1

WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19

Work from Home After COVID-19

Daria Majlessi

Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of Southern California

2
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
Continuing and managing work from home after COVID-19

Work from home (WFH) has become the norm in the current pandemic-afflicted world.

Because of COVID-19, and mandated stay-at-home regulations, many companies have had to

transition from the in-person workplace to the virtual workplace at the beginning of 2020.

Remote work has been around for a while. In fact, telecommuting was first starting to become

implemented within the United States in the 1970s (Allen et al., 2015). This was connected to the

oil crisis of the 1970s, when gas prices were rising and traffic was becoming a consistent

problem; there became a need to cut the commute for workers (Allen et al., 2015). The gradual

growth and implementation of telecommuting was also supported throughout the years by

technological advances such as personal computers, laptops, and cellphones in the 1980s and 90s

(Allen et al., 2015). In fact, in 2010, it was found that the proportion of workers who worked

remotely in the United States had tripled over the 30 years prior (Bloom et al., 2015). Even

though remote work was becoming more and more accepted and implemented over the years,

there were still many companies that were hesitant to implement WFH options for their

employees (Allen et al., 2015). It was not until the COVID-19 pandemic hit that a great number

of companies in the United States were forced to implement WFH, and they did so successfully

(Dingel & Neiman, 2020; Contreras et al., 2020). A study done by Dingel and Neiman (2020),

shows that 37% of jobs in the United States could potentially be done remotely, or from home.

This raises the question about why more companies were not already implementing WFH before

the pandemic. A simple answer could be that companies were not aware that they could

successfully implement WFH until it was forced upon them. In fact, many employers were

worried that WFH presented a lack of control over employees (Kniffin, et al., 2021). A more

complicated answer comes from balancing the pros and cons of WFH. It is important for
3
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
employers to look at the variety of positives and negatives of WFH for both their companies and

their employees.

         Due to the vast variety of industries and job types, it is hard to find any definitive

evidence on whether WFH can be an effective, productive, and profitable management technique

in general (Bloom et al., 2015). There have, however, been specific studies proving the

effectiveness of WFH in certain cases (Bloom et al., 2015; Stavrou, 2005). For example, Bloom

et al. (2015) did an experiment observing the performance level of call center employees in a

Shanghai firm. They found that the employees who worked from home had a 13% increase in

performance and a 9% increase in the time they were actively working since they started

working from home (Bloom et al., 2015). They attributed this partly to reductions in time spent

for breaks, time off, and sick days due to being able to conveniently grab snacks or coffee,

quickly run to the bathroom, or tend to other things that would have been more difficult in the

workplace (Bloom et al., 2015). The firm that this experiment was done at “improved total factor

productivity by between 20% to 30% and saved about $2,000 a year per employee WFH”

(Bloom et al., 2015, p. 170). Many companies that implement WFH save money on office space

and employee amenities, but this oftentimes means that the employee is now responsible for

certain costs, such as computers, desks, electricity, etc. (Baker et al., 2007; Mustajab et al.,

2020). As well as an increase in performance on an individual level, studies have also shown that

teams working together virtually are usually better at brainstorming than teams working in

person; this is thought to be because through a performance tracking virtual platform, workers

may be more aware of their productivity (DeRosa et al., 2007). This heightened performance and

productivity amongst workers, as well as financial ease on employers, make WFH sound like a
4
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
very effective option for employers. A potential downfall for employers could be in terms of

management.

         It is important to employee satisfaction that there is flexible and adaptable trust between

managers and employees in flexible and adaptable WFH scenarios (Baker et al., 2007; Kniffin et

al., 2021). In a study done by Antonakis and Atwater (2002), it was found that physical distance

can be challenging for management. That said, virtual communication and teamwork might

produce better results in the long run, as it is much easier to avoid the restrictive social rules of

in-person communication when everything is virtual, allowing much more collaboration and

participation (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). In fact, virtual work environments “will foster more

participatory relationships given that physical cues of dominance (e.g., size) are less salient in

virtual environments” (Kniffin, 2021, p. 67). In a way, a virtual environment creates a more

equal distance between all virtual employees and leaders. However, if WFH is an option rather

than a requirement, and some employees choose to stay in the workplace, this could create

unequal distance and relationships with management between WFH employees and in-house

employees (Grant et al., 2013; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Additionally, because of less

interaction between management and employees, it is likely that promotion and growth of WFH

employees do not happen at the same rate as in-house employees (Bloom et al., 2015). This was

shown in the experiment done by Bloom et al. (2015), where promotion rates were reduced about

50% for the WFH employees.

         We have seen many companies in the United States successfully move their operations

online due to COVID-19 regulations. Although being able to work from home provides

employees with the assurance that they do not have to put themselves in a high-risk work

environment to do their job, it may also have deteriorating effects on their mental well-being. For
5
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
a while now, there has been an upward trend in workers wanting better work life balance (Baker

et al., 2007; Stavrou, 2005). WFH has been thought to help employees maintain a good work life

balance, especially since WFH allows them to use the time they would spend commuting, with

their families, on hobbies, or on household tasks (Allen et al., 2015; Ali et al., 2020). That being

said, Allen et al. (2015) also explains that WFH creates the possibility for work-family conflict,

which is the issue of family getting in the way of work, and work getting in the way of family.

On the flip side, a study looking at flexible work arrangements, shows that WFH is not only

helpful for employees maintaining better work life balance, but it also helps reduce absenteeism,

attrition rates, and employee turnover (Stavrou, 2005). Additionally, working at home could

make it “challenging [for employees] to maintain boundaries between work and nonwork”

(Kniffin et al., 2021, p. 66). COVID-19 quarantining and stay at home orders also add a level of

loneliness and lack of social interaction that could affect motivation, creativity, and innovation,

as well as physical and mental health (Kniffin et al., 2021). 

         Now with all this being said, the big question still remains; should companies that have

successfully transitioned to WFH because of the pandemic, continue to provide WFH options for

employees once the pandemic is over? While some people who were forced to work from home

are struggling to stay sane, balancing work and life in their personal homes, others have been

able to adapt and create a much better work life balance with this new system. Should those who

are thriving in the WFH environment be forced to go back to the office once the risks of COVID-

19 start to fade away? Ali et al. (2020) explain that the shift to WFH and WFH technologies

could help prepare companies for the uncertainty of the future and any environmental factors that

could impact companies the way COVID-19 has. So the big question is, can and should WFH

continue to be a productive and effective option for employees, even after the pandemic?
6
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
Literature Review

Working from Home

Work from home provides a number of benefits for employers, but most obviously the

ability to save money by eliminating the costs of office space, upkeep, furniture, electricity, Wi-

Fi, and amenities for employees, amongst many other things (Baker et al., 2007; Mustajab et al.,

2020; Breaugh & Farabee, 2012). In fact, Bloom et al. (2015), found that the firm they studied

saved $2,000 a year for each employee working from home. According to Breaugh and Farabee

(2012), when AT&T reduced their office spaces by about 20-30%, they ended up saving an

estimated $60 million in the first year. These are huge costs that remote work can entirely

eliminate. Another company, Northern Telecom, estimated saving about $2,000 per

telecommuter as well (Breaugh & Farabee, 2012). In fact, the majority of Fortune 500

companies operate with a remote sales force (Eddleston & Mulki, 2017). Additionally, with

increasing globalization, companies are evolving and increasing hiring all over the world; remote

work allows for these companies to expand without struggling to provide physical office space

and resources for these employees, saving them a lot of money (Ferreira et al., 2021; Contreras et

al., 2020). On top of being incredibly cost-effective for employers, WFH can also be cost-

effective for employees. Research has found that it can reduce costs for workers in

transportation, time, and even formal dress (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). However, it is

important to note that there is no equity in WFH, and many employees cannot afford home

internet, electricity, or technologies to be able to work from home effectively, so the

responsibility for providing some of these essential work materials is then put on the workers

(Baker et al., 2007; Mustajab et al., 2020).

7
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
Work life balance is one of the biggest draws to remote work for employees. The

autonomy and flexibility of being able to schedule work and family as needed is a huge positive

that can relieve stress and time conflicts for employees (Eddleston & Mulki, 2017; Gajendran &

Harrison, 2007). Research has found that remote work not only improves quality of life, but it

also increases happiness and work satisfaction (Contreras et al., 2020). These increased

perceptions of freedom and autonomy are enhanced by being able to control ambient factors in

the home, as well as control scheduling for tasks and work (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).

Additionally, being able to fully eliminate the time for commuting, opens up a lot more time for

other things, like household tasks, or even additional work hours (Allen et al., 2015; Ali et al.,

2020; Eddleston & Mulki, 2017). However, in their study, Eddleston and Mulki (2017) use the

framework of boundary theory, which suggests that always being available for work and family

at all times can cause potential conflict for remote workers. When looking at boundary theory,

the issue with remote work is that there is no spatial boundary or physical separation between

work and home—"the workplace is embedded in the family domain” (Eddleston & Mulki, 2017,

p. 348). This can then cause confusion for employees about which role (employee or family-

member) they should be in at any given time (Eddleston & Mulki, 2017). Although working

from home can alleviate certain stressors, it can also take away that re-energizing nature and

effect of home as a separate place and have negative effects on the well-being of remote workers

(Grant et al., 2013). For example, this blurring of the boundary lines opens up room for

negotiation between the employee and employer about availability, which can put extra pressure

on the employee to feel as though, since they work from home, their availability expands to

whenever they are home, quickly leading to burnout (Grant et al., 2013). Additionally, there are

potential physiological effects of WFH that require further research as well; current research
8
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
suggests reduced blood pressure when working at home, as well as increased risk of

musculoskeletal disorders caused from sitting for long hours with not enough breaks (Grant et

al., 2013). On top of all that, work from home can also increase feelings of loneliness as social

interaction is so limited; this can also cause WFH employees to miss out on important

information circling through the office (Grant et al., 2013). This reduction or lack of in person

interaction can be detrimental to employee social presence, and any bonds with co-workers can

become weakened or severed (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).

A big concern about remote work for employers is the productivity levels of employees.

In a study done by Diab-Bahman and Al-Enzi (2020), it was found that the majority of people

felt more productive working from home than at their workplace, and that they were able to

concentrate better as well. Research suggests that the increase in productivity seen from remote

workers is mainly due to there being less distractions when working from home and allowing

employees to create their own work environment (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). A study showed

that the majority of people believe that the typical eight-to-nine-hour workday is too long, and

they are able to achieve the same amount of work in less time (Diab-Bahman & Al-Enzi, 2020).

It was also found that the majority of people believed that most of their work meetings could

easily be condensed to emails (Diab-Bahman & Al-Enzi, 2020). In fact, in their study, Bloom et

al. (2015) found that working from home actually improved productivity by 20-30%. Research

has also found that remote working increases feelings of autonomy for employees, which

actually aid in new competencies, such as drive, self-motivation, confidence, and improved

communication—all of which positively affect the quality of work (Grant et al., 2013). 

The hybrid work environment, accounting for in-person employees and WFH employees,

poses many questions about company culture. Research has found that a lack of face-to-face
9
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
interaction with co-workers and management can cause issues and force WFH employees into

becoming “out of sight, out of mind” (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007, p. 1527). This distance can

also cause conflict between in-person employees and remote employees, as in-person employees

might feel a sense of jealousy or even resentment; they are not able to observe remote workers,

so they may feel as though their remote counterparts are not contributing enough or at all

(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Contreras et al., 2020). It has also been seen that face-to-face

interactions are a huge aspect of performance evaluations, which are necessary for promotion as

well as career growth (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). In fact, Bloom et al. (2015) found in their

study that promotion rates for WFH employees decreased by 50%. These feelings of professional

isolation and stagnation can also adversely affect job performance since employees do not have

the same motivation or in person support and guidance from management when needed

(Contreras et al., 2020). Conversely, it is common for management to feel a lack of trust in WFH

employees due to concerns that remote workers will not perform at the same level as they would

in person (Contreras et al., 2020). These trends of lack of trust, lack of transparency, resentment,

and isolation, can create a very toxic work environment. In addition, the remote work culture can

become problematic as it promotes non-stop work with no breaks or boundary between work

time and non-work time (Grant et al., 2013).

Another challenge of WFH is managing WFH employees. Part of the reason employers

are hesitant to implement remote work is that WFH has the potential to weaken the quality of the

relationship between managers and employees (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Contreras et al.,

2020). When considering WFH arrangements, managers often fear a lack of control of their

employees, and employees often fear that managers will question their commitment and loyalty

when working remotely (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Because of a lack of in-person
10
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
interaction, WFH also poses potential issues with feedback and communication between

employees and managers; through a virtual format, things can get lost in translation, tone can be

misinterpreted, and signs can be misunderstood (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Leadership

strategies need to evolve and adjust to the new virtual platforms to maintain sustainable

management practices (Contreras et al., 2020). Gajendran and Harrison (2007) explain that for

successful WFH management, managers have to be willing to adjust their monitoring and

evaluating strategies “from behavior-based to output-based controls” (p. 1527). However,

research has found that employees who are offered work from home options are retained better,

less likely to quit, and turnover rates are lessened (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Contreras et al.,

2020). When considering WFH, it is also important for managers and employers to note that

remote work cannot be implemented in some industries and for some job types as successfully

and easily as others; only 17% of the service industry, 12% of the healthcare industry, 10% of

the finance and insurance industry, 8.5% of the manufacturing industry, and 7.5% of the

education industry work remotely overall (Contreras et al., 2020). Since the COVID-19

pandemic is so recent, there is not much recent research on the effects of the pandemic on

companies and management navigating WFH; however, the next section will explore the

research available on the effects of COVID-19 on companies and their structures.

Further buckets this literature review could explore:

 Effects of COVID-19 on companies

 Effective management techniques
 Employee benefits
11
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
References

Ali, S., Choudhary, Y., Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R., Suman, R., & Rab, S. (2020). Make-

over in the sustainable working platform during COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable

Operations and Computers, 1, 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2020.10.001

Allen, T. D., Golden T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2015). How effective is telecommuting?

Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, 16(2), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615593273

Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The

Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8

Baker, E., Avery, G., & Crawford, J. (2007). Satisfaction and perceived productivity when

professionals work from home. Research & Practice in Human Resource Management,

15(1).

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work?

Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165-

218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032 

Breaugh, J., & Farabee, A. (2012). Telecommuting and flexible work hours: Alternative work 

arrangements that can improve the quality of work life. In Work and Quality of Life :

Ethical Practices in Organizations (pp. 251–274).

Contreras, F., Baykal, E., & Abid, G. (2020). E-leadership and teleworking in times of 

COVID-19 and beyond: What we know and where do we go. Frontiers in Psychology,

11, 590271–590271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590271 

DeRosa, D., Smith, C., & Hantula, D. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised
12
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the

electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549–

1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003

Diab-Bahman, R., & Al-Enzi, A. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on conventional 

work settings. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(9/10), 909–927.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-07-2020-0262 

Dingel, J., & Neiman, B. (2020). How many jobs can be done at home? Journal of Public

Economics, 189, 104235–104235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

Eddleston, K., & Mulki, J. (2017). Toward understanding remote workers’ management of 

work–family boundaries: The complexity of workplace embeddedness. Group &

Organization Management, 42(3), 346–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115619548 

Ferreira, R., Pereira, R., Scalabrin Bianchi, I., & Mira da Silva, M. (2021). Decision factors for 

remote work adoption: Advantages, disadvantages, driving forces and challenges.

Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(70),

https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010070 

Gajendran, R., & Harrison, D. (2007). The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown About 

Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual

Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524 

Grant, C., Wallace, L., & Spurgeon, P. (2013). An exploration of the psychological factors 

affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-being and work-life balance.

Employee Relations, 35(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0059 

Kniffin, K., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S., Bakker, A., Bamberger, P.,
13
WORK FROM HOME AFTER COVID-19
Bapuji, H., Bhave, D., Choi, V., Creary, S., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F., Gelfand, M., Greer,

L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P., Lee, S., … Vugt, M. (2021). COVID-19 and the

workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. The

American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716

Mustajab, D., Bauw, A., Rasyid, A., Irawan, A., Akbar, M., & Hamid, M. (2020). Working from

home phenomenon as an effort to prevent COVID-19 attacks and its impacts on work

productivity. The International Journal of Applied Business, 4(1), 13–21.

https://doi.org/10.20473/tijab.V4.I1.2020.13-21

Stavrou, E. T. (2005). Flexible work bundles and organizational competitiveness: A cross-

national study of the European work context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(8),

923–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.356