Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientific African
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sciaf

The rapidly evolving situation of employee work-from-home

productivity and the integration of ICT in Post-COVID-19
pandemic.
Andrew Enaifoghe a,∗, Ntombizamakhwalosiziphiwe Zenzile b
a
Department of Public Administration, University of Zululand, South Africa
b
Department of Operations management, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study objective explored the changing nature of COVID-19 s emergence on work-from-
Received 9 July 2022 home productivity in South Africa. Studies show that the formerly coveted, highly attrac-
Revised 6 May 2023
tive work-from-home (WFH) did not show to be one of the best solutions for most em-
Accepted 8 May 2023
ployees. The study contributes to the adoption and integration of innovative technologies
in the area of information communication technologies (ICT), to improve employees’ pro-
Editor: DR B Gyampoh ductivity at the workplace as work from home (WFH). However, WFH is still popular, but
not in its current form. The study suggested that better government rules and regulations
Keywords:
should be in place to properly regulate and make WFH practicable for all employees in
COVID-19employee’s productivity
South Africa. The study adopted a survey method for data collection through a structured
Remote work
Teleworking questionnaire that was administered to selected participants. The study also reviews avail-
Pandemic able literature on the topic under investigation while relying on secondary data as sources
of information and analyzing them based on content. The study applied the Trust-Based
Working Theory. The study finds that the decision to cease in-person meetings and work
was made quickly upon the arrival of COVID-19 but without any instructions on how to
do so. It was recommended that the guidance on adjusting to distant online work is one
area of policy where preparation and execution are very necessary.
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Institute of
Mathematical Sciences / Next Einstein Initiative.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Introduction

This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employee productivity. As the new global pandemic hit
the entire world, many businesses encourage their workers to work from home. Work from home (WFH) refers to work done
remotely rather than in an office [1]. WFH is an abbreviation for "work from home," which refers to work done remotely
rather than in an office. The notion is known by the abbreviation WFH. During the Coronavirus global epidemic, many
organizations relocated their personnel from the workplace to WFH [2]. “COVID-19 s impacts on workers and workplaces
across the globe have been dramatic” ([3]: 63). Millions of workers across many countries including South Africa lost their
jobs and many self-employed workers saw their incomes collapse, both job and income losses were particularly severe for
women [4].

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: enaifoghea@unizulu.ac.za (A. Enaifoghe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01709
2468-2276/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of African Institute of Mathematical Sciences / Next Einstein Initiative. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

The world “entered the most peculiar working environment of the new age, and the world as we know it came to an end
in early 2020. The governments guided by science were forced to take dramatic steps to save lives” ([3]: 64). The COVID-19
pandemic epidemic sparked an unprecedentedly large-scale and quick change in people’s working habits [5,6]. According to
numerous studies, millions of workers worldwide are now compelled to work remotely [7–10], which has resulted in the
largest social experiment involving "working from home" (WFH) in recorded human history [11]. In response to the crisis,
businesses in China, Australia, India, and Singapore quickly made the necessary adjustments to enable a remote workforce,
according to a LinkedIn analysis. In terms of job characteristics and workplace setting, working from home (WFH) is very
different from working from office (WFO).
A relatively high level of formalization and a set working schedule, which includes place, time, and task arrangements,
define WFO [12]. In terms of work and organizational management, information and communications technology (ICT) has
been widely embraced ([13–15]; Olsen 2019). Due to advancements in ICT, WFH is distinguished by the freedom from re-
strictions associated with working in a formal and fixed workplace [16]. WFH was proposed as a contemporary human
resource policy for organizations before the COVID-19 pandemic, and it has led to a clear trend that is firmly established in
society [17,18]. By avoiding lengthy commutes, avoiding office politics, having less workplace distractions, and having more
opportunities to achieve a better work-life balance, it helps people be more productive [19,20].
Parallel to this, some academics have claimed that WFH is not a substitute for traditional working hours and might
harm employee performance [21]. As a result, a crucial query in the area has been posed: Can WFH replace WFO? The
discussion surrounding this issue has heated up in tandem with the growth of ICT and globalization. However, there is
a large knowledge vacuum because previous research has not yet produced a consensus. In light of the aforementioned
research gaps, the current investigation is structured as a comparison study that is situated within the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. The current study examines the differences between the WFH group and other working cohorts in terms of job
characteristics and its effects on job performance. The advantages and contribution of this study include the adoption and
integration of innovative technologies in the area of information communication technologies (ICT), to improve employees’
productivity at the workplace as work from home (WFH).

Research methodology

This study is a qualitative study with original research data conducted with respondents as a means of collecting data, the
study analyzed its data through thematic content analysis. Though the research reviews substantial literature in the existing
body of knowledge, that allows researchers to study, consult, and make sense of written materials or documents which may
be available either in the public or private domain [22]. The authors studied various literature that was collected through
a desktop approach with written documents that were available in the public or private domain. Through a systematic
review of the material collected, the researchers determine the relevance of the documents that they consult based on their
significance to the study.
The selected method for this study was documentary analysis, which creates the criteria for the researcher to select
different documents while focusing on extracts that should reflect the issues on which the researcher is seeking evidence.
The study also adopted a survey method to collect data from selected businesses within Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal
province. The sample surveys were taken from the statistics business registration, and the questionnaire was sent to through
email. The questionnaire was then completed and returned. The data were then collected and analyzed based on content.
As a result, workers must be able to access both the responders to collect information and the internal systems to process
it.

Problem statement

The problem for policymakers is to maintain preserving people’s lives and health without causing irreparable economic
damage. The measures that assure physical separation—closing schools, grounding aircraft, prohibiting big “gatherings, and
closing workplaces—are simply the beginning of the fight against the virus and only serve as a tool to halt its spread” [3,23].
The relaxing of limits should not endanger lives or create a fresh surge of diseases, as some expect " even worse than the
first wave that already stretched healthcare capacity beyond its limits and put frontline workers under considerable risk
and pressure" (International Labour Organisation [ILO] [[24]: 3]. As COVID-19 infections swept the globe between January
and March 2020, nations one by one urged employers to shut operations and, if feasible, to relocate and "introduce full-
time teleworking for their workers, with very little time to prepare on both the employer’s and the worker’s side" ([25]: 3).
Something that was intended to be a temporary, short-term remedy became ongoing practice. A variety of criteria “influence
whether a task may be completed remotely. Workers became uninformed of what WFH implies and lack the tools needed
for this transformation.

Global pandemic impact on the workforce teleworking

Before the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, only a small percentage of the workforce worked from home on occasion or
teleworking. Within the European Union (EU), “the prevalence of regular or occasional teleworking (including home-based
and mobile telework) ranged from 30% or higher in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden to 10% or less in the Czech

2
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

Republic, Greece, Italy, and Poland”. According to research, up to 20% of the US workforce worked from home or another
alternate location on a regular or occasional basis, compared to 16% in Japan and 1.6% in Argentina [26]. The proportion
of occupations that can be done from home during a pandemic determines “the size of the workforce that can work from
home and hence limit community spread of the virus”, ([25]: 3).
Two recent papers published by Hatayama et al., [27] and ILO [28] investigated “the potential for working from home
in countries at various stages of economic development and discovered that factors such as economic and occupational
structure”. As well as “access to broadband internet and the likelihood of owning a personal computer, are important de-
terminants of working from home” [25,27]. “The data imply that “the capacity of occupations to be worked from home
is increasing with the level of economic development of the country”. As a result, countries with a high concentration of
“jobs in ICT, professional services, finance and insurance, and public administration can mobilize a larger proportion of their
workforce to work from home.
Whereas countries with a high concentration of jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and tourism are less
able to do so” ([25]: 3). As a result of the government-issued stay-at-home directives, nearly four out of every ten European
employees began teleworking [29]. Teleworking increased most significantly in nations most impacted by the virus and
where teleworking was extensively developed before the epidemic. In Finland, about 60% of employees turned to working
from home. Nonetheless, this increase in numbers demonstrates that with the correct technology, tools (e.g., communica-
tion tools), and work rearrangement, a much greater number of tasks may be performed from a distance than previously
anticipated.
Similar methods have been used in “other areas of the world, where governments have pressured firms to adopt tele-
working to reduce commuter density in major cities and therefore contribute to physical distance”. It should be noted that
school closures and the closure of other care facilities have made working from home difficult for working parents and
caregivers [30]. The increased burden of unpaid care brought by the crisis has particularly affected many unskilled workers
in the emergence of coronavirus. This raises the risk that progress on gender equality may be put on hold or even reversed.
It is significant to indicate that COVID-19 has had a major effect on jobs and workplaces all around the world. Despite pol-
icymakers’ audacious attempts to help businesses and retain employment through job preservation programs, millions of
people in a variety of countries have lost their jobs [31].
Meanwhile, many self-employed employees saw their earnings plummet. As a result, the majority of countries took im-
mediate measures to increase access to and generosity of unemployment minimum-income payments. Along with these
measures, some nations implemented new cash grants aimed at those who were uninsured, covered expenditures, or, in
some situations, enforced mandatory transfers to ensure that no one slipped between the cracks [32]. Private and public
employment service providers (PES) have been put to the test as demand for their services skyrocketed in the first few
months of the recession, although their ability was heavily limited by the need to reduce face-to-face contact with work
seekers [33]. Governments replied by streamlining the process of claiming benefits and increasing the digitization of pro-
grammes such as registering for job search assistance and filing for benefits.

The global predominance of employee teleworking pre-COVID-19

The differences in the usage of occasional telework before the pandemic crisis are provided to gain insight into the need
for more frequent use of telework during regular periods to comprehend the predominance impact of employee teleworking
amidst pre-COVID-19. This is as well as conditions that may be in effect to use telework effectively or that might discourage
its use [4]. For example, in certain countries or forms of companies, reasons such as a lack of ICT expertise, inefficient
administrative processes, or activities involving physical contact prohibit the use of telework. Cross-country or cross-firm
disparities in telework prevalence indicate the potential for increasing telework through best organizational practices and
public policy aimed at increasing access to it.
The available information on telework usage before the pandemic crisis thus supplements insights obtained through
telework use throughout the crisis. The rapidity at which many employers responded to the fact that a large proportion
of workers worked from home during the health crisis shows that the use of telework before the crisis was well below
what was practicable. In the United States, for example, 94 percent of 1500 recruitment managers interviewed in April 2020
stated that any of their workers teleworked throughout the crisis, out of 25,0 0 0 respondents in another study that is typical
of the US population” ([34]: 3)
According to a poll done in April 2020, “34% of people working four weeks before reported moving to telework during
this time period” [31]. However, telework during a crisis can only be partially transferred to telework during "normal times."
During confinement, telework often permits all job-related duties to be accomplished from home, but before the crisis,
sporadic or even daily teleworking required just specific tasks to be completed remotely [35]. Furthermore, following the
Great Depression, employees were frequently forced to telework. Although many individuals may continue to telework in
the long run, many others may not wish to if legislative and other impediments to teleworking remain. How common was
telework in different countries?
Already in 2015, a sizable share of employees in several OECD nations teleworked - that is, worked outside the office,
from home, or in a public space, that is "– at least regularly the previous year" [36]. Nonetheless, the number of persons
who work from home varies substantially amongst continents, ranging from roughly 25% in Portugal and Italy to more than
twice as many in Sweden and Denmark [37]. It is worth noting that the proportion of people who have teleworked differs

3
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

from recent research on the variety of jobs that can be fulfilled by teleworking since the crisis [38,39]; jobs that allow
performing certain tasks from home may not be ideal for being done entirely from home or through teleworking.
Interestingly, “cross-country differences in the scope of employment to be accomplished totally from home - based on
particular responsibilities that may more closely reflect telework constraints owing to the nature of the occupations - are of-
ten lower than gaps in actual telework documented” ([38]: 32). This implies that, in addition to variations in the distribution
of job types, which result in employees doing a different combination of tasks, there are differences in the industrial struc-
ture of countries. Other influences, such as history, management habits, digital technology, ability endowment, or employee
age structure, may be driving these disparities.
Bloom and Van Reenen [40] provide evidence of “significant variations in management strategies amongst countries;
and [41] provide evidence of cross-country differences in work-life balances”. Brussevic, Dabla-Norris, and Khalid (2020)
investigate the position of socioeconomic inequalities across countries for data on the capacity to telework during the crisis.
Furthermore, it seems that sporadic teleworking is much more common than normal teleworking. In Germany, for example,
only 12% of workers teleworked from home at least once a week in 2014, and only 1% did so in the previous four weeks,
even though in both countries. Almost 30% of workers teleworked occasionally in 2015 [42].
Similarly, in the United States, although 43 percent of workers served from home in 2016, just 15 percent of working
hours were completed from home between 2011 and 2018 [43]. Aside from technological criteria, the huge difference be-
tween routine and intermittent telework demonstrates that. There are considerable non-technical impediments to telework:
most employees who might do at least some activities from home may prefer not to, for example, due to a lack of a decent
working environment at home or a fear of being ’stigmatized.’ This potentially substantial function for ’cultural’ and other
characteristics indicates how much regulations may assist to expand telework, particularly in nations with low pre-crisis
telework usage, such as Portugal.

DATA presentation and discussion of FINDINGS: the SURVEY

COVID-19 on the south african economy and the alternative of working from home

An overview of working from home is presented in this section. This study conceptualized the term “work from home
(WFH), as currently known as an alternative working to minimize the risk of COVID-19 infection”. However, it must be
noted that WFH, on the other hand, “is not a new concept and has been brought to the attention of numerous schools
of thought for many years” [39]. Telecommuting is an alternative work arrangement in which employees perform tasks
elsewhere that are normally performed in primary or central workplaces. For at least some portion of their work schedule,
using electronic media to interact with others inside and outside the organisation, noting that ‘elsewhere’ refers to home"
([39]: 4). According to the findings from the survey conducted
About 37 percent of jobs in the United States might be accomplished at home during the COVID-19 pandemic, such
as financial work, company management, professional and scientific services.

Some vocations, particularly those in healthcare, agriculture, and hospitality, cannot be done at home. Although WFH is
becoming more popular across the world, scholars disagree on its benefits and drawbacks. The question of is WFH advanta-
geous to both companies and employees was asked and the findings indicated that;
“The benefits include, but are not limited to, reduced commuting time, avoidance of office politics, use of less office
space, increased motivation, improved gender diversity (e.g., women and careers), healthier workforces with lower
absenteeism and turnover, higher talent retention, job satisfaction, and higher productivity”

The above findings is in line with what Mello (2007); Robertson, Maynard, and McDevitt, (2003: 91), argued that working
from home is beneficial to workers and companies, which include, but are not limited to, reduced commuting time, avoid-
ance of office politics, use of less office space, increased motivation. Studies have revealed evidence for these benefits; for
example, Caulfield (2015) discovered that “employees save commute time and value of journey time in the Greater Dublin
Area”. According to the survey from the selected businesses;
“telework can minimize turnover while increasing employee productivity, job engagement, and job performance”

Delanoeije and Verbruggen (2020); [44]), similarly noted that “e–working can boost productivity, flexibility, job satisfac-
tion, and WLB, as well as reduce work-life conflict and travel time”. The survey also stated that;
“WFH might help employees by providing flexible work hours and saving money on commute costs. The disadvantages
of WFH include a blurred barrier between work and family, diversions, social isolation, and employees sharing the
expenditures associated with WFH”.

WFH has various drawbacks, according to Purwanto et al. [44], such as employees working from home needing to pay for
their own electricity and internet expenses. Workers were disconnected from their coworkers, and managers were concerned
about productivity losses when working from home. Additionally, coworker relationships may be jeopardized [45]. Another
findings from the survey conducted shows that;

4
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

“Employees may be distracted by the presence of small children or family members when working at home and the
blurred boundaries between work and family life lead to overwork”.

Kazekami (2020) and Eddleston and Mulki (2017) observed, in a similar vein, that WFH regulates the boundaries between
work and family for remote employees to disengage from work. Working from home has been demonstrated in studies to
improve WLB. Similarly, e-working would enhance WLB and that e-workers would be able to merge work and non-work life.
E–workers discovered that e–working increased their productivity. Working from home increased workplace satisfaction, ac-
cording to Bloom et al. [46]. WFH is also linked to a sense of fulfilment in one’s family life (Arntz, Sarra, and Berlingieri
2019; Virick, DaSilva, and Arrington 2010). Kazekami (2020) investigated “worker productivity with telework” promotes life
happiness. To deal with the epidemic, most countries have made WFH a policy priority. In doing so, policies must be devel-
oped with “both employers and employees in mind, as there will be some consequences for the two groups in one way or
another”.

The option to experience work from home

The emergence of COVID-19 provided the globe with the opportunity to experience WFH, which had long been a desired
work alternative for many, particularly in places like Hong Kong, where multiple family workforces are more common. The
duty of “elderly parents and/or small children, along with a demanding work environment, has posed a difficulty, calling into
question the WLB of Hong Kong’s workforce”. According to preliminary research on employers’ and employees’ attitudes
to WFH in Hong Kong, the initial reactions to the modified working arrangement appear to be positive. Looking beyond
the surface level of satisfaction, there are numerous holes in the present WFH structure, and as a result, there is more
unhappiness with the absence of policies to conduct successful home working. Findings from the participant through survey
shows that;
“more than 80% of workers desired at least partial WFH measures in place, with numbers differing in how many days
a week that should be, indicating a preference for a mixed pattern of working”.

The opinion of the people WFH must consider goes hand in hand with the efficiency of WFH activities. Looking back on
the early days of the profession, the vast majority of responses were favourable. According to the finding from the survey
indicated that;
“the most prevalent explanations for this were more time to relax (72.2 percent strongly agree), less work-related
stress (63.8 percent strongly agree), and an improvement in WLB (60.7 percent strongly agree)”.

However, while this was the most common viewpoint, it did not reflect the majority opinion, demonstrating that there
was still room for development even in the early stages. The same study found that the majority of evidence agreed on all
of the difficulties highlighted, including a lack of hardware, interruption from family, and inadequate communication with
coworkers.
“Opinions also favoured employers, with 45 percent of respondents agreeing that companies give appropriate benefits
or support to execute an effective WFH strategy” (Wong and Cheung 2020).

Another study discovered that working from home offered health benefits, with more than 80% of participants feeling
mentally calm while doing so. This survey also found that;
“workers prefer and support WFH measures (73%), flextime (83%), and shortened working hours (77%). (Sun Life 2020).
Despite initial support from Hong Kong employees for WFH practises, it is evident that there are significant difficulties
that must be addressed”.

Another finding claims that

“the particular working environment of Hong Kong makes WFH less appealing to employees, with workers failing to
distinguish between personal and professional environments” (Ikwegbwe et al., 2021: 3).

According to the poll, "workers 35 years and older had to balance between home and work responsibilities at the same
time," with one possible explanation being that individuals in this region tend to live in multi-generational families. As a
result, they have less space than their western counterparts, resulting in many diversions and an imbalance between work
and family life. Furthermore, according to “the same survey, 68 percent of workers missed going to work and missing human
connection, the professional setting, and face-to-face engagement for greater cooperation” (JLL 2020). Another findings from
the survey indicated that;
“civil servants should be allowed to WFH during the city outbreak, and various government departments provided
information technology support such as newly installed computers, mobile devices or other equipment, software, and
enhanced communications, network, or database capacities for their staff to efficiently WFH.”

While organisations provide WFH-related help, employees may have issues in receiving information from the organiza-
tion, which can be problematic.

5
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

Organisational influences on work from home rules/management

While the unique work arrangement enables workers to WFH to help with the epidemic, the present WFH method lacks
clear parameters. There was debate and uncertainty over whether poor weather conditions would necessitate people to
work from home or if they would be allowed for time off as in the old work arrangement (Ng 2020a). As a result, “precise
rules or specific guidance are required in addition to the new normal workplace, WFH”. This has had an impact on workers,
both at work and in their personal lives. Survey shows that;
“Adopting the option of work from home impact on workers, both at work and in their personal lives, because em-
ployees’ work would first be influenced by "organisational influences."
According to studies, organizational variables are critical for WFH setups (e.g. Baker, Avery, and Crawford 2007). Examples
include, but are not limited to, employers supporting workers’ requests while working from home, the expense of WFH
facilities, technological training, and organisational communication. Other forms of assistance for the WFH arrangements
include staff well-being and IT support from the company, amongst other things (Baker, Avery, and Crawford 2007). Other
organisational elements include organizational trust and manager trust.

TRUST-BASED working THEORY

According to the study, "TBW is more common in profitable firms, which are almost twice as likely to use it as the
least productive ones" [47]. Notably, these results do not imply that the use of TBW makes companies more productive;
rather, they suggest that productive organizations may share characteristics, such as the adoption of advanced management
approaches, that enhance productivity and raise the probability of employing TBW. Nonetheless, the results demonstrate that
TBW usage is consistent with high efficacy. The application of TBW is also more prevalent in bigger corporations. Further
analysis indicates that
“medium and large firms are much more likely to use TBW than small firms with otherwise comparable characteris-
tics, such as efficiency, staff size, business, and company age. Big companies, for example, are almost 20% more likely
than small firms to use TBW”.
This significant impact may be due to a variety of characteristics correlated with the firm size that are not accounted for
in the model, such as the use of innovative management practices, which merit further investigation. Aside from efficiency
and scale, the staff composition of the company is also important and linked with the use of TBW. Another piece of research
suggests that companies with newer, more skilled employees and administrators are more likely to use TBW. For example,
“Replacing 10% of medium-skilled employees with high-skilled workers raises the risk of using TBW by around 2%;
similarly, replacing 10% of middle-aged managers with older ones reduces the probability by 0.7 percentage points”
[42].
The link “between credentials and TBW is consistent with the fact that telework is more common in higher-skilled jobs”
(see… [42]). This might mean that highly competent personnel are more likely to be able to work autonomously, or that they
are more likely to engage in innovative activities in a flexible working environment. Similarly, “highly qualified managers
are more likely to approve TBW since they are better capable of carrying it out efficiently, for as by developing trust-based
relationships with staff” (see… [42]). The fact that TBW is less widespread in organizations with a larger share of older
employees may indicate their incapacity to vary from traditional working paradigms, or it may represent the reality that
older workers are less eager to take on new responsibilities.

Link between work from home and trust-based working theory

Linking the trust-based theory with the concept of working from home, compared to traditional employees, remote work-
ers exhibit higher levels of trust and organizational commitment. This is true for the following four dimensions: organiza-
tional identity, belief in peers’ intentions, belief in peers’ behavior, and belief in management’s behavior. Nonetheless, the
entire sample demonstrates that employees’ levels of job satisfaction and company loyalty are unrelated to how they work
(conventionally or remotely). Male teleworkers, on the other hand, have very little organizational loyalty, so if a better op-
portunity arises at another company, they won’t hesitate to accept it.
As a comparison to current teleworkers, older teleworkers show statistically considerably stronger confidence in man-
agement intentions. Leaders and managers in traditional companies should be aware of the possibility for employees to
lose confidence in their peers and bosses as well as corporate identification. Male teleworkers must have a low level of
organizational commitment and be able to simply leave their current employment, according to organizations that use this
practice. Because they do not directly engage with their coworkers and do not physically spend time with them, it can be
hypothesized that teleworkers have lower values of organizational commitment and trust at work if disparities between
conventional and teleworking are seen.
Nevertheless, the majority of studies reveal the exact reverse. One of the most well-known advantages of working re-
motely is organizational commitment, which is in addition to greater productivity and job happiness. This is especially valid

6
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

for distant workers who have their own families. This kind of operation enables them to respond quickly to exceptional cir-
cumstances, which forges deep emotional connections (Ellison, 1999). Negative personal events do not lessen organizational
commitment in the case of remote employees, while exceptional circumstances—mostly those relating to the employees’ or
their families’ poor health—typically cause a decline in commitment.
According to Pratt (1999), teleworking also makes it possible to hire workers who are members of new social groupings
and who, because of their circumstances, have never been able to successfully compete in the job market. People with
impairments, family members in the workforce, and families with multiple children frequently belong to these categories.
This personnel are the reason why organizational commitment values are so high. Many people believe that remote workers
have a better work-life balance. Teleworkers typically work longer hours, but they can work when it’s convenient for them,
and this flexibility increases their job happiness.
As a result of maintaining a healthy balance between work and personal life shows that there aren’t many various stres-
sors present, such as unsatisfactory schedules, poor relationships with superiors, lack of workplace independence, childcare,
and the like. Men have a lesser level of balance between their personal and professional lives, which may lead to a lower
level of organizational commitment, according to a study.

Adoption of ICT to improve employees’ productivity: workplace as work from home

Activities involving physical contact, like working, are now restricted due to the COVID-19 epidemic. In order to reduce
the possibility of COVID-19 spreading throughout Indonesia, the system of work-from-home (WfH) was implemented in
March 2020. This part of the study contributes to the integration of cutting-edge technologies as WfH coverage, mapping
workplace changes, identifying the use of ICT to assist WfH, and examining the notion of the workplace and work systems
in the future of work. Unquestionably, we are now in the most unique work environment in this generation. In the early
2020s, the world as we know it abruptly came to an end, forcing governments to take dramatic action to save lives [48].
The difficulty for policymakers is how to maintain the protection of human life and health without causing the economy
irreparable harm.
The actions that assure physical separation—closure of schools, cancelling flights, prohibiting big gatherings, and closing
of workplaces—are merely the start of the battle against the virus and are only meant to stop its spread. Relaxing the
regulations shouldn’t endanger lives or cause a fresh wave of diseases, as some experts anticipate there may be worse than
the initial wave, which already overtaxed healthcare resources and put frontline staff members in danger and under a great
deal of stress [49].
Only a small portion of the workforce worked sporadically from home prior to the epidemic. The prevalence of regular
or infrequent teleworking (home-based and mobile telework combined) varies across the European Union (EU), from 30% or
more in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden to 10% or less in the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, and Poland. According to
various surveys, up to 20% of the workforce in the United States worked frequently or occasionally from home or another
place, compared to 16% in Japan and 1.6% in Argentina [26].
As COVID-19 infections spread around the globe between January and March 2020, countries one by one gave employers
instructions to shut down businesses and, if feasible, start allowing their employees to work entirely from home. This left
both companies and employees with very little time to prepare. A situation that was intended to be a temporary, short-term
fix has now been ongoing for months. A job’s potential for remote execution depends on a variety of criteria. The proportion
of occupations that may be performed remotely determines the amount of the workforce that can conduct business remotely
during a pandemic, hence reducing viral transmission within the population.
ILO [25] and Hatayama et al. [27] studies recently looked at the possibility of working from home in various nations with
the levels of economic development and discovered that major drivers of working from home include elements like access
to broadband internet, the chance of possessing a personal computer, economic and occupational structure, and access to
these factors. The results show that as a country’s economy develops, more employment become suitable for working from
home. Therefore, countries with a high reliance on industries like manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and tourism are
less able to mobilize a large portion of the workforce to work from home than countries where a large portion of jobs are
in sectors like ICT, professional services, finance and insurance, and public administration.

Challenges resulted from WfH’s experience with the COVID-19 pandemic

Challenges and modifications in working methods have resulted from WfH’s experience during the COVID-19 epidemic
[50]. Additionally, WfH’s policy is more accommodating and assists those who have challenges, such as the elderly, the
crippled, or those who live a long way from where they can work [50]. Three findings may be taken from the research
about the use of ICT at work [51]. One is that using technology while working from home during free time has signifi-
cant and advantageous effects on both time and psychological factors, two is that family support has a positive impact on
using technology while working from home during free time, and three is that family support makes employees feel less
psychologically detached, which lowers the intensity of work-family conflict [51].
Every employee who participates in WfH will be eager to work when the environment is favorable and supportive [52].
Teleworkers will be more satisfied if they have the option to work even when they are not feeling well [20]. However, per-
sonal responsibility and family obligations are typically what can stand in the way of WfH (Gajendran & Harrison, 20,007).

7
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

Gender, age, education, work experience, and prior telework experience are all factors that affect how effective and well
teleworkers do long-distance assignments [53]. Older female employees do not perceive the benefits of telework as much
[20] as younger female employees do. Males are thought to value telework less than females. In general, women are more
experienced in WfH even though not all of them consider it to be worthwhile, productive, or compensated [50].
WfH could be able to provide additional flexibility so that female employees can take part in a wider range of jobs [50].
For women who are working on academic projects from home, video conferences can be used to produce rapid and signif-
icant growth [50]. Female academics will still need to continue participating in discussions about the COVID-19 pandemic,
opportunities to advance their careers, enhancements to participation in academic life, and their role in society on a larger
scale in a productive and sustainable manner in order to maintain and support female academics for the following gener-
ation [50]. The opposite is also true, according to some people: men are thought to be more productive than women [54].
Work patterns alter as a result of the usage of ICT to support jobs. These can be seen in the shift from face-to-face meetings
to ICT-based ones, the shift to more flexible, efficient, and quick work hours, and the shift to venues that can be chosen
anywhere or at one site with several activities [55].
Employees that participate in WfH have the additional advantages to be cost-effective and autonomous in decision-
making, in addition to flexibility [56]. It goes without saying that reduced mobility results from the replacement of physical
exercise at work with ICT. Other effects of WfH include a sense of loneliness, a decline in employees’ levels of activity while
WfO, and a decline in the standard of living as well as the quality of the working environment. Teleworking may have
advantages in terms of cost savings. The notion of concerns about obstructing careers is the drawback of flexible working
arrangements [57,58]. According to research conducted in Malaysia, it takes time for flexible work arrangements to become
socially and technically acceptable [58]. The government has provided a flexible work policy in the public sector [59] in this
regard.
The previous study will be completed with a discussion of both the good and negative effects of WfH based on the
findings of this investigation. The effect of telework on employees’ performance appears to worry both the public and pri-
vate sectors. Teleworkers have fewer opportunities to socialize with, get to know, and be physically near to their coworkers.
ICT takes over as the primary metric for success [60]. The usage of e-banking and e-shopping also supports a number of
supportive factors of reducing mobility owing to the use of ICT. The ability to work from home continues to be supported
by e-banking and e-shopping, both of which may be done online. A situation like this has significant implications for man-
agers, architects, planners, and politicians who are creating facility networks in cities and multipurpose city spaces [61]. The
development of service sites and communities has been decentralized to suburban areas due to the advent of ICT-based
economic services [61]. The phenomenon of WfH can attract a lot of attention. Working from home has been increasingly
popular in recent years.
Consequently, it is crucial for businesses and the government to properly train people so they can WfH effectively and
preserve their skills and competencies [62]. Additionally, this research aims to identify the usage of ICT to support WfH and
analyze the notion of the workplace and work system in future cities. It also maps workplace developments. In connection
with WfH during the COVID-19 epidemic, this research is being done. However, a model to build WfH in the future might
also be developed using the information from this research. This study’s findings are anticipated to be used as a starting
point for addressing urban issues and as a suggestion for creating sustainable cities in the future.

The productivity of employees work from home efficiency

How can the productivity of employees who work from home be measured? Companies that employ remote workers
typically have two concerns about productivity. Depending on the employer, the question of "are they working at all?"
or "are they working efficiently?" is more pressing. However, assessing the productivity of a remote workforce shouldn’t
be any more challenging or unique than measuring a staff that is physically present. Since businesses are compelled to
measure production by objective indicators rather than the physical presence of "time in the building," well-managed remote
teams can be significantly more productive than physically managed workers. A corporation should decide what needs to
be measured before deciding how to track and evaluate a worker’s performance [61]. It’s important to select measurements
that are both qualitative and meaningful.
Results-based productivity measurement necessitates quantifiable metrics, which might be difficult to establish. Cer-
tain industries and jobs are simpler to categorize than others. Consider a salesperson as an example. It is pretty obvious
what may be assessed and evaluated. A straightforward metric of calls per hour can be utilized in jobs like call center
agents. However, when employees have different duties, it will be necessary to create metrics for each employee, with some
amount of regular adjustment [61]). Additionally, production is not always implied by meeting a measurement. A worker
who achieves the desired result may not be working at their full potential if goals are set too low. A worker’s use of a virtual
private network (VPN) to access the office does not always work is being performed.
Results and whether a worker is fulfilling measurable standards or goals are the greatest ways to gauge performance.
Worker performance cannot be reached if no one is aware of what it is, like any other goal. Being very explicit and specific
with all expectations is the key to working efficiently with remote employees. How long it will take to determine whether or
not someone is productive should be taken into account [60]. Results that can be measured make sense, but the perception
of micromanagement increases with the frequency of the measurements. However, if measurements are made too seldom,

8
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

the employer might not be aware of issues that require attention. Employers must be mindful of privacy concerns relating
to employees and workplace surveillance.

Conclusion

The study objective explored the changing nature and impact of the rapidly evolving situation of COVID-19 emergence on
employee productivity in South Africa. WFH is still popular, although not in its current form, better government rules and
regulations should be in place to properly regulate and make WFH practicable. Guidance on adjusting to distant online work
is one area of policy where preparation and execution are very necessary. The decision to cease in-person meetings and work
was made quickly, but without any instructions on how to do so. Workers are uninformed of what WFH implies and lack
the tools needed for this transformation, such as software, access to formal papers, and a suitable working environment. If
this technique is to become a viable choice or the new normal, proper training is essential. Perhaps the working balance
will be seen after the epidemic when WFH is no longer a forced obligation, but rather a flexible option.

Recommendations

The following are the suggested recommendation or proposals offered for several possible activities that the government
might take to make WFH more realistic in a local setting. In the short term, the study recommends that the government
implements a formal WFH guideline for employees and employers; take COVID-19 risk assessment into account when de-
veloping the guidelines.
They must give distinct recommendations for different industries; allow employees’ expectations to be included in the
rules; and provide minimum needs for technology training for a virtual office and technical facilities for WFH. In the long
run, the government should assess the possibility of working remotely is the new normal.
The examination of the existing labour regulations and ensuring that labour insurance plans cover home workers; Sub-
sidies and other incentives will be provided to assist small and medium-sized businesses to implement WFH initiatives.
Enhancing the current Distance Business Program and promoting family-friendly employment practices. We recommend
that guidance on adjusting to distant online work is one area of policy where preparation and execution are very necessary.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The manuscript has no clash of interest and was not funded by any institution or organisation.

References

[1] Z. Chen, Influence of working from home during the COVID-19 crisis and HR practitioner response, Front. Psychol. 12 (2021) 23–30 || ArticleSeptember
2021.
[2] M.B. Perrigino, R. Raveendhran, Managing remote workers during quarantine: insights from organizational research on boundary management, Behav.
Sci. Policy. 6 (2020) 87–94.
[3] A.O. Enaifoghe, South Africa’s response to COVID-19 through a multimodal approach, in: Fall 2021 Special Issue: Living in an Era of Emerging Pan-
demics, The Zambakari Advisory, LLC, 2021, p. 62. 2021Page.
[4] OECD (2020a), “Capacity for remote working can affect lockdown costs differently across places”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19),
http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/capacity-for-remote-working-can-affect-lockdown-costs-differently-across-places-0e85740e/.
[5] T. Bartram, F.L. Cooke, Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Asia Pacific journal of human resources: what has been achieved and what more can
be done, Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 60 (1) (2022) 3–21.
[6] J. Yan, D. Holtz, S. Jaffe, S. Suri, S. Sinha, J. Weston, C. Joyce, N. Shah, K. Sherman, B. Hecht, J. Teevan, The effect of remote work on collaboration
among information workers, Nat. Hum. Behav. 95 (2021) 102935, doi:10.1038/s41562- 021- 01196- 4.
[7] H. Bouziri, D.R. Smith, A. Descatha, W. Dab, K. Jean, Working from home in the time of covid-19: how to best preserve occupational health? Occup.
Environ. Med. 77 (7) (2020) 509–510.
[8] D. Hurley, G.H. Popescu, Medical big data and wearable internet of things healthcare systems in remotely monitoring and caring for confirmed or
suspected COVID-19 patients, Am. J. Med. Res. 8 (2) (2021) 78–90.
[9] R. Rogers, Internet of things-based smart healthcare systems, wireless connected devices, and body sensor networks in COVID-19 remote patient
monitoring, Am. J. Med. Res. 8 (1) (2021) 71–80.
[10] M. Woods, R. Miklencicova, Digital epidemiological surveillance, smart telemedicine diagnosis systems, and machine learning-based real-time data
sensing and processing in COVID-19 remote patient monitoring, Am. J. Med. Res. 8 (2) (2021) 65–77.
[11] C. Zhang, M.C. Yu, S. Marin, Exploring public sentiment on enforced remote work during COVID-19, J. Appl. Psychol. 106 (6) (2021) 797.
[12] R. Palumbo, Let me go to the office! an investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance, Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 33
(6) (2020) 771–790.
[13] R. Balica, Automated data analysis in organizations: sensory algorithmic devices, intrusive workplace monitoring, and employee surveillance, Hum.
Resour. Manag. 7 (2) (2019) 61–66.
[14] D. Kassick, Workforce analytics and human resource metrics: algorithmically managed workers, tracking and surveillance technologies, and wearable
biological measuring devices, Hum. Resour. Manag. 7 (2) (2019) 55–60.
[15] S.M. Nemțeanu, D.C. Dabija, L. Stanca, The influence of teleworking on performance and employee’s counterproductive behaviour, Amfiteatru Econ. 23
(58) (2021) 601–619.
[16] A. Nakrošien ė, I. Buˇci ūnien ė, B. Goštautait ė, Working from Home: characteristics and outcomes of telework, Int. J. Manpow. 40 (2019) 87–101 2019.
[17] V. Illegems, A. Verbeke, R. S’Jegers, The organizational context of teleworking implementation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 68 (2001) 275–291.
[18] D. Stanek, P. Mokhtarian, Developing models of preference for home-based and center-based telecommuting: findings and forecasts, Technol. Forecast
Soc. Change 57 (1998) 53–74.
[19] J. Hopkins, J. McKay, Investigating anywhere working as a mechanism for alleviating traffic congestion in smart cities, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
142 (2019) 258–272.
[20] A. Nakrošienė, I. Bučiūnienė, B. Goštautaitė, Working from home: characteristics and outcomes of telework, Int. J. Manpow. 40 (1) (2019) 87–101.

9
A. Enaifoghe and N. Zenzile Scientific African 20 (2023) e01709

[21] K.L. Fonner, M.E. Roloff, Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: when less contact is beneficial, J. Appl.
Commun. Res. 38 (4) (2010) 336–361.
[22] K.J. Sileyew, E. Abu-Taieh, A.E. Mouatasim, I.H.A. Hadid, Research design and methodology, Cyberspace, IntechOpen, 2019.
[23] P.C. Ikwegbue, A.O. Enaifoghe, H. Maduku, L.U Agwuna, The challenges of COVID-19 pandemic and South Africa’s response, Afr. Renaiss. 18 (1) (2021)
271–292.
[24] International Labour Organisation [ILO]Teleworking During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond A Practical Guide a, International Labour Organisation
ILO, Geneva, 2020 July 2020.
[25] ILOWorking from Home: Estimating the Worldwide Potential, ILO Policy Brief, 2020 For more information on country measures, see the websites of
acaps.org; covid19globalemployer.com; ilo.org.
[26] Eurofound and ILOWorking Anytime, Anywhere: The Effects On the World of Work, Publications Office of the European Union and ILO, Luxembourg
and Geneva, 2017.
[27] M. Hatayama, M. Viollaz, H. Winkler, Jobs’ Amenability to working from home: evidence from skills surveys for 53 countries, Policy Research Working
Paper No. 9241, World Bank, Washington DC, 2020.
[28] International Labour Organisation [ILO]Working from Home: Estimating the Worldwide Potential b, ILO Policy Brief, 2020 For more information on
country measures, see the websites of acaps.org; covid19globalemployer.com; ilo.org..
[29] EurofoundLiving, Working and COVID-19: First findings – April 2020, Eurofound, Dublin, 2020.
[30] B. Dooley, Japan Needs to Telework. Its Paper-Pushing Offices Make That Hard, The New York Times, 2020 16 April.
[31] E. Brynjolfsson et al. (2020), “COVID-19 and remote work: an early look at US data”, NBER Working Paper, No. 27344.
[32] M. Clancy, The case for remote work, Economics Working Papers, No. 20 0 07, Iowa State University, Department of Economics, 2020 https://lib.dr.
iastate.edu/econ_workingpapers/102 accessed on 17 June 2020.
[33] F. di Mauro, C. Syverson, The COVID Crisis and Productivity Growth, VoxEU.org, 2020 https://voxeu.org/article/covid- crisis- and- productivity-growth
accessed on 17 June 2020.
[34] A. Ozimek, The Future of Remote Work, Upwork, 2020 https://www.upwork.com/press/economics/the-future-of-remote-work/ accessed on 17 June
2020.
[35] OECD (2020b), “Corporate sector vulnerabilities during the Covid-19 outbreak: assessment and policy responses”, OECD Policy Responses to Coron-
avirus (COVID-19), http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy- responses/corporate- sector- vulnerabilities- during- the- covid- 19- outbreak- assessment- and-
policy-responses-a6e670ea/.
[36] OECD (2020d), “Supporting people and companies to deal with the COVID-19 virus: options for an immediate employment and social-policy re-
sponse”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/supporting-people-and-companies-
to- deal- with- the- covid- 19- virus- options- for- an- immediate- employment- and- social- policy- response- d33dffe6/.
[37] OECD (2020e). Productivity gains from teleworking in the post COVID-19 era: how can public policies make it happen? Tackling coronavirus (COVID-
19): contributing to a global Effort. Updated7September 2020.
[38] T. Boeri, A. Caiumi, M. Paccagnella, Mitigating the work-safety trade-off, COVID Econ. Vetted Real Time Pap. 1/2 (2020) 60–66.
[39] J. Dingel and B. Neiman (2020), “How many jobs can be done at home?”, NBER Working Paper, No. 26948, doi:10.3386/w26948.
[40] N. Bloom and J. Van Reenen (2007), Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries, doi:10.1162/qjec.2007.122.4.1351.
[41] N. Bloom, T. Kretschmer, J. Reenen, R. Freeman, K. Shaw, Work-life balance, management practices, and productivity, International Differences in the
Business Practices and Productivity of Firms, University of Chicago Press, 2009.
[42] Eurofound and International Labour OfficeWorking anytime, anywhere: the Effects On the World of Work, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, 2017.
[43] L. Hensvik, T. Le Barbanchon and R. Rathelot (2020), “Which jobs are done from home? evidence from the american time use survey | IZA - institute
of labor economics”, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 13138, https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/13138 (accessed on 17 June 2020).
[44] A. Purwanto, M. Asbari, M. Fahlevi, et al., Impact of work from home (WFH) on Indonesian teachers performance during the Covid-19 pandemic: an
exploratory study, Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 29 (5) (2020) 6235–6244 20206235 ISSN: 2005-4238 IJASTCopyright  c 2020 SERSC.
[45] R.S. Gajendran, D.A. Harrison, The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual
consequences, J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (2007) 1524–1541 2007.
[46] N. Bloom, et al., Does working from home work? evidence from a Chinese experiment, Q. J. Econ. 122/4 (2015) 1351–1408, doi:10.1093/qje/qju032.
[47] S. Viete, D. Erdsiek, Trust-based work time and the productivity effects of mobile information technologies in the workplace, ZEW Discuss. Pap. (2018)
No. 18-013 http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp18013.pdf. accessed on 17 June 2020.
[48] J. Qu, J. Yan, Working from home vs working from office in terms of job performance during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: evidence from China, Asia
Pac. J. Hum. Resour. (2022) 2022 Sep 5, doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12353.
[49] E. Battisti, S. Alfiero, E. Leonidou, Remote working and digital transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic: economic-financial impacts and psycho-
logical drivers for employees, J. Bus. Res. 150 (2022) 38–50 2022 Nov.
[50] D.L. Couch, B. O’Sullivan, C. Malatzky, What COVID-19 could mean for the future of “work from home”: the provocations ofthree women in the
academy, Gend. Work Organ. 28 (2020) 266–275 2020.
[51] Z. Wang, X. Chen, Y. Duan, Communication technology use for work at home during off-job time and work–family conflict:the roles of family support
and psychological detachment, An. Psicol. 33 (2017) 93 2017.
[52] P. Shareena, M. Shahid, Work from home during COVID-19: employees perception and experiences, GJRA 9 (2020) 1–3.
[53] A.G. Raišien ė, V. Rapuano, K. Varkuleviˇci ūt ė, K. Stachová, Working from home—who is happy? a survey of lithuania’s employees during the covid-19
quarantine period, Sustainability 12 (2020) 5332 2020.
[54] D. Mustajab, A. Bauw, A. Rasyid, A. Irawan, M.A. Akbar, M.A. Hamid, Working from home phenomenon as an effort to prevent COVID-19 attacks and
its impacts on work productivity, TIJAB 4 (2020) 13 2020.
[55] R. Rachmawati, D. Ettema, R. Rijanta, A. Djunaedi, The impact of ICT use to the change of work pattern and its relationshipwith work travel, in:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Urban Regional Planning and Transportation (ICURPT), Paris, France, 28–30 June 2010, 2010.
[56] D.J. Faulds, The work-from-home trend: an interview with brian kropp, Bus. Horiz. 64 (2021) 29–35 2021.
[57] J.M. Haar, C.S. Spell, Program knowledge and value of work-family practices and organizational commitment, Int. J. Hum.Resour. Manag. 15 (2004)
1040–1055 2004.
[58] S.J. Lambert, Added benefits: the link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior, Acad. Manag. J. 43 (20 0 0) 801–815 20 0 0.
[59] A. Ahmad, N.E. Shaw, N.J. Bown, J. Gardiner, K. Omar, The impact of negative work home interface on intention to leaveand the role of flexible working
arrangements in Malaysia, J. Dev. Areas 50 (2016) 507–515 2016.
[60] A.V. Putri, Communication patterns and media technology role in organization and society during pandemic, J. Soc. Media 4 (2020) 228–261 2020.
[61] R. Rachmawati, R. Rijanta, Population mobility and urban spatial structure: does the use of information and communicationtechnology matter? Reg.
View 25 (2012) 9–19 2012.
[62] A. Timsal, M. Awais, Flexibility or ethical dilemma: an overview of the work from home policies in modern organizationsaround the world, Hum.
Resour. Manag. Int. Dig. 24 (2016) 12–15 2016.

10