‘Zoom boom’ - Boundaries in digital realm and work/home life

By Professor Yehuda Baruch Professor of Management and Chira Tochia, PhD student in web science, University of Southampton

Working-from-home is not new. Back in the 1990s, new technologies emerged such as e-mail and dial-up internet and business leaders became interested in the possibilities they offered for white-collar workers to work remotely. This ‘teleworking’ concept was written up and talked about. Yet, very few took advantage of this new way to work. Despite the numerous benefits, the uptake and necessary adjustments to policy to make it effective were few and far between. Many workers feared that being able to work flexibly would be looked upon poorly by colleagues and managers. Out of sight meant out of mind and how could managers trust their employees? At the time there was a dominant US work ethos that long office hours and being in the office equalled productivity. Workers also worried that teleworking would be cited as the reason for being passed over for promotion.

Alex Tai on Unsplash

As suggested by Baruch and Nicholson in the mid-1990s, four factors are required for effective teleworking:

·       Individual attributes, in particular personality;

·       Job features that make it viable to be performed from home;

·       The right home and family conditions,  

·       Organizational readiness and interest in it, where the organizational culture would allow, even encourage it.

Of these four factors, the last one was the main obstacle to the introduction and expansion of working from home. And is why, even in OECD countries such as Germany the practice only spread to some 6-7% of the workforce. In many workplaces it was a solution confined to specific populations like young mothers and disabled employees which heightened the sense that it was not for everyone.

Twenty five years on, the Covid-19 pandemic changed everything.

Suddenly, organizations had no choice but to ask, even demand all their employees to work from home. This became the most significant quasi-experiment in working life for millions of workers.

It is a quasi-experiment, as it was sudden and unexpected, not carefully planned. Also, the test conditions for working from home cannot be viewed as normal. Children that would usually be at school and therefore not a consideration, remained at home and needed help to study. Yet, for the majority, it created a new opportunity to test the theory, can you work from home? What is the impact on performance? Satisfaction? Family-life?

Elena Kloppenburg on Unsplash

Individuals and employers have discovered the pros and cons of WfH. The advantages are significant, for individuals, their employer, the community and the nation. Yet,WfH also poses new challenges to individuals, their families and for employers too.

For some organizations the transition to WfH felt more seamless because they already had the IT infrastructure in place or quickly adopted it. Zoom reported in June 2020 that sales jumped 169% year-on-year and Microsoft Teams jumped 70% to 75 million daily active users in April 2020 too. Technology enables WfH but is it the same as being at work? Well yes we can still see and hear our colleagues, but some most certainly miss the office banter or ability to drop by a colleague’s desk to ask a quick question. Is it unsettling that through zooming we now know more about what’s on our work colleagues’ bookshelves and who are their family members? Or has it improved our empathy for each other?

This experiment further blurred the boundaries between work and home life, which were already compromised by the prevalence and routine use of IT in organizations. Any change in work pattern always needs adjustment and there was very little time for adjustment to the new working day. WfH means that you cannot meet your colleagues in person. Daily interactions or important meetings are limited to video-meetings or phone calls. And those video-meetings can be a challenge. People have far more meetings, and zoom-fatigue takes its toll.

But under Covid-19, an additional condition was imposed – a national lockdown. Pre-lockdown, WfH distorted the boundaries between work and other facets of life for 6% of the workforce. After lockdown it affected half of the workforce and their families. Many workers have discovered WfH is a blessing and a curse. It can be effective, convenient and enhances family life (think of those commuters that never see their children apart from the weekend). But being locked down with the family can be a source of conflict and being out of the office can be a source of isolation.

Unlike the 1990s and the mistrust of teleworking, many managers realise that they can trust their employees to work from home and deliver. So, the big question is – once Covid-19 and its effects recede – how many will want and be able to continue WfH?

Many have tasted it and will not want to give it up. Others may be happy to go back to the office; still it is likely that WfH even part of the time will offer a winning combination. What will be the implications for the long term? Our Work After Lockdown study will help resolve this question. We are collecting data from employees and managers about their inclination to work from home in the future. Our findings will help employers and policy makers take the learning from this great experiment and reshape work for the future.