applicable law is to examine the governing law specified in the employment contract. If none is specified, the law of the country in which the employee works most of the time will apply. Therefore, if the majority of work is performed in Switzerland, Swiss law may be applicable. 

Even with a choice of law, mandatory public and private law regulations at the place of work, i.e., in Switzerland, may take precedence. The specific Swiss regulations applicable can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. In instances of very brief stays in Switzerland, Swiss regulations may not apply. 

What legal risks should employers be aware of?

If Swiss regulations are applicable, it is key to assess which Swiss regulations must be complied with. Generally, public labor law provisions pertaining to health, working hours and rest periods, along with provisions regarding termination modalities and salary continuation during maternity, illness and accidents, are applicable in most cases. However, these mandatory provisions apply only if the applicable foreign law provides less protection for the employee.

Failure to comply with Swiss public laws, which apply territorially, may result in sanctions, while non-compliance with Swiss private laws may lead to lawsuits initiated by the employee. There is a risk that tensions between an employee and the employer, or termination of the employment contract, may prompt the employee to bring claims against the employer, invoking Swiss law to obtain the benefits provided for in Swiss public and private employment laws.

How can risks be mitigated?

In conclusion, while international remote work offers unprecedented flexibility, it also requires careful consideration of labor law implications. To mitigate legal risks, employers are advised to contractually specify the applicable law or limit the number of remote work days to avoid establishing a predominant work presence in a particular location. Addressing these issues directly in the employment contract or through subsequent agreements, such as a remote work policy, is recommended.

Our services and further information

• Tax & Legal

Shirin Yasargil

Director, HR Legal Services

Kristina von Büren

Senior Manager, Legal Services

• Global mobility
• Government and Public Sector
• Government and Regulatory Bodies
• HR program and policy compliance
• HR transformation
• International Markets
• Legal Services
• National Markets
• Professional and Business Services
• Public Policy and Regulatory Change
• Regulatory environment
• Switzerland
• Talent Management
• Tax & Legal News
• Travel, Leisure, Tourism
• Virtual and remote living

Stay up to date with what matters to you

Gain access to personalized content based on your interests by signing up today

Browse articles,  set up your interests , or  View your library .

You've been a member since

Ordered back to the office, top tech talent left instead, study finds

In the months following return-to-office mandates, an increased number of senior employees departed Apple, Microsoft and SpaceX, often to work for competitors.

Key takeaways

Summarized by AI, reviewed by humans.

• Senior employees left Apple, Microsoft and SpaceX, often to work for competitors.
• Researchers’ findings suggest return-to-office mandates hurt company tenure, seniority.
• Unclear whether requiring workers in office harms innovation but might affect morale.

Did our AI help? Share your thoughts.

Return-to-office mandates at some of the most powerful tech companies — Apple, Microsoft and SpaceX — were followed by a spike in departures among the most senior, tough-to-replace talent, according to a case study published last week by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan.

Researchers drew on résumé data from People Data Labs to understand the impact that forced returns to offices had on employee tenure and the movement of workers between companies. What they found was a strong correlation between the departures of senior-level employees and the implementation of a mandate, suggesting that these policies “had a negative effect on the tenure and seniority of their respective workforce.” High-ranking employees stayed several months less than they might have without the mandate, the research suggests — and in many cases, they went to work for direct competitors.

At Microsoft, the share of senior employees as a portion of the company’s overall workforce declined more than five percentage points after the return-to-office mandate took effect, the researchers found. At Apple, the decline was four percentage points, while at SpaceX — the only company of the three to require workers to be fully in-person — the share of senior employees dropped 15 percentage points.

“We find experienced employees impacted by these policies at major tech companies seek work elsewhere, taking some of the most valuable human capital investments and tools of productivity with them,” said Austin Wright, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Chicago and one of the study’s authors. “Business leaders should weigh carefully employee preferences and market opportunities when deciding when, or if, they mandate a return to office.”

GET CAUGHT UP

Trump’s immigration plans could deal a major blow to the job market

Taiwan swears in new president, stands up to Chinese aggression

Two teen prodigies shocked America with a cynical murder 100 years ago

There’s more than one type of anxiety. Here are tips to cope.

Technology is an industry “where the discourse over the return to office was most heated,” said David Van Dijcke, a researcher at the University of Michigan who worked on the study. Microsoft, Apple and SpaceX play an outsize role in the sector — collectively they represent more than 2 percent of the tech workforce and 30 percent of the industry’s revenue, according to the researchers — and their office policy “sets the precedent for the wider debate around the return to office,” the study’s authors wrote.

Those three companies also were among the first Big Tech firms to pursue return-to-office mandates in 2022, allowing researchers to separate the effects of mandates from the widespread tech layoffs that rocked the industry later in the year, Van Dijcke said.

Amy Coleman, corporate vice president of human resources and corporate functions at Microsoft, countered in a statement to The Washington Post on Monday that its internal data “does not align with these findings, especially around attrition.” It was “inaccurate” to frame the company’s hybrid work policy as a return-to-office mandate, she added.

“We have a hybrid workplace that revolves around flexibility and a mix of workstyles across worksite, work location and work hours,” Coleman added.

Apple spokesman Josh Rosenstock criticized the study as work that draws “inaccurate conclusions” and “does not reflect the realities of our business.”

“In fact, attrition is at historically low levels,” Rosenstock said.

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment from The Post.

Apple, Microsoft and SpaceX differ “markedly” in their corporate cultures and lines of business, the researchers noted, and took different approaches in their return-to-office policies. Yet the similar effects of the RTO mandates found in the study suggest that “the effects are driven by common underlying dynamics,” the authors wrote.

“Our findings suggest that RTO mandates cost the company more than previously thought,” Van Dijcke said. “These attrition rates aren’t just something that can be managed away.”

The tug-of-war over offices has been locked in a stalemate for roughly a year: Office occupancy data tracked by Kastle Systems shows that the national average across the country’s top metro areas — including New York, Washington and San Francisco — has hovered stubbornly around 50 percent of pre-pandemic levels since early 2023.

A spike in departures of senior employees following return-to-office mandates could reflect the “double pinch” they inflict on managers, who have to deal with the policy’s effects on the teams they lead and in their own lives, said Christopher Myers, an associate professor of management and organization health at Johns Hopkins University, who did not work on the study.

He compared it to leading employees amid layoffs or wage stagnation.

“It’s a change to the work structure, sure, but it’s also just a hit to morale,” said Myers, who is also a scholar with the Academy of Management. Maybe managers leave shortly after mandates, he posited, “because it’s easier to manage a team that’s happy.”

Tech executives have extolled the values of in-person work, citing benefits to connectedness and innovation. CEOs such as OpenAI’s Sam Altman, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Tesla’s Elon Musk have criticized remote work’s effects on company culture and productivity. In an April interview with CNBC , Nike CEO John Donahoe attributed a slowdown in innovation at the company to remote work, saying that “it’s really hard to do bold, disruptive innovation, to develop a boldly disruptive shoe on Zoom.”

Executives have not provided much evidence that a return to office actually benefits their workforces, said Robert Ployhart, a professor of business administration and management at the University of South Carolina. For example, there’s nothing pointing to a widespread drop-off in productivity as hybrid work has increased, he said.

“The people sitting at the apex may not like the way they feel the organization is being run, but if they’re not bringing data to that point of view, it’s really hard to argue why people should be coming back to the workplace more frequently,” Ployhart said.

Senior employees, he said, are “the caretakers of a company’s culture,” and having to replace them can have negative effects on team morale and productivity.

“By driving those employees away, they’ve actually enhanced and sped up the very thing they were trying to stop,” Ployhart said.

Although the study focused on three companies, its findings broadly reflect the impact of return-to-office mandates on workforces across the country, according to Ployhart, who is also a scholar with the Academy of Management. Companies are still struggling to adapt to a landscape fundamentally altered by hybrid work.

“We really have a very fragmented world, and these one-size-fits-all policies tend to struggle to be successful when there’s so much nuance in the way we work,” Ployhart said.