The Myths and Legends of the “Work from Home” Policy
For most recruiters, there is little doubt as to the number one perk requested by the modern candidate: flexible scheduling. It’s a loaded term, and it can mean anything from the occasional half-day from home when “life” happens to an 80% telecommute schedule. And as we know, when you give a mouse a cookie … it’s likely the percentage of time working from home will only go up.
Tempers run high when discussing the dreaded “work from home” policy, and it’s not surprising as it represents a fundamental shift in the modern workplace. Opinions are shared so frequently on this topic that it’s probable we all have a bias one way or another – but what does the science say?
Working from Home makes Employees More Productive, Happier, & Saves Your Company Money
…and also the opposite.
Unfortunately, social scientists also struggle to define the full scope of a telecommuting schedule, and depending on the study you decided to reference, you’ll likely confirm your pre-existing bias.
The 2014 article published by HBR referencing the "Ctrip call center study” showed that implementing a work from home policy would be the most brilliant move you could make for your company, touting that work from home employees (compared to their “office-bound” colleagues):
- Were more productive
- Had lower attrition
- Cost their employers less
And then there’s the catchy article from Fusion: “It’s Official: Working from home is the worst” which would indicate that working from home causes:
- Lost productivity, collaboration, and innovation
- A decrease in employee satisfaction and morale
- Higher levels of employee stress
How can these two articles, referencing robust (if somewhat limited) studies, be so at odds with each other?
The answer may be in a more thoroughly documented (but rarely referenced) study from Psychological Science in the Public Interest. The lengthy title, “How Effective Is Telecommuting? Assessing the Status of Our Scientific Findings” won’t make a Buzzfeed headline, but it seems to be a little more thorough in understanding the intricacies of the question. A few useful nuggets include:
- Employees may be more satisfied at low levels of telecommuting, but there is a “curvilinear effect at higher levels”, potentially caused by “the social and professional isolation that telecommuters face when telecommuting frequently.”
- Employees who are given a choice to work from home, show a higher level of organizational commitment, although they have feelings of professional isolation and reduced knowledge sharing.
- Research is limited, but turnover may be slightly reduced when employees are given greater autonomy.
- There tends to be an internal bias against promoting remote employees.
- Some roles are much more suited to an autonomous telecommuting arrangement than others.
And it’s really that last bullet point that offers the greatest insight to an employer trying to assess their options. Before allowing your workers to couch surf for weeks at a time, ask …
- What is the nature of the work, and how would it change if the employee worked from home?
- What is the work output I expect from this position, and how do I assess it?
- What is the level and authority of this employee?
- How much interdependence is expected of this role? Does this role have a team of people which report into or rely upon it?
- How much autonomy can I allow in making scheduling decisions?
- Is this role expected to innovate or collaborate with others?
- If an employee is asking to telecommute, what are the motives behind the ask?
- What do I expect this employee’s level of self-regulation and management to be?
As with most things in life, the issue is multi-faceted and an “always” or “never” mindset oversimplifies the issue. Employers should consider the questions above, and make sure a telecommute policy is a logical option given the nature of the role. And as an employee, make sure a self-regulated and isolated role is what you’re seeking -before forever saying goodbye to your morning commute!