Should people working from home be made to go back into the office?
A government minister sparked debate by suggesting homeworkers should be paid less but experts tell Ben Chapman that working away from the office may actually be more productive
A senior government figure has sparked renewed debate about working from home after controversially suggesting that civil servants should be paid less if they do not go into the office.
The mystery minister, who declined to be named in the front page news story on Monday, asserted that home workers deserved less pay because they save money on things such as travel expenses.
“I think people who want to get on in life will go into the office because that’s how people are going to succeed,” the minister is quoted as saying, arguing that it wasn’t possible for employers to know if their staff were working or watching television.
Backbencher Iain Duncan-Smith insisted that civil servants should “get off their backsides” and go into the office.
After strong criticism, the government rowed back on its purported proposal within hours. The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, said that so-called hybrid working, where people divide their time between home and work, was here to stay.
The plan, and its swift withdrawal, raises some important questions that have been brought to the fore during the pandemic: are people really more slothful, lazier and less productive when they work from home, or are such ideas outdated? Would it be better for employers and the economy as a whole if we went back to the daily commute, or do the benefits of at least some working from home outweigh any potential negatives?
A number of studies actually suggest that working from home some of the time improves productivity. Dr Rita Fontinha, associate professor in strategic human resource management at Henley Business School, points to data gathered before the pandemic that indicates a hybrid working system had “significant advantages”, including lower absenteeism.
“There is no evidence to suggest that workers at home are less productive or lazier, with pre-Covid data suggesting exactly the opposite,” says Dr Fontinha.
She rejects the idea of cutting wages for people who work away from the office because it is based on the erroneous assumption that they are less productive.
However, there are disadvantages to working from home. “The networks and social interactions established in the workplace are quite relevant for individual’s careers and employee development. This is particularly important for those beginning their careers,” says Dr Fontinha.
Instead of taking a blanket approach, employers should endeavour to develop more flexible working arrangements, allowing staff to combine the benefits of working from home with the regular interactions in the office, Dr Fontinha says.
While working from home does offer benefits such as a better balance between work and other commitments, it may also negatively impact mental health in the long term by deepening feelings of isolation for some people, according to Stephen Bevan, head of HR research development at Lancaster University’s Institute for Employment Studies.
Shazia Ejaz, the director of campaigns at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, agrees that long-term remote working is both possible and beneficial but says it is not for everyone.
“It’s right that employees should have the right to request flexible working arrangements,” says Ms Ejaz.
“Individual employers should think seriously about what is best for their business and consult with their employees before deciding their stance on remote or flexible working. Government should consult with civil servants also.”
Dr Fontinha points out that studies of workers during the pandemic have shown that people working from home were less productive when they also had to take care of children, but this effect disappeared when schools reopened, suggesting that improving access to childcare while also allowing flexible working could be beneficial.
Childcare costs in the UK are among the highest in the world and provision is patchy with quality and availability varying across the country.
For this reason, many parents, particularly women, who often shoulder more of the childcare burden than men, are reluctant to return to an unflexible, five-day week in the office.
As well as a stretched and expensive childcare system, working from home has also highlighted the fact that many offices are poorly designed.
Experts have emphasised the divide between two broad types of work: the first is collaborative work such as meetings, brainstorming ideas or working on a common goal. The second is individual tasks that require focused, uninterrupted attention.
Pre-pandemic, many office workers were primarily carrying out the latter type of work in environments that were completely unsuitable: cramped, open plan offices that offer constant distraction and background noise.
Anecdotally, workers report being able to focus much more easily from home, which may be a reason for the productivity advantage that researchers have found.
Of course, this experience is not universal. A well-off senior manager with a quiet home office is likely to find they are less distracted than a recent graduate or school-leaver working on the kitchen table of an overcrowded shared house.
It is also clear that many types of collaborative work can be done more successfully face-to-face rather than over Zoom or Microsoft Teams.
That’s where the office should be invaluable. But many offices have not been designed with this in mind. A standard setup is row upon row of individual desks and too few areas that foster teamwork.
In short, office spaces are badly designed for exactly the wrong kind of task. That’s before the constant ping of notifications from email and messaging services on multiple devices comes into play.
The pandemic provides employers with a reason to overhaul their workspaces and for the government to improve childcare arrangements so that the best can be made of working from both home and the office.
The available evidence suggests that would deliver far greater benefits for individuals’ well-being and for economic prosperity than coercing staff back into “business as usual”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments