Work From Home: It All Comes Down to Trust

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working with a colleague on an article for Psychology Today on the topic of work from home (WFH). As the first author of the article, I immersed myself in scientific literature on this topic, specifically focusing on studies that looked at productivity and employee well-being as the outcomes.

WFH and the hybrid work model are a fairly new phenomenon, propagated across industries by the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, research on the role of WFH in long-term well-being, work-life balance, productivity and work satisfaction is just beginning to emerge.

Existing research demonstrate that under the hybrid work model, there are no losses in productivity, and possible productivity gains due to the reduction in distractions and interruptions when working from home. In addition, workers across industries appear more satisfied with their work conditions and their work-life balance when they are permitted the flexibility of working from home one or more days a week (although that may not be the case for full-time WFH). They also experience a reduction in overall work-related stress. In short, scientific evidence appears to support the hybrid model as beneficial for employees and organizations.

Why, then, do we still debate the WFH issue? Why did Amazon, Starbucks, and Boeing recently reinstated full-time on-site presence?

From my perspective, it all comes down to trust.

Executives and managers are typically opposed to their teams working from home. They cite reasons such as damage to organizational culture and company morale in order to support their standpoints. But research proposes a different perspective: perhaps managers are not well-equipped to effectively manage their teams under these new and rapidly changing work arrangements.

Work from Home and Trust

Effectively managing a team that has a hybrid work arrangement requires a great deal of trust, both in the team members and in our ability to manage them from a distance.

Off-site management is a new and multifaceted skill that managers are required to develop rapidly. It requires a combination of a laissez-faire style with clear and firm communication of expectation and provision of support. But above all, it requires the confidence to know that even when they are not in our field of vision, our staff are doing exactly what they should be doing.

Does it really matter that instead of getting up to get coffee from the kitchen at work, they make coffee in their own kitchen? Or that they have their lunch at 12:45 instead of noon? Or that they take a 15-minute break during the workday to walk their dog? The truth is, these things do not necessarily detract from our team’s productivity, or from the bottom line of the organization.

Instead, there is only one thing that managers should be focused on: output.

Focusing on productivity and goal attainment should be at the forefront of decision-making about work arrangements. Putting the spotlight on concerns such as time spent at the computer or exact number of hours actively worked – misses the point.

On-site distractions and disruptions are plentiful; physically being on-site for 8 hours a day does not always result in 7 hours of productivity. In fact, many estimates suggest that during a typical day in the office, only approximately 4 hours of work are being done (WorkLife, 2023; Zippia, 2023).

However, when our teams are on-site, in their work attire, immersed in their work environment, we perceive them as “working”. At home, still in their pyjamas, sipping on coffee from their favourite mug, we get concerned.

The Illusion of Control

Many managers are on a quest to control the behaviours of their teams. While true leaders understand that they need to provide guidance, feedback, and support to enable their team members to reach their individualized peak potential, most managers often take their titles quite literally and attempt to manage, and micromanage, the work behaviour of their staff. Once again, trust plays a crucial role in this management style, as these managers often believe that people only get work done under tyrannical conditions.

From this perspective, it is easy to understand the simple equation that underlies their decision-making when it comes to work from home: at home there is nobody to ensure a consistent flow of work, the individual has freedom and flexibility to make their own decisions. And, as previously mentioned, there is a lack of trust when it comes to decision-making on the part of team members.

In other words, people are easier to control when they are within reach. This control, however, is merely an illusion. People naturally resist being controlled, and always strive for autonomy. Being micromanaged can therefore create silent resistance in the form of lack of care for the quality of work, appearing busy but actually doing little meaningful work, slacking once the manager is it of sight, etc. Therefore, being “present” and being productive are, in fact, not correlated.

The Underlying Problem

There are many solid arguments on both sides of the WFH debate, but, from my perspective, the underlying basis of this discord is trust. While many people see this debate as a matter of productivity, I believe that the clear division between executives/managers and employees on the two sides of this dispute signals a problem that has never surfaced so clearly– there is a lack of trust between the differently-positioned individuals in organizations. That is the real problem that we should be trying to solve.

For more about this topic, check out my article in Psychology Today:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/managing-wellness/202411/to-go-or-not-to-go-to-the-office