To Go or Not to Go (to the Office)

The impact of work-from-home on productivity and well-being.

It was only five years ago that “work” and “home” were separate experiences. In the pre-pandemic days, most people could not conceptualize, let alone experience, working from home (WFH).

But then came the COVID-19 pandemic and, with it, a mass revolution in working arrangements. People from virtually every sector and industry have learned something that was considered impossible pre-pandemic: they can do their jobs from home.

Today, one legacy of the pandemic is the societal discord on the WFH issue. Many workers are demanding flexibility and are no longer willing to commute daily to do work that they can do just as well, or better, from the comfort of their homes. In contrast, others find that WFH creates a blurring of boundaries between work and personal life, contributes to isolation, and obstructs the mentorship and camaraderie that happen organically at the workplace.

One thing is clear: remote work is here to stay. From 2019 to 2023, full days worked from home rose by 21 percent. This generates a mean time savings of 68 minutes per WFH day on commuting (Barrero et al., 2023).

In recent years, WFH or hybrid work (splitting the workweek between the workplace and home) has become a flexibility perk of many workplaces. Yet some organizations still insist that physical presence is essential for morale and productivity. This disconnect in opinion was recently highlighted in the U.K. when the government supported the association between increased productivity and WFH, while Amazon recalled employees to the office—with both putting out contradictory press releases on the same day (BBC, 2024).

To settle the WFH debate once and for all, we turned to the scientific literature to examine research on the role of WFH in productivity and well-being.

Work From Home and Productivity

Are people more productive at home or in the office? Five years post the WFH revolution, the answer is becoming clear. Recent research increasingly supports the positive link between WFH and productivity, with studies showing that productivity while working from home increases by up to 12 percent, primarily due to reduced distractions (Fenizia & Kirschmaier, 2024).

Unlike on-site work, which has been reconceptualized and streamlined for decades, mass remote work is a new phenomenon and will take time to refine through trial and error. But WFH is off to a challenging start, since managers (Bloom et al., 2023) and workers (Barrero et al., 2021) greatly vary in their perspectives on WFH and productivity. While workers tend to report more positive productivity trends, managers appear unconvinced. In research, like in the workplace, there is a push-pull dynamic between employees who report that WFH provides flexibility without diminishing output, and managers who argue that on-site work is superior in terms of performance.

It is possible that middle managers themselves are unprepared for this rapid change. Perhaps that is one reason why managers, in general, appear to prefer their teams to work on-site. Training programs can equip middle managers to better support their remote teams, and may well be the make-or-break of a WFH structure. Effectively managing remote output is a crucial skill for the future of work, and more studies are needed to understand the sustained impact of middle management training on remote work outcomes (Henderikx & Stoffers, 2023).

While there is still debate about productivity in the hybrid model, research has been fairly conclusive about full-time WFH. Studies such as Gibbs et al., (2023) and Emanuel and Harrington (2023) demonstrate that productivity for fully remote workers declines anywhere between 4 to 19 percent, as compared to their on-site work (e.g., pre COVID). Therefore, while a hybrid work model could be as productive, or more productive, as working on-site, a full-time WFH arrangement does not appear favourable in terms of output.

Work From Home and Well-Being

Unlike productivity, research on WFH and well-being is steadily conclusive. WFH, particularly under the hybrid model, has been consistently shown to contribute to lower stress-related psychological and physical symptoms, increased job satisfaction, greater work-life balance, and improved overall well-being (e.g., Montero & Bernal, 2024; Samriddha & Shampa, 2023).

One caveat to these findings is that women, particularly married women, do not seem to benefit as much as men and single women from the flexibility that WFH offers. This is perhaps because working from home creates a blurring between their home roles and their professional identity, which could add stress to the work experience (e.g., Sverdlik et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2023). However, it is not clear whether these adverse effects are experienced during hybrid work or only full-time WFH.

The Need for Data

The shift toward hybrid and remote work has undoubtedly introduced greater flexibility, but it has also created a new layer of complexity in understanding what works for each organization. In this new era of work, relying on generalized assumptions about employee preferences and productivity is no longer sufficient; leaders need to adopt a data-driven approach to tailor working models that optimize their employees’ well-being and organizational effectiveness.

In an age of AI, this is likely to become a new focus area—driving us to understand not only the differences between companies, but also the nuances between teams within companies.

This is where the power of data comes into play. Numerical data, such as employee surveys and performance metrics, can provide valuable insights into productivity levels, collaboration patterns, and employee satisfaction across different work arrangements. Qualitative data, gathered through focus groups, interviews, and cultural audits, can uncover the depths of employee experiences, identify potential challenges, and shed light on the impact of different working models on the organizational culture.

The Verdict

Each organization has its own unique fingerprint, and different arrangements work for different companies. And while there is no one-size-fits-all conclusion to the WFH debate, research overall supports that incorporating WFH into the workweek appears to be superior to both full-time on-site and full-time WFH.

It combines socialization, mentorship, and collaboration during on-site days, with the flexibility and comfort of WFH. Additionally, it reduces stress and improves the overall well-being of employees, while also increasing their satisfaction with work.

Research findings to date suggest that it is in the best interest of organizations to offer more flexibility, whenever possible, and to adapt to the hybrid model as the new gold standard of work. But while large-scale studies can help us understand some of the trends that are associated with WFH, only inter-organizational data can shed light on what works best for each individual company. Such data is crucial for making decisions about work arrangements and optimizing the functioning of individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole.

We specialize in High-performance Human Behavior training

Working on the humans that grow your business | High-performance Human Behavior training | I teach corporations & employees how to hack into humans using Behavior & Persuasion. I work with Pharma | Finances| Banking |Insurance| Sales| AI – Language & Behavior Economics