The Interdisciplinary Studies Research Paper is a comprehensive analysis of the sustainability of remote working for American office workers. This project seeks to explore the various aspects of remote work and its long-term viability, incorporating insights from multiple fields of study to provide a holistic understanding of this increasingly popular work arrangement.
Introduction
Due to the large and sudden impact of COVID-19, society underwent major, rapid changes regarding social distancing and what would amount to a full lockdown. In order to cope with the new restrictions, many companies were forced to adapt and allow their employees to work from home rather than come into the office. Remote working, also known as teleworking or telecommuting, was already on the rise as a potential work arrangement with the development of advanced digital technologies that would allow employees to experience the same connectivity outside of the traditional office workplace. Companies were forced to cope with the new regulations at the onset of COVID-19, but as the global pandemic has abated, companies are faced with the decision of whether or not to return to working in the office. Many employees have become accustomed to working from home, which gave rise to the question, “Is remote working a sustainable, long-term arrangement for American office workers?”
There are many different factors that play into such an important question. Of course, there are many occupations that will never be able to work remotely, namely manual labor occupations like agricultural or construction, but office-type businesses that are able to shift to a virtual style of work environment or that were already forced to shift due to COVID-19 have to weigh their options carefully. With such a complicated topic, there are multiple factors with varying impact that cannot be pushed aside. The main impacts can be categorized into four disciplines: economics, sociology, psychology, and information technology. Economics is crucial to the sustainability of remote working; if a company cannot financially afford to have its employees work from home, then the arrangement is unsustainable. Remote working also has a significant impact on an employee’s psyche, which can be an ultimate deciding factor as to the suitability of an employee for working from home. Another key component would be the sociological impact of remote working, within company culture, employee-employer relationship, and leadership within the company. Finally, there are many challenges regarding information technology that have to be overcome, especially technical support and cybersecurity. Considering any of these disciplines independently and trying to reach a conclusion would only be using an incomplete view of the larger picture. As a result, every aspect must be thoroughly considered, compared against each other, and evaluated in order to find common ground and understand the whole topic.
Economics
When considering the viability of remote working, the immediate consideration is whether or not it is economically feasible. That is, if it is more costly to allow employees to work from home, then a company is less likely to even begin to consider the notion. The main factors that play into the economic viability are the productivity of workers in a remote environment versus in an office, the cost of maintaining an office space versus furnishing remote workers with equipment necessary to complete their jobs, and the cost savings of employees, especially commuting costs, and how that affects hiring potential.
There is a stigma surrounding remote working that due to being in the comfort of their homes and away from the prying eyes of supervisors, remote workers are less productive than their in-office counterparts. The opposite is in fact true; remote working employees average 1.4 extra days of work per month (Marasigan, 2020). Data found employees who work from home finish tasks on time at a higher frequency (Ambikapathy, 2020). It may have been assumed that one of the reasons for this increase in work efficiency is due to a reduction in workplace distractions in the form of informal communication or small talk. Frequency of remote working has a negative correlation with informal communication, meaning that increases in remote working decrease informal communications (Koch & Denner, 2022). While that holds true, it was also found that informal communications do not decrease employees’ productivity, so the increased productivity lies in another factor. There were a few factors that were found to have a positive impact on productivity that increased as a result of remote working. Chief among them is a greater degree of working time autonomy and a decrease in micromanagement during the workday, but also not to be disregarded is the possible positive impact of work-life balance which will be explained deeper later (Galanti, 2021). Another factor in this is a decline in absenteeism and thus an increase in presenteeism due to remote working. Employees are more likely to work while sick from home when they may not be allowed to come into a central office for fear of getting coworkers sick (Ferreira et al., 2022). They also tend to take fewer vacation days due to a change in work-life balance along with the ability to do a remote work trip, going to different destinations and still attending work as usual (Chevtaeva et al., 2022). Considering these facts, the question of productivity of workers falls in favor of those working from home.
Due to no longer being required to commute to and from work on a daily basis, there is an apparent benefit of no longer needing to drive to work, saving money in the form of fuel, vehicle maintenance, and time. The average commute time in 2019 in the United States was 27.6 minutes and about 13 miles one way (Burd et al., 2021). According to AAA’s proprietary commute cost calculator, which includes gas, maintenance, and vehicle depreciation, the average American’s commute actually cost around $4,600 per year (American Automotive Association, n.d.). While employees saving that much money is certainly a benefit, there is another huge economic impact that arises from employees no longer needing to live within commuting distance of their workplace. Real estate costs are greater in more urban areas where office buildings tend to be, but without the commuting restriction, there has been a noticeable trend toward deurbanization. People are moving out of cities and even across state lines in search of lower costs of living (Malka, 2023). There is also an additional benefit that a company is able to advertise a job listing to a larger market as employees would no longer be expected to relocate and can work from almost any location, leading to a more diverse and competitive talent pool. While this has a significant impact on the economy as a whole, the lack of commuting is especially beneficial to employees who work remotely, and also can be a positive for the employers.
In regard to the cost of maintaining an office space, a company that is staffed remotely would not have to pay rent, utilities, cleaning, and other fees associated with commercial buildings. This represents a huge area of saving for the business, but there is a factor that is often overlooked. Due to working remotely, an employee would need to have a dedicated office space within their own dwelling, which would require extra space or an extra room within a household. It was found that was around a 20% increase in the cost of housing for remote workers, thus these employees would require greater compensation for their living expenses, offsetting the savings of the company on office space expenditure (Stanton & Tiwari 2021). The cost of renting and furnishing a traditional office space varies throughout the United States as well as the housing costs, but it was found that a company would still save between $1,400 and $6,000 per employee per year (Stanton & Tiwari 2021). This equation becomes very complicated and unpredictable when you factor in the previously mentioned deurbanization phenomenon, which would actually drive the cost of employee housing down, leading only to greater savings for the employer.
Overall, it is generally economically beneficial and sustainable for a company to have at least part of its workforce work from home. If a company is basing the decision of whether remote work is sustainable solely from the single discipline of economics, the answer would be yes, but this is a far more complex subject than that. As previously stated, the more disciplines and perspectives that are considered, the clearer the total picture a company would be able to see.
Sociologically, the impact of remote working can be seen in a few different ways. The traditional office space is a confined social environment that binds employees together, allowing them to grow together as a team. Many employers fear that remote working will have a negative impact on the office culture. This reason is often cited by managers as a key reason for transitioning away from remote working and back to traditional offices (Saad & Wigert, 2021). A part of that office culture comes from informal communication or small talk, which, as was previously noted, is negatively predicted by the frequency of remote work (Koch & Denner, 2022). Employees consider informal communication to be a key factor of their perception of being informed and overall, positively impacting job satisfaction, which is a large element of that office culture (Koch & Denner, 2022). While the point is valid, it has also been pointed out that remote working can benefit employees who no longer are exposed to toxic workplace relationships, bullying, and other negative workplace social interactions (van Zoonen et. al, 2021). According to research conducted by Gallup, a management consulting company, two-thirds of full-time employees in the United States do not believe that remote working will have a negative effect on their workplace culture, either believing it will have a positive effect or no effect (Saad & Wigert, 2021). It is very possible that remote working has a negative impact on the social environment within a single company, but there are other sociological factors that need to be considered.
Even though there is a reduction of personal contact with coworkers, there are still many collaborative technologies that exist to improve the viability of remote working and increase opportunities to work as a team. These technologies include teleconferencing, real-time text chat, video chat, and collaborative document editing. While they are helpful in overcoming the limitations, they are not able to fully replace the connectivity of a traditional office. Using tools of this kind to bring together a team in a virtual environment is a unique challenge for this generation of leaders and for the generations to come. These kinds of tools allow leaders to extend their influence throughout the virtual environment (Krehl & Büttgen, 2020). It has become a new challenge for employers to find and hire managers that are able to lead through a remote environment (Neufeld et al., 2010). If a company is unable to find this kind of leader or if we as a society are unable to produce an adequate quantity and quality of this type of leader, then the viability of remote working would take a big hit.
Additionally, an interesting social shift has occurred regarding the social contract between employee and employer. Previously, remote working was a perk or privilege that could be granted to a few workers by their employer. Now, it is more understood to be a core privilege that employees are entitled to (Smite et al., 2023). As a result, if a workplace does not allow their employees to work from home, the employee is more likely to apply to work somewhere that does, and even leave their current employment in search of more remote opportunities (Smite et al., 2023).
From a sustainability standpoint of remote working through the lens of sociology, one of the largest takeaways is that the opportunity to work remotely has become an expectation rather than a privilege, suggesting that it is here to stay (Smite et al., 2023). For a company to be successful with a workforce that works from home, either part time or full time, they will need managers that can effectively communicate and lead through a virtual environment (Neufeld et al., 2010). While it may have an overall negative impact on the office culture that is cultivated in a traditional office, companies today and moving into the future will have to employ effective management and do what they can to establish a good work culture in order to cope with the sociological challenges of remote working if it is going to be a long-term arrangement.
Psychology
A deep and challenging discipline that must be viewed is psychology. There are both positive and negative psychological impacts caused by remote working. Increases in feelings of isolation, loss of task identity, and difficulty distinguishing between work and personal domains due to a lack of physical boundaries have a direct impact on job insecurity (Mehta, 2022). On the other hand, an improved work-life balance can increase employees’ job satisfaction and organizational pride (Mas-Machuca, 2016).
After the initial lockdown due to COVID-19, much of the population was challenged with dealing with feelings of isolation. The overall social isolation led to negativity regarding remote work satisfaction, but the lifting of many of the restrictions regarding staying at home alleviated the feelings of isolation, as the employees who felt the most isolation were also those most concerned with the worsening COVID-19 situation at the time. Remote workers on the whole still have reported an overall increase in these negative feelings (Toscano & Zappalà 2020). This isolation is attributed to the lack of face-to-face interactions with other people and the reduced need or ability to leave the house as there is no longer a daily commute (van Zoonen et. al, 2021).
Regarding work-life balance that has been alluded to in previous sections of this paper. The impact of remote working is mixed with both positive and negative. A large part of the negative outcomes is due to the blurred boundaries between work and home life, due to the lack of physical boundaries (Sullivan, 2012). Often times, employees perceive a positive impact on work-life balance, which can be attributed to more time due to a lack of commuting, ability to fulfill family responsibilities, especially for parents, and increased flexibility to work with familial needs (Golden, 2006). When it comes to work-life balance, as with most things in psychology, it is subjective and depends on the individual person.
Psychology is a challenging discipline that is challenging to pull a definitive answer out of. On the subject of remote working, the psychological impact is mixed with both positive and negative, leaning one way or the other depending on the individual. This suggests that the sustainability of remote working depends on the individual and their personal situation, deciding whether they choose to continue to work remotely or find a more traditional office workspace. Overall, this is not a sign that remote working is not sustainable as an arrangement, just that some people and their life situation may not be suitable.
Information Technology
In terms of information technology, there are several factors that must be considered, all of which are very important, and some are essential to the future viability of remote working. The immediate challenge is ensuring that employees have the technology required to complete their work tasks from home. These tasks may include video chat via webcam and microphone or dealing with spreadsheets and email, which would require a stable internet connection, productivity related office programs and a computer to run them, and even ensuring that a home has a private, distraction free office-like room (Ferreira, 2021). As previously mentioned, the overall cost of remote work is less than the average cost of maintaining a central office space, but on top of ensuring that the employee is equipped to work from home, should any technology-related issues arise, the technical support would not be able to visit the desk in question, as the workplace is no longer a central location (Ferreira, 2021).
Some businesses do not have the luxury of allowing employees the flexibility of working from home. Remote working introduces new cybersecurity risks, as businesses are unable to connect employees to a secure network or intranet, thus they are more susceptible to hacking or other digital crime (Borkovich & Skovira, 2020). While standard, at home cybersecurity measures are adequate for many businesses, for businesses in the financial sector or intelligence agencies, security is paramount and cannot be degraded as long as it is avoidable. While these jobs cannot be done remotely, even the other office jobs that are able to be done remotely, cyber-crime is still a large vulnerability and issue. Via a survey conducted, 1 in 5 remote working employees reported a security threat of some kind, to include phishing, spyware, ransomware, hacking, and data loss (Georgiadou et al., 2022).
Even though it is a crucial issue and there have been recommendations from cyber security organizations and experts to conduct cybersecurity training, according to a cybersecurity survey, more than half of remote employees did not receive security guidelines from employers regarding working from home (Georgiadou et al., 2022). Every employer handles highly sensitive information about their employees and the more often it is transferred over the internet and stored in cloud storage, the more vulnerable it is to cybercriminals (Georgiadou et al., 2022).
Though some jobs may not be able to be done remotely, information technology has improved to the point where many jobs have the tools at their disposal to be done from home. There are going to be some logistical challenges, but they are manageable from an information technology perspective. If remote working is going to be a sustainable, long-term arrangement, employers must put a focus on cybersecurity precautions and training regardless of the industry.
Conclusion
“Is remote working a sustainable, long-term arrangement for American office workers?” Each individual discipline brings about its own conclusion, which is not always decisive. That is why it is important to broaden the scope and take an interdisciplinary approach, forming a more complete understanding of the topic. Remote working ramped up the onset of COVID-19, but whether or not it is going to endure beyond an anti-pandemic countermeasure is an important question. Economically, it makes sense for an employee and employer to pursue a remote working arrangement, but sociologically, there are negatives that detract from the viability. Maintaining the office culture that is expected in a traditional office will take effort and good management, but the opportunity for remote work has become an expectation, so it is something that every employer must deal with. Psychologically, the pendulum swings back and forth, both with positives and negatives. It comes down to the individual and whether or not remote working is right for them, but in terms of the long-term sustainability of remote working, there is not an indisputable argument that suggests that it will not work. As discussed previously, if an employee finds that remote work improves their work-life balance, that psychological factor will bleed into other disciplines as well, being more productive and increasing their job satisfaction. In terms of information technology, there are some workplaces that will not be able to allow their employees to work from home, but companies should be able to cope with the challenges of providing technical support and cybersecurity training to their employees to ensure their success.
Not every discipline is entirely supportive of the viability of remote working, and there are some conflicting insights regarding remote work. Specifically, within the discipline of sociology, the lack of connectivity within the office has a negative effect on the office culture and cohesion, but most employees themselves believe it does not have a negative impact, and employees have come to expect to be able to work remotely or at least be given the option. Due to improvements in information technology, connectivity continues to improve, lessening that negative impact.
Just because the social understanding has shifted towards remote work being an expected arrangement, does not mean that every employee would prefer it, especially due to some people being negatively psychologically impacted by the work style. Employees are the ones that are expected to have the opportunity to work from home, employers do not expect that every employee would choose that arrangement. It not only takes a worker who is willing to work remotely, as it suits their current family situation and personality, but it also takes a workplace that is prepared and equipped to support remote working. That workplace would require the foundational information technology infrastructure and additional training, specifically cybersecurity and leadership to support the workers in order to succeed.
In total, an interdisciplinary review of the situation would conclude that remote working is a sustainable, long-term arrangement for American office workers. An interdisciplinary approach has created a more complete view of the challenges and benefits of remote working. It still requires some change on the part of both employees and employers, but there is no roadblock that is too big to overcome. It has become a social expectation of workers and it is beneficial for both the employers and the employees, which means that any problems that arise from psychological, sociological, or information technological sources will be worth working through.
References
American Automotive Association. “AAA’s Your Driving Costs.” AAA Exchange, American Automotive Association, https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/aaas-your-driving-costs/.
Burd, C., Burrows, M., & McKenzie, B. (2021). Travel time to work in the United States: 2019. American Community Survey Reports, United States Census Bureau, 2, 2021.
Chevtaeva, E., Neuhofer, B., & Rainoldi, M. (2022, January). The” next normal” of work: How tourism shapes the wellbeing of remote workers. In CAUTHE 2022 Conference Online: Shaping the Next Normal in Tourism, Hospitality and Events: Handbook of Abstracts of the 32nd Annual Conference: Handbook of Abstracts of the 32nd Annual Conference (p. 33). Council for Australasian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE).
Ferreira, A. I., Mach, M., Martinez, L. F., & Miraglia, M. (2022). Sickness presenteeism in the aftermath of COVID-19: is presenteeism remote-work behavior the new (Ab) normal?. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 6372.
Ferreira, R., Pereira, R., Bianchi, I. S., & da Silva, M. M. (2021). Decision factors for remote work adoption: advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 70.
Galanti, T., Guidetti, G., Mazzei, E., Zappalà, S., & Toscano, F. (2021). Work from home during the COVID-19 outbreak: The impact on employees’ remote work productivity, engagement, and stress. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 63(7), e426.
Georgiadou, A., Mouzakitis, S. & Askounis, D. Working from home during COVID-19 crisis: a cyber security culture assessment survey. Secur J 35, 486–505 (2022).
Golden, L. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 319–340.
Krehl, E. H., & Büttgen, M. (2022). Uncovering the complexities of remote leadership and the usage of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative diary study. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(3), 325-352.
Koch, T., & Denner, N. (2022). Informal communication in organizations: work time wasted at the water-cooler or crucial exchange among co-workers?. Corporate Communications: An International Journal.
Malka, S. C. (2023). Brief Note on Long-Term Trends Triggered by the 2019 Pandemic. International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 10, 288-292.
Mas-Machuca, M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Alegre, I. (2016). Work-life balance and its relationship with organizational pride and job satisfaction. Journal of managerial psychology, 31(2), 586-602.
Mehta, P. (2022). Work alienation as a mediator between work from home-related isolation, loss of task identity and job insecurity amid the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Workplace Health Management.
Neufeld, D. J., Wan, Z., & Fang, Y. (2010). Remote leadership, communication effectiveness and leader performance. Group decision and negotiation, 19, 227-246.
Saad, L., & Wigert, B. (2021). Remote work persisting and trending permanent. Gallup News Insights, 13.
Stanton, C. T., & Tiwari, P. (2021). Housing consumption and the cost of remote work (No. w28483). National Bureau of Economic Research
Sullivan, C. (2012). Remote working and work-life balance. In Work and quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations (pp. 275-290). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Toscano, F., & Zappalà, S. (2020). Social isolation and stress as predictors of productivity perception and remote work satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of concern about the virus in a moderated double mediation. Sustainability, 12(23), 9804.
van Zoonen, W., Sivunen, A., Blomqvist, K., Olsson, T., Ropponen, A., Henttonen, K., & Vartiainen, M. (2021). Factors influencing adjustment to remote work: Employees’ initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(13), 6966.