Concepts such as WFH, teleworking, and remote working are often used interchangeably [
5,
6,
16,
17,
18]. While largely overlapping, slight differences do exist among these concepts. The International Labour Organization defines WFH as “a working arrangement in which a worker fulfils the essential responsibilities of his/her job while remaining at home, using information and communications technology (ICT)” [
19] (p. 5). WFH may be viewed as a type of teleworking, which may involve different locations away from the main work site, including WFH [
6]. Unlike teleworking, remote working does not necessitate the use of ICT and does not require visits to the workplace [
6]. The focus of this study is on WFH, as it reflects more precisely the phenomenon that became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this study refers to research that uses other terms to refer to the same phenomenon.
The pandemic boosted WFH across the world. According to the OECD, while all countries with comparable data registered increases in the rates of teleworking during the pandemic, the extent of such increases varied considerably from country to country [
20]. For instance, while in Australia, France and the United Kingdom, some 47% of employees teleworked during lockdowns in 2020, the figure decreased to 28% in Japan during the first months of the pandemic, where there was no national lockdown [
20]. Malta’s utilisation of teleworking is generally low in comparison to the EU, but it grew and reached 33% during the lockdown in the first half of 2020 [
21].
During the pandemic, especially throughout the lockdowns, people WFH tended to be viewed as advantaged over other workers [
22]. Workers who were unable to work from home were more prone to experience precariousness. For example, workers not WFH in Italy were more likely to earn a low income, become unemployed, or suffer from occupational health and safety problems [
23]. Similarly, findings from large UK surveys indicate that workers, not WFH, during the pandemic were “more concerned about their future financial situation” [
24] (p. 1635).
Different groups of workers have more or less access to WFH. According to the OECD, teleworking is more likely in highly digitalised industries (such as ICT, professional, scientific and technical services, and financial services), in large firms, among the more highly qualified workers, and among women [
20]. But other research indicates that women are less likely to be WFH [
4,
23]. Indeed, Minkus et al. found that “[f]amily configurations and care obligations are less influential upon the transition to homeworking” than characteristics such as gender composition of occupations, level of education and level of prestige of occupations “even in times of an unprecedented situation of school and daycare closures and increased parental responsibilities for children’s (early) education” [
4] (p. 1). Access to WFH might also be particularly limited to young persons, persons in temporary contracts, persons with lower levels of education and in low-prestige occupations, employees with disabilities, and those working in rural areas [
3,
4,
23,
25]. Some of the conflicting findings in relation to access to WFH may be due to developments in practices and attitudes over the span of the pandemic. For instance, Abendroth et al. contend “that cultural barriers in organisations to working from home—which were especially prevalent for mothers before the pandemic—have decreased” [
26] (p. 1991).
3.1. Performance
There is no agreement on the extent or direction of the effect of WFH on performance. However, many studies highlight productivity losses when WFH. Examining the subjective productivity of workers in the manufacturing sector in Japan, Kitagawa et al. found that WFH resulted in a reduction in productivity, especially due to poor setups and communication difficulties [
32]. Another Japanese study found that WFH resulted in only 60%–70% of productivity levels [
27]. The situation was worse among employees and firms that started WFH during the pandemic.
In their investigation of job performance, Qu and Yan distinguished between the quality and productivity of Chinese persons WFH and not WFH [
6]. WFH reduced the participants’ productivity but enhanced their quality of work. In relation to the quality of work, Jaiswal and Arun found self-initiated “sparks of creativity” towards solving organisational problems among persons WFH within the manufacturing sector in India [
28]. Other studies also indicated improvements in the quality of work, including greater focus, less time wasting and more proactivity [
16,
33].
Various studies noted a reduction in the number of hours worked by those who shifted to WFH during the pandemic. During the first lockdown, workers WFH in the Netherlands spent around 14% less time on paid work, resulting in a productivity decrease of 5.5% [
29]. Similarly, an Australian study suggested a “rethinking and reprioritising of values” among most of the respondents who reduced working hours and adopted a more family-centric and self-centric lifestyle [
34] (p. 11). In a qualitative study among dual-earning parents in the UK, while “both women and men increased their time on domestic labor… women were more likely to reduce their employment hours to ’better’ balance caring and housework responsibilities” [
35] (p. 1065). However, some other studies associated WFH with increased working time [
36].
Leadership is a crucial element for the success of WFH. The pandemic posed considerable difficulties to managers who were required to adapt their leadership style according to the arising needs and dynamics of WFH. Indeed, a study among German public employees concluded that “supervisors have been more challenged by the crisis than their employees” [
37] (p. 17). A study carried out in the Netherlands during the pandemic found that while the effectiveness of WFH was hampered when leaders were unable to adapt their leadership behaviours, greater delegation among employees was “associated with increased perceived productivity and higher manager quality” [
38] (p. 208).
The reduction of social contact brought about by WFH created considerable communication and coordination challenges within organisations. In a study carried out during the second wave of the pandemic in Slovenia, Kohont and Ignjatović concluded that “[p]hysical distance represented a major change in workplace relationships and affected collaborative forms of work, monitoring of work, lack of certain information, response time in communication, coordination of work with colleagues, and problem solving in organisational processes” [
1] (p. 10). Research in other countries resulted in similar findings [
33,
39]. Maurer et al. concluded “that flat hierarchies and self-managing processes helped team members to mitigate negative effects due to spatial and temporal dispersion in forced working-from-home arrangements” [
2] (p. 238). Particular group properties and dynamics, such as “team cohesion, identification with the team, and individuals taking on broker roles” counteracted communication faultlines and assisted team performance [
2] (p. 238). On the other hand, professional isolation was related to lower job performance and motivation and higher intention to quit one’s job [
40]. However, despite the challenges brought about by WFH, a study among software engineers in Sweden, the USA, and the UK, pointed out the improved quality of online meetings and events [
41].
WFH requires the divergent competencies of connecting with one’s workplace and working autonomously. According to Fischer et al., “the more autonomously employees are able to work, the better they perform while teleworking and the better they are able to cope with a crisis situation” [
37] (p. 17). In particular, digital competencies boost the resilience of persons forced to work from home [
37]. The transition to WFH may have led to the acquisition or strengthening of particular skills. 42% of respondents in a Slovenian study reported that they had to learn new knowledge and competencies in the use of software [
1]. Another study among Finnish higher education employees during compulsory WFH reported that “[p]oor ergonomics at home, low organisational support, high stress, and musculoskeletal pain were associated with non-favourable development of work ability” [
42] (p. 1).
Research highlighted the links between productivity and the home environment [
5,
29,
43]. Basing themselves on a study among 304 workers WFH during the pandemic in the United States, Loignon et al. argued that individuals whose home offices indicated higher levels of socioeconomic status reported more control over their environment and higher job performance than other workers [
5]. Having a separate office at home is particularly useful [
29,
44]. Research also pointed out various technical difficulties experienced when WFH, such as poor internet connection, problems accessing data, inadequate workspace and IT equipment, and insufficient IT support [
1]. A study among nurses in New Zealand revealed: “significant access issues related to nurses using ICT in their practice: access to information technology systems and resources, access to technical support, access to connectivity… and access to patients and colleagues” [
45] (p. 62).
Proactivity is another important contributor to productivity when WFH [
37], and “perceived productivity at home appears strongly associated with the desire to work at home” [
20] (par. 8). At the same time, interviews with managers in Brazil who led teams WFH indicated difficulties “to motivate collaborators in a period when social isolation affect[ed] employee’s mental health” [
39] (p. 1). Another study showed that employees adjusted better to WFH when this arrangement was planned and they were psychologically prepared for it [
46]. Chi et al. found a positive relation between WFH and the level of vigour among management-level hotel employees in Turkey and argued that their motivation might have been improved by the autonomy they acquired during the pandemic [
47]. Similarly, a study carried out in Norway found that working partly from home was related to greater control of decisions and organisational commitment [
30] (p. 106).
Some research linked WFH productivity to specific employee characteristics. For example, Kawakubo and Arata found that “productivity decreased for workers with high neuroticism and increased for those with high openness or perseverance and passion” [
43] (p. 1). Other personal characteristics that might lead to higher productivity when WFH include being highly educated, having a high income, not having young children, being a woman, being older, and being mentally and physically healthy [
27,
29,
44].
3.2. Wellbeing
Research is unclear on the overall effects of WFH on working conditions and wellbeing, with findings pointing towards both benefits and challenges [
16,
18,
30,
31,
48]. Employee performance and wellbeing are often affected by similar factors.
There is emerging literature on the concept of ’boundary traffic’, which deals with the dynamics created by the blurring between work and personal life when WFH [
49]. A study among employees WFH during the pandemic in Lithuania found that those “who felt the pressure to overwork were more likely to have a more permeable family boundary… and appeared to experience a much higher psychological cost in terms of emotional exhaustion” [
50] (p. 705). Haun et al. found that by using temporal boundary tactics, that is putting time aside and planning for leisure time periods, workers achieved greater levels of psychological detachment from work, control during leisure time, and reduced chances of exhaustion [
51]. On the other hand, Cropley et al. found that “failing to take rest breaks throughout the day was associated with an increased risk of reporting psychological fatigue, physical fatigue, and sleep problems” [
52] (p. 1).
Examining longitudinal data in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Sweden covering the period between May and November 2020, Schifano et al. concluded that wellbeing among workers WFH is especially low among “the older, the better-educated, those with young children and those with more crowded housing” [
53] (p. 1). Other research emphasised the worse outcomes experienced by women and younger employees, who tended to cancel the boundary between work and private life when WFH [
54].
Over 70% of respondents in a study among Australians WFH experienced musculoskeletal pain or discomfort [
55]. An analysis of 14 studies concluded that furniture, the work environment and physical activity were major factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders [
56]. Age, gender, working hours and psychosocial working conditions may also predict musculoskeletal pain [
55]. Several studies indicated that persons WFH during the pandemic, especially those who did so exclusively, tended to be more sedentary and less physically active [
36,
48,
57]. However, persons WFH in the Netherlands during the pandemic reported good health and fewer musculoskeletal disorders than before [
48]. Besides, Grubben et al. found WFH to be positively associated with sports participation [
58]. On their part, Hallman et al. revealed that workers in Sweden slept more when they worked from home, potentially leading to health benefits [
59].
The effects of WFH on mental health are disputed. Chi et al. found that when managers work from home, the relation between job absorption (or the effort they put into their work) and burnout is stronger [
47]. Similarly, Pennington et al. reported positive links between the use of work-related video chat and text messaging when WFH and stress levels [
60]. Higher anxiety and stress levels when WFH during the pandemic were linked to the following aspects: neuroticism; a history of burnout; pandemic-related fear; having dependants; work–family conflicts; social isolation; environmental noise; inadequacy of facilities; concerns about future careers; lower leadership quality; lack of clarity on work objectives; and job intensity [
61,
62,
63,
64,
65]. Research also indicated higher levels of distress among younger workers and women who were WFH [
63,
66].
Despite the above, not all research linked WFH to poor health outcomes. A survey among workers in the USA revealed that those who started WFH during the pandemic had similar mental health outcomes to those whose employment remained the same [
67]. Similarly, a Danish study indicated no increase in work-related stress among persons WFH during the pandemic [
48]. Kitagawa et al. concluded that the mental health of participants WFH in the manufacturing sector in Japan was better than that of participants not WFH [
32]. In another study carried out in Japan, Eguchi et al. concluded that “the association between job demand and psychological distress may be weakened by working from home” [
54] (p. 1). Other studies linked hybrid work to better mental health outcomes than exclusive WFH [
23,
68]. The working conditions experienced by persons WFH may also have evolved during the pandemic. In a Canadian study based on two surveys carried out six months apart during the pandemic, Somasundram et al. reported a decrease in “burnout, stress, general mental health, and job insecurity levels” a reduction in sedentary behaviour, and more assistance from and cohesion with colleagues [
69] (p. 1).
Some studies concluded that hybrid work arrangements were preferred by workers during the pandemic [
68]. According to Giovanis and Ozdamar, “a balance between WFH and at the employer’s premises may provide both financial security and maintain the mental and psychological wellbeing at satisfying levels” [
24] (p. 1635). Another study carried out in New Zealand found that “respondents generally had a positive experience while WFH, with 82.6% of respondents that experienced WFH wanting to shift to part- or full-time WFH” [
70] (p. 1). On the other hand, a study carried out in Germany reported “that the quality of the working atmosphere with colleagues and the supervisor is a motive for rejecting WFH, more so for people living alone than for couples and families” [
71] (p. 469).