Above the Fray:

What We Know About How

WFH and Hybrid Affect Work
Above the Fray: The pandemic created a fundamental shift in
where people work, followed by incendiary dis-

What We Know About agreements about the tradeoffs of where people

work. Those fires have been further fanned by pop-
How WFH and Hybrid ular media, business media, anti-business media, so-
cial media, TikTok, surveys and academic advocates.
Affect Work What’s been lacking is a fact-based discussion
about what science and evidence say are the
tradeoffs among WFO, WFH and hybrid work. Now,
4+ years after the initial COVID lockdowns that
ushered in WFH, a body of (still emerging) science
can start to inform us.
This article is intended to help leaders, especially
those in HR, understand the consequences of dif-
by Marc Effron, ferent work arrangements on performance, innova-
Talent Strategy Group tion, collaboration and more based on the emerging

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 1
knowledge. This focus is consistent with my
view that we should make the “rules of work”
clear to everyone to ensure a fair and inclusive
This article is intended to
work environment. help leaders, especially those
What’s not included? There are many im- in HR, to understand the
portant workplace topics like corporate cul-
ture where there’s not post-COVID science to
consequences of different
guide us. If there’s no post-COVID science or work arrangements on
evidence on a topic, it is not included. performance, innovation,
Also not included are articles on the many
personal benefits that individuals derive from
collaboration and more
WFH or hybrid working. Enjoyment of, or a based on the emerging
preference for WFH/hybrid work are individ- knowledge.
ual outcomes, not business outcomes.

First, let’s clear up a few things

An objective discussion of WFH and hybrid supportive of creativity to be in the office
work requires that we first dispel the myths are as legitimate of opinions as anyone
propagated by its proponents and opponents. else’s.
These myths are loudly shouted opinions • Myth 2. “Return to Office” (RTO) is all
dressed-up as facts and posted online to gener- about using real estate
ate maximum clicks, not insight. It’s silly to say that the reason CEOs want
• Myth 1. CEOs who prefer WFO are con- workers in the office is because the com-
trol freaks/idiots/don’t understand em- pany has real estate and wants to use it.
ployee needs Office space is typically leased on a long-
CEOs were promoted to CEO because term basis – it’s a sunk cost. There’s no cost
they had some combination of achieve- advantage in having a fully occupied office.
ment, capabilities, drive and intelligence. The same lease payment is due each month
They are largely not delusional, illogical, whether 1,000 people or 10 people are in
mentally challenged or any of the other pe- that space.
joratives that some commentators ascribe In fact, a full office means higher costs –
to them. If they say they want employees more power, water, cleaners, cafeteria work-
in the office with a certain frequency, they ers, etc. So, an empty office is cheaper than
have a “theory of the case” as to why this a full one.
will produce superior results. • Myth 3. It’s proximity bias to want work-
Since there’s not yet science guiding us ers in the office
to the “right” answers, their beliefs that it’s This term is often mentioned by those
faster to communicate, easier to learn, or who claim that anyone who wants workers

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 2
 in the office is demonstrating proximity the available science is just the start of schol-
bias. It’s only proximity bias if there are no arship of this topic. The findings below are
outcome differences between working with from the best available studies I found on this
someone in person and not working with topic. All studies are from COVID and after
them in person. I share research later in to realistically assess outcomes in a changed
this article which shows important differ- world of work. I describe my article research
ences. and selection process at the end of this article.
This doesn’t mean that five days a week Of course, if your company is exclusively
in the office is better than none, three or WFH or WFO, some of the insights will be
four. But it’s a very uninformed point of less relevant.
view to say that there are no differences
between working in physical proximity to On Performance
your co-workers and working from home. The loudest argument about WFH is wheth-
• Myth 4. Those who prefer working from er employees are more or less productive
home don’t want to work as hard or sacri- working from the office or working from
fice as much. home. There have been plentiful polls and
The implication of return-to-office man- surveys on the topic, but we need actual sci-
dates is that either less gets done at home ence and evidence to guide our decisions.
or that an employee’s willingness to come The most reliable research on performance
into the office signals a higher level of com- or productivity compares individual worker
mitment. productivity before the pandemic with the
There are plentiful reasons to want to same worker’s productivity during or after the
spend more time at home than in the office
including kids, pets, safer commutes, et al.
Most of those reasons don’t imply that an
individual is lazy or lacks commitment to
There are plentiful reasons
do their job. to want to spend more time
at home than in the office
What the available science and experiments
say including kids, pets, safer
It seems likely that some work outcomes commutes, et al. Most of
would differ depending on whether people those reasons don’t imply
work in the same location or remotely. That that an individual is lazy
means that we should understand how and
if outcomes differ in hybrid or WFH environ-
or lacks commitment to do
ments so we can manage our companies to their job.
best achieve those outcomes.
It has taken time to generate insights and

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 3
pandemic in a WFH or hybrid environment. veys showed a productivity decline. A study
A study of data entry employees in India of Japanese workers showed that self-assessed
describes a company that randomly assigned productivity of those working from home
workers in the same role to WFO or WFH. dropped sharply and then rebounded later in
Those assigned to WFH had 18% lower pro- the study period, but remained 20% below
ductivity. Those workers who preferred to pre-pandemic self-assessments.6
work from home were 27% less productive Other studies showed mixed findings on
when assigned to WFH than workers who productivity, with a study of Baidu program-
preferred to WFO. Those who preferred to mers showing increases and decreases in
WFO who were 13% less productive when effectiveness depending on which program-
forced to WFH.1 ming metric was measured.7 A review of WFH
Research that studied 10,000+ employees x Performance articles published prior to and
at an Indian technology company showed after the pandemic found 79% of pre-pan-
productivity drops of 8% - 19% in WFH condi- demic articles showed better performance in
tions.2 A study of a Fortune 500 company’s WFH. Only 23% of articles published after the
call center showed that call center workers pandemic found positive results in WFH.8
who were forced to move from WFO to WFH A caveat on the findings above is that many
had a 4% decrease in calls answered, and that studies used data from technology firms,
the same company’s regular WFH workers where worker productivity is often more easi-
took 12% fewer calls before and after the pan- ly measurable. Also, there were not studies of
demic than WFO employees.3 managerial or executive level roles, and these
A study of four Japanese technology firms roles may experience WFH differently.
showed a productivity decline for WFH The cited studies were based on data from
workers but that the decline was attributed to the pandemic to 2024, so it’s possible that
WFH set up and communications challeng- changes may occur as companies better learn
es.4 A report on 1,600+ employees at Trip.com how to manage individual productivity in
found no significant different in an indirect different working arrangements.
measure of productivity – lines of code – be- Other studies that didn’t use actual work-
tween WFH and WFO employees.5 er data found no effect on performance or
Some studies based on employee self-report productivity. A study by the Federal Reserve
data gathered as a part of larger national sur- Board of San Francisco stated that, “After

A review of WFH x Performance articles published prior to and

after the pandemic found 79% of pre-pandemic articles showed
better performance in WFH. Only 23% of articles published
after the pandemic found positive results in WFH.

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 4
controlling for pre-pandemic trends in indus- that study only to contrast its outcomes with
try productivity growth rates, we find little those from well-structured, outcome-focused
statistical relationship between telework and evidence.
pandemic productivity performance.”9 There is high quality research that shows
A study of programmer productivity on decreased productivity in specific roles in
GitHub found a very small decline in perfor- WFH conditions. That research is too specific
mance based on implied WFH periods.10 to extrapolate to all jobs since studies suggest
A large study from the United Kingdom that some roles benefit more from WFH than
using self-report data found no change in others. It’s worth waiting another year or two
perceived productivity overall but significant for more studies with high quality survey
differences within segments of the group. “We designs involving a broader segment of the
find that workers in jobs that are less suitable WFH or hybrid population to be published.
for WFH reported lower productivity than be-
fore the pandemic. Consistent with this, and On Creativity
with the literature, females and low earners A study that measured professional creativ-
also reported worse productivity outcomes on ity before and during COVID lockdowns (a
average. . . The opposite types of workers, e.g., proxy for but not identical to WFH) showed
those in the ‘right’ occupations and with high no difference in creativity pre- and during
incomes, reported higher productivity than COVID.14 A study on creativity in videoconfer-
previously.”11 encing settings found that “videoconferencing
It’s worth noting that the studies showing hampers idea generation because it focuses
no effects from WFH used group data or broad communicators on a screen, which prompts a
economic data. The studies showing negative narrower cognitive focus. Our results suggest
changes in productivity measured results of that virtual interaction comes with a cogni-
individual workers. tive cost for creative idea generation.”15
Papers based on self-reported ratings of An article reviewing studies on creative idea
productivity generally reported no change generation states that creativity “depends on
or a positive change in productivity in WFH multiple factors that are still not fully compre-
settings.12 A study using participants gath- hended by neuroscience and it is negatively af-
ered from a Qualtrics survey panel showed fected by virtual interaction, which confirms
the “overall perception of productivity level that presential events cannot be replaced
among workers did not change relative to by video conferences and online substitutes
their in-office productivity before the pan- without harm.”16 In other words, in-person
demic. Female, older, and high-income work- work is superior to generate creative outcomes
ers were likely to report increased productivi- even if all the reasons for that aren’t currently
ty.”13 known or the size of the effect.
Self-report data is subject to social desirabil- A thorough Google Scholar search found
ity and various self-serving biases, so I include few studies on Creativity and WFH, and no

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 5
studies that showed a positive outcome in On Work Relationships
WFH conditions. This lack of research means Work relationships influence trust, exe-
that no firm conclusions can be drawn on cution capability, culture, engagement and
WFH’s or hybrid work’s influence on creative much more. The few studies on this topic gen-
outcomes. erally showed a neutral or negative influence
on work relationships when working from
On Innovation
home. No studies were found which showed
A study of innovation in an Indian IT firm an improvement in work relationships in a
that include direct measures of pre-COVID WFH or hybrid environment.
WFO and COVID WFH found “the quanti- A cross-company study of Taiwanese work-
ty of ideas did not change during the WFH ers showed that “the absence of cues in remote
period as compared to WFO, but the quality of workplaces exacerbated prior impressions
ideas suffered. During the later hybrid period, formed in the physical office. Furthermore,
the quantity of submitted ideas fell. In the remote work led workers to develop polarized
hybrid phase innovation suffered particularly perceptions of their respective ties.”19 This
in teams which were not well coordinated in means that the less well I know you, the more
terms of when they worked at the office or likely I am to rely on my biases to interpret
from home.”17 who you are if we don’t work in-person.
An analysis of the production of break- A study from Estonia showed no significant
through ideas found that remote teams of difference in relationship satisfaction with
scientists produced fewer ideas that co-located coworkers or managers in work from office or
scientists.18 This is not a direct measure of work from home. The survey included mea-
WFH/WFO but indicates that distance be- sures pre- and post-pandemic.20 Similarly, a
tween people may hamper innovation com- study of 364 white-collar workers, employed
pared to being co-located. by a larger Swedish municipality, found a
Again, a thorough Google Scholar search strong correlation between the frequency
found few studies on Innovation and WFH. of meetings with their managers and their
The few existing studies showed that inno- satisfaction with managerial support, but no
vation may be more challenging in a WFH difference in relationship satisfaction.21
environment and no studies showed a positive An analysis of how Microsoft employees in-
relationship between innovation and WFH. teracted with each other showed a decline in

Work relationships influence trust, execution

capability, culture, engagement and much more.

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 6
“weak tie” relationships among employees in
WFH. Weak ties are casual or infrequent em-
These studies suggest a
ployee interactions or relationships that help
to bridge different departments, increase the
potential reduction in the
flexibility of the organization, and enhance scope and quality of work
individual networks among other benefits.22 relationships in WFH or
That report also showed an increased focus hybrid environments. It’s
on “narrow networks,” meaning that employ- worth noting that these
ees spoke more often with people who they studies were done early in
already knew well. Those employees also used the pandemic and workers
more asynchronous communication rather
may later have adapted
than live meetings or calls.
These studies suggest a potential reduction
better to relationship
in the scope and quality of work relationships management in WFH.
in WFH or hybrid environments. It’s worth
noting that these studies were done early in perceive a significant decrease in control;
the pandemic and workers may later have however they perceive on average no change
adapted better to relationship management in in delegation. . . employees of lower-level
WFH. managers even report a significant decrease in
delegation.”24
On Collaboration
A contrary finding drew from a dataset of
There were almost no quality articles on
27,000 managers across 48 countries and stat-
this topic found on Google Scholar.
ed that managers displayed far more directive
One article that received significant public-
management post-COVID. This study ended
ity early in the pandemic was an analysis of
in December 2020, so adaptation to WFH
Microsoft employees in mandated WFH. That
management may have occurred after this
study found workers spent less time on collab-
time.25
oration and that collaboration time included
A study of 1,000+ Danish managers found
more instant messaging and fewer meetings.
“that most managers found their work as
Those who were more experienced working
distance managers more demanding and
from home experienced less change in their
worked more hours…The data also show that
interactions, indicating that new WFH work-
the majority (67%) of the managers prefer to
ers may adapt over time.23
manage from the office but similarly, they can
On Managing continue managing from a distance if needed
A study of 700+ employees in WFH during post-pandemic.”26
COVID in the Netherlands found “that man- The studies above relied on perceptions rath-
agers perceive they execute significantly less er than more objective measures. No quality
control and delegate more. Employees also studies were found that directly measured

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 7
managerial effectiveness in WFH or remote new rules of work.
conditions.
There is penalty in some companies for
What We Know those who WFH. It’s lessened when more
The good news is that we finally have a people WFH
growing body of evidence about the differenc- A UK survey of more than 1,000 managers,
es between WFO and WFH. And, while that accurately titled “Managerial (dis)preferenc-
picture is emerging it’s still too fuzzy to draw es towards employees working from home”
firm conclusions. It suggests, but far from found that there is a bias against those work-
proves, that there are value-adding activities ing from home. The article states that:
like innovation, network building, relation- “The findings indicate that employees
ship management and others that may be less who WFH are less likely to be considered
effective when people are not co-located. for promotion, salary increase and training
As an employer, you need to identify where than on-site workers. The pay and promo-
new gaps may have emerged and how, and if, tion penalties for WFH are particularly
you want to mitigate their effects. If you’re true for men (both fathers and non-fathers)
a hybrid employer, you’ve likely found that and childless women, but not mothers. We
many of the deliverables you expect from also find that employees operating in teams
team members can be produced in a WFH with a higher prevalence of WFH do not
environment. Your job is to understand the experience negative career effects when
pivotal capabilities that drive your compa- working from home. Additionally, the more
ny’s success and to assess how they might be WFH experience the manager has, the less-
affected by not working in the same physical er the career penalty for engaging in this
proximity as in the past. mode of working.”27
It appears that those without a perceived
Are there new “rules” emerging?
good “excuse” for working from home (e.g.
The shift to WFH and hybrid workplaces
being a working mother) are penalized. Those
has created obvious changes in how we work
who are considered “in-group” are rewarded
together. While managers and team members
in either condition, depending on whether the
may now be clear about the explicit rules of
group is WFH or WFO.
working together in a hybrid environment,
there’s a concerning lack of clarity about the Relationships matter for both performance
subtler or unwritten rules of work. and potential
That lack of clarity threatens to reverse As I wrote in 8 Steps to High Performance:
years of hard-won progress on equality, create “(S)cience shows that influencing and
a two-tiered system of progress and make the connecting strategies are amazingly effec-
workplace seem less fair. The cautions that fol- tive to get what you need from superiors
low are intended to clarify for both employers and peers. Your ability to get these addi-
and the employed some important potential tional resources and relationships is essen-

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 8
 tial to reaching your theoretical maximum are in the office somehow contribute more,
performance. Better yet, your ability to or show a level of dedication or sacrifice that
connect is almost entirely controllable by increases their future value to the company.
you.”28 Performance, Dell implied, can be demon-
The initial research on building and strated from anywhere. Potential can only be
maintaining strong, non-transactional rela- demonstrated from the office.
tionships in hybrid or WFH environments If you are an employer, have you made your
confirms the obvious. The depth and quality rules about promotion or advancement in the
of your relationships always has, and always new hybrid era this clear? If you are employee,
will, matter if you want to advance at work.29 do you understand how decisions are really
The very real risk for those who WFH and being made about your future, independent of
don’t actively manage relationships with their your company’s statements?
boss and peers is that they won’t get the sup-
Your bargaining “power” in your working
port and sponsorship needed to succeed. Out
arrangement depends on your unique value
of sight is out of mind and you need to take
There are plenty of complaints as some
responsibility to build and maintain those re-
employers shift back from pandemic-driven
lationships. The same tactics you use to keep
WFH to a hybrid or WFO policy.31 What many
your non-work relationships strong should be
complainers ignore is that their expected in-
applied to work relationships when you are in
dividual contribution influences how tolerant
a WFH or hybrid environment.
their company is of where they work.
WFH may be about performance and WFO If you are the star salesperson, delivering
about potential 150% of your target every year, you have
In February 2024, Dell Computers sent a
note to all team members clarifying the rules
of upward career progress. It said that:
“For remote team members, it is import- The very real risk for
ant to understand the trade-offs: Career those who WFH and
advancement, including applying to new
roles in the company, will require a team
don’t actively manage
member to reclassify as hybrid onsite.”30 relationships with their
That reclassification meant that an employ- boss and peers is that they
ee needed to be in the office about 3 days each won’t get the support and
week to be eligible for advancement. Indepen- sponsorship needed to
dent of how you view the policy, Dell is to be
congratulated for making the implicit rules of
succeed.
success explicit.
The implicit rule was that workers who

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 9
bargaining power to ask for some additional having to adapt to a workplace not struc-
consideration about where you work. The tured for their success.36
same is true if you have unique or rare skills These benefits can’t be argued against but as
that would be difficult to replace. employers and employees we need to consider
But, if you are an average employee (and the logical endpoint of this line of thought.
most of us are by definition), you don’t have In a U.S. context, those in the office would
that bargaining power because you are re- predominantly be able-bodied, white neuro-
placeable by another equally skilled, average typical men, white neurotypical women not
employee. If you want more power in dictat- raising children and some percentage of other
ing your work arrangement, your consistently employees who choose to tolerate the disad-
demonstrating truly outstanding perfor- vantages of WFO.
mance will give you leverage in that discus- It seems antithetical to the spirit of DEI to
sion. allow the workforce to self-segregate by race,
gender, neurological status, ability, etc. Where
Some reasons for WFH may be taking our
WFH provides a clear and obvious benefit (i.e.
workplaces backwards
to someone with a disability that makes com-
Various authors have written that select
muting or WFO difficult), we should celebrate
segments of the workforce may benefit from
the inclusion in the workforce of people who
not working in the office.
might not otherwise participate.
• Neurodiverse workers are said to benefit
But if people WFH because their work en-
from WFH since they may have sensory
vironment doesn’t seem inclusive, accepting,
issues in the office environment or work in
quiet enough, undistracting, or adaptable,
offices where they are not properly support-
shouldn’t we address the root cause of those
ed.32
issues rather than allow essentially a two-
• Some Black employees and other people of
class system to emerge? This is a choice that
color who perceive racism or microaggres-
each company must individually address, but
sions at work say they feel more comfort-
I’d suggest that we set our companies back by
able working from home.33 Although other
decades if we allow WFH to be used to avoid
Black authors cite different challenges
solving systemic workplace problems.
when working from home.34
• Working mothers may prefer WFH be- We shouldn’t expect employers to
cause of their taking on an extra burden of automatically love WFH
household management. WFH has brought In January 2020, if you wanted to speak
a record share of working mothers into the with speak with your boss, you walked to
workforce who say they would not other- her office. If you wanted to quickly bounce
wise be able to contribute.35 an idea off your team member, you did the
• Physically handicapped people may be same thing. If you wanted to know who was
more comfortable and productive by not paying attention in the team meeting, you

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 10
looked around the room. If you wanted to give it, unless they find benefits that outweigh the
a quick “atta’ girl/boy” after a presentation, drawbacks.
you did it walking out of the conference room.
Where we are
If you wanted to build a relationship, you
It’s fair that people have strongly held opin-
grabbed a coffee or lunch with someone. If
ions and preferences about where and how
you wanted to hear/spread/observe gossip, you
they work. It’s also fair that we seek to under-
randomly saw people in the break room.
stand if there any differences and outcomes
In today’s WFH environment, each of those from how and where people work. The combi-
valuable activities requires more effort, can’t nation of all those insights will allow employ-
be done easily or can’t be done at all. This ers to make smart decisions about who, how
creates a “tax” that no one asked for but that and where work gets done.
managers and employees need to pay. We should approach solving this problem
Managers need to find new ways to observe, in the same intelligent way as we suggest all
coach, give feedback and otherwise manage human problems be solved – start with the
team members. Everyone needs to intersect science. We show in this article that there is
with co-workers’ schedules that now contain an emerging, yet far from complete, body of
blocks of non-working time. knowledge on this topic. Let’s focus on adding
The benefits previously received from to and understanding these findings while we
serendipitous interactions are far more rare.37 turn down the volume on opinions so that we
We shouldn’t expect those paying the new can collectively reach the best possible out-
workplace coordination tax to be happy about come for all.

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 1 1
About the source articles
An article needed to meet a few key criteria for me to include its data:

• Only research done in 2020 and after: If we want to understand the effects of WFH and hybrid,
looking at research done before our current working environment isn’t helpful. That would be
like studying how people spent their evenings before the light bulb was invented. Those findings
are likely less relevant after indoor lighting was introduced.
The changes in COVID and post-COVID workplace dynamics means that experiments, evidence
and data from that environment forward feel more reliable than similar content pre-COVID.
• Academic journal: Articles that appeared in academic journals or databases were used. While my
preference is to ensure quality by only citing articles from the top tier journals and meta-analyses,
there isn’t a sufficient body of either to cite at this time. Nothing is sourced from opinion pieces,
magazine or news articles and other non-experimental pieces, no matter who the authors are. We
want evidence, not opinions.
• Quality of data matters: There are a small number of articles where the authors could measure
a change in the same people from before the initial WFH period to its start or implementation.
These are the most valuable. The next most valuable are articles where objective data was gathered
by researchers, even if just at one point in time.
Studies based on large economic models rather than individual worker data were included but
are less compelling as evidence.
Articles that used self-report data that was carefully gathered and not likely to be biased are
next.
What is not valuable and not used are articles that used self-report data to ask opinions or as-
sessments where objective data are needed (i.e. “are you more productive working from home?”)
Quantitative studies were more valued than qualitative ones. Studies based on interviews with
small numbers of workers were not used.

Google Scholar is the source: Articles were searched for in Google Scholar using basic search
phrases like “Creativity and Working from Home” or “Performance and Hybrid Work.” Where an ar-
ticle was valuable, articles that cited that article were searched as well. For most search terms, I went
five pages deep into search results.

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 1 2
References
1. Atkin, David, Antoinette Schoar, and Sumit Shinde. “Working from Home, Worker Sorting and Development.”
NBER Working Paper w31515 (2023).
2. Gibbs, Michael, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth. “Work from home and productivity: Evidence from
personnel and analytics data on information technology professionals.” Journal of Political Economy Microec
nomics 1, no. 1 (2023): 7-41.
3. Emanuel, Natalia, and Emma Harrington. “Working remotely? Selection, treatment, and the market for remote
work.” Selection, Treatment, and the Market for Remote Work (May 1, 2023). FRB of New York Staff Report 1061
(2023)
4. Kitagawa, Ritsu, Sachiko Kuroda, Hiroko Okudaira, and Hideo Owan. “Working from home: Its effects on pro
ductivity and mental health.” Covid Economics 74, no. 30 (2021): 142-171.
5. Bloom, Nicholas, Ruobing Han, and James Liang. How hybrid working from home works out. No. w30292. Na
tional Bureau of economic research, 2022.
6. Morikawa, Masayuki. “Productivity of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from an
employee survey.” Covid Economics 49 (2020): 123-139.
7. Bao, Lingfeng, Tao Li, Xin Xia, Kaiyu Zhu, Hui Li, and Xiaohu Yang. “How does working from home affect devel
oper productivity?—A case study of Baidu during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Science China Information Sciences
65, no. 4 (2022): 142102.
8. Hackney, Amy, Marcus Yung, Kumara G. Somasundram, Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia, Jodi Oakman, and Amin
Yazdani. “Working in the digital economy: A systematic review of the impact of work from home arrangements
on personal and organizational performance and productivity.” Plos one 17, no. 10 (2022): e0274728.
9. Fernald, John, Ethan Goode, Huiyu Li, and Brigid Meisenbacher. “Does Working from Home Boost Productivity
Growth?.” FRBSF Economic Letter 2024, no. 02 (2024): 1-6.
10. Shen, Lucas. “Does working from home work? A natural experiment from lockdowns.” European Economic
Review 151 (2023): 104323.
11. Burdett, Ashley, Ben Etheridge, Li Tang, and Yikai Wang. “Worker productivity during Covid-19 and adaptation
to working from home.” European Economic Review (2024): 104788.
12. Etheridge, Ben, Yikai Wang, and Li Tang. Worker productivity during lockdown and working from home: Evi
dence from self-reports. No. 2020-12. ISER Working Paper Series, 2020.
13. Awada, Mohamad, Gale Lucas, Burcin Becerik-Gerber, and Shawn Roll. “Working from home during the
COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience.” Work: Journal of Prevention,
Assessment & Rehabilitation (2021).
14. Mercier, Maxence, Florent Vinchon, Nicolas Pichot, Eric Bonetto, Nathalie Bonnardel, Fabien Girandola, and
Todd Lubart. “COVID-19: A Boon or a Bane for Creativity?.” Frontiers in psychology 11 (2021): 601150.
15. Brucks, Melanie S., and Jonathan Levav. “Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation.” Nature 605, no.
7908 (2022): 108-112.
16. dos Santos, Júlio César Claudino, Ivna Felice Silva Matos, Nathalia Camilla Maciel Jenkins, Victória Melo Reis,
Alyssa Castelo Branco Alencar Andrade, Luciano Barroso de Albuquerque Filho, Rafaella Iughetti da Costa et al.
“Virtual Communication and its Negative Impact on the Genera-tion of Creative Ideas.” IJCMCR. 2022; 23 (1) 4.
17. Gibbs, Michael, Friederike Mengel, and Christoph Siemroth. “Employee innovation during office work, work
from home and hybrid work.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 (2024): 17117.
18. Lin, Yiling, Carl Benedikt Frey, and Lingfei Wu. “Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas.” Nature
623, no. 7989 (2023): 987-991.
19. Yang, Chi-Lan, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Hao-Chuan Wang, and Eureka Foong. “Distance matters
to weak ties: Exploring how workers perceive their strongly-and weakly-connected collaborators in remote work
places.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, no. GROUP (2022): 1-26.
20. Aidla, Anne, Eneli Kindsiko, Helen Poltimäe, and Laura Hääl. “To work at home or in the office? Well-being, infor
mation flow and relationships between office workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.” Journal of
Facilities Management 21, no. 3 (2023): 431-452.

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 13
21. Lundqvist, Daniel, Cathrine Reineholm, Christian Ståhl, and Andreas Wallo. “The impact of leadership on em
ployee well-being: on-site compared to working from home.” BMC Public Health 22, no. 1 (2022): 2154.
22. Granovetter, Mark S. “The strength of weak ties.” American journal of sociology 78, no. 6 (1973): 1360-1380.
23. Yang, Longqi, Sonia Jaffe, David Holtz, Siddharth Suri, Shilpi Sinha, Jeffrey Weston, Connor Joyce et al. “How
work from home affects collaboration: A large-scale study of information workers in a natural experiment during
COVID-19.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15584 (2020).
24. Stoker, Janka I., Harry Garretsen, and Joris Lammers. “Leading and working from home in times of COVID-19:
On the perceived changes in leadership behaviors.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 29,
no. 2 (2022): 208-218.
25. Garretsen, Harry, Janka I. Stoker, Dimitrios Soudis, and Hein Wendt. “The pandemic that shocked managers
across the world: The impact of the COVID-19 crisis on leadership behavior.” The Leadership Quarterly
(2022): 101630.
26. Ipsen, Christine, Kathrin Kirchner, Nelda Andersone, and Maria Karanika-Murray. “Becoming a distance man
ager: managerial experiences, perceived organizational support, and job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pan
demic.” Frontiers in psychology 13 (2022): 916234.
27. Kasperska, Agnieszka, Anna Matysiak, and Ewa Cukrowska-Torzewska. “Managerial (dis) preferences towards
employees working from home: Post-pandemic experimental evidence.” Plos one 19, no. 5 (2024): e0303307.
28. Effron, Marc. 8 steps to high performance: Focus on what you can change (ignore the rest). Harvard Business
Press, 2018.
29. Podolny, Joel M., and James N. Baron. “Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the work
place.” American sociological review (1997): 673-693.
30. Jones, Cristela. “Dell’s remote workers will not be eligible for promotion in new policy.” MySA. Retrieved on Au
gust 14, 2024 from https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/dell-work-from-home-policy-19250491.php
31. Wells, Charlie. “Return-to-Work Policies Devolve Into a Toxic Cultural Flashpoint.” Bloomberg.com. Retrieved
August 14, 2024 at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-02/remote-work-jobs-how-the-of
fice-debate-became-a-culture-war-flashpoint
32. McDermott, Kirstie. “Noiseless workplaces and better focus: How neurodiverse employees can benefit from
working remotely.” https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/12/01/noisy-workplace-and-better-focus-how-can-neu
rodiverse-employees-benefit-from-working-remot
33. https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/racism-remote-work-mental-health.html
34. Roberts, Laura Morgan, and McCluney, Courtney L. “Working from Home While Black.” Havard Business Re
view. June 17, 2020. Retrieved on August 14, 2024 from https://hbr.org/2020/06/working-from-home-while-black
35. Lipman, Joanne. “Return-to-Office Mandates Are a Disaster for Working Mothers.” Wall Street Journal. December
15, 2023. Retrieved August 14, 2024 from https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/return-to-the-office-mandates-
are-a-disaster-for-working-mothers-bf57a071
36. Bohra, Neelam and Willingham, AJ. Remote work made life easier for many people with disabilities. They want
the option to stay. CNN. August 10, 2021. Retrieved August 15, 2024 from https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/10/
health/remote-work-disabilities-pandemic-wellness-trnd/index.html
37. Smith, Ray A. and Chaker, Anne Marie. “The ‘Coordination Tax’ at Work Is Wearing Us Down.” Wall Street Jour
nal. June 16, 2024. Retrieved on August 15, 2024 from https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/collabo
ration-work-office-life-in-person-b9c12110?st=3au5xyxqbk2o3xm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 14
I N T E R E S T E D I N L E A R N I NG MOR E ? CON TAC T T H E AU T HOR

Visit Our Website Marc Effron

for science-based solutions President
and the latest in HR and Talent Talent Strategy Group

I N S I G H T S / PAG E 15