US

Working From Home

The pandemic has led to a big shift to working from home among people in occupations where it is possible for the jobs or some part of them to be done remotely. There has been much debate about the extent to which such forms of working (or a hybrid model, with some hours done at home and some on business premises) will continue over the longer term. Key questions include the potential impact on employees’ productivity and their job satisfaction, and whether the career trajectories of women and men may be affected differently by a substantial increase in working from home.

In November 2021, we invited our US and European panels to express their views on these issues. We asked the experts whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements, and, if so, how strongly and with what degree of confidence:

Not all occupations can be done even in part from home. For those that can:

a) Employees who spend two of their days each week working from home are, on average, likely to be more productive over the longer term.

b) Employees who spend two of their days each week working from home are, on average, likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction over the longer term.

c) Having the opportunity to work two to three days a week from home is, on average, likely to be more beneficial for women’s career progression than for that of their male colleagues.

Of our 43 US experts, 41 participated in this survey; of our 48 European experts, 41 participated – for a total of 82 expert reactions.

The impact of working from home on productivity

On the first statement about whether employees spending two of their days each week working from home are, on average, likely to be more productive over the longer term, a majority of panelists say that they are uncertain. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 5% of the panels strongly agree, 27% agree, 56% are uncertain, 12% disagree, and 0% strongly disagree.

The experts are able to include short comments in their responses, and among only two who strongly agree about a positive impact on productivity, one is Nicholas Bloom at Stanford, who has done a considerable amount of research in this area and whose work was cited by several panelists. He comments: ‘A growing body of research, natural experiments and RCTs [randomized controlled trials], finds moderate levels of WFH [working from home] increase employee productivity.’

Among others who agree, Franklin Allen at Imperial College London says: ‘Depends on the person’s level but provided this is sufficiently high, the reduction in time and effort from commuting is likely a benefit.’ Jan Pieter Krahnen at Goethe University Frankfurt states: ‘I think that over the longer term the productivity is more or less the same, as the innovation effect fades out.’ And Ricardo Reis at the London School of Economics (LSE) directs us to some evidence from Italy that the introduction of ‘smart working’ can have a positive effect on productivity, wellbeing and work-life balance.

Among the majority of panelists who say that they are uncertain, several share the view of Judith Chevalier at Yale: ‘I am pretty certain that there is not enough evidence to have a certain opinion.’ Others point out the difficulty of knowing what the average effect will be. Barry Eichengreen at Berkeley remarks: ‘All we know is some employees yes, other employees (where interpersonal contact is important) no. Average is still uncertain.’ And Richard Schmalensee at MIT responds: ‘Surely depends on the nature of the job and the management style of the firm. I’ve seen no evidence on the overall average.’

Several other experts note the importance of the nature of the work and an individual’s particular position. Christopher Pissarides at the LSE observes: ‘It depends on the nature of work and on the ability of the employee to concentrate on work when there are many alternative uses of home time.’ Robert Shimer at Chicago adds: ‘This will be very dependent on the particular position. The claim is more likely to be true for knowledge workers.’ John Van Reenen at the LSE suggests: ‘It will depend on the type of job one is doing. For creative occupations, social interaction is key so unclear if 40% at home will be better.’

Others comment on the impact on organizational interactions. Daron Acemoglu at MIT remarks: ‘We do not yet know long-run consequences on trust, collaboration and coordination in organizations.’ Anil Kashyap at Chicago notes: ‘There are competing forces, organizational capital depends on some in-person contact; can’t tell if three days in office is enough.’ His colleague Christian Leuz adds: ‘Short-run likely positive, but long-run unclear: effect on innovation, information sharing? Likely also depends on job, lots of heterogeneity.’

Among the panelists who disagree about a positive impact of working from home on productivity, Joseph Altonji at Yale suggests: ‘Maybe less productive on average, but it really depends on the job.’ Kenneth Judd at Stanford adds: ‘Most jobs require collaboration. The formal communication channels of email and Zoom lack the value of spontaneous meetings.’ Daniel Sturm at the LSE concurs: ‘Positive productivity spillovers in the office can likely not be fully replaced by Zoom and other measures.’

The impact of working from home on job satisfaction

On the second statement about whether employees who spend two of their days each week working from home are, on average, likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction over the longer term, a majority of panelists say that they agree. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 9% of the panels strongly agree, 60% agree, 31% are uncertain, and 0% disagree or strongly disagree.

Among those who agree or strongly agree, several point to evidence. David Autor at MIT says: ‘Lots of evidence that people prefer this arrangement. I suspect that in steady state, it will increase satisfaction.’ Nicholas Bloom adds: ‘Attrition rates from WFH jobs in RCTs are about half those of in-person jobs, and survey data shows a preference to WFH two days a week.’ And Christian Leuz notes: ‘Assuming they get to choose, self-selection suggests outcome. WFH in lockdown was mixed. But with choice, people likely value flexibility’, linking to the Bloom and colleagues’ evidence from an experiment in China.

Others express further caveats about choice and selection, as well as the possibility of longer-term regrets among those who prefer home working. Daron Acemoglu mentions: ‘Provided that it is a choice, not imposition.’ Barry Eichengreen adds: ‘Agree, but these may simply be people who work in occupations offering more flexibility and personal control (pattern is driven by selectivity).’ Anil Kashyap says: ‘Though if promotions lag eventually from insufficient organizational investment, they may have regrets.’ And Christopher Pissarides remarks: ‘In the short term yes, less travel, more time to oneself. In the longer term, maybe not if it delays promotion or pay rise.’

Several panelists comment on why job satisfaction might rise from higher levels of working from home. Darrell Duffie at Stanford observes: ‘Depends on their working conditions at home but if these are good then they should be better off.’ Richard Schmalensee agrees: ‘That’s what most seem to want, and it will likely make them happier. And John Van Reenen notes: ‘Will reduce commutes, which are most stressful parts of day for most people.’

Among the panelists who say that they are uncertain, Austan Goolsbee at Chicago asks: ‘Will employers expect them always to be on call?’ His colleague Lubos Pastor adds: ‘Likely to vary with seniority’; and another Chicago colleague Richard Thaler notes: ‘Again, no way to generalize. At Chicago Booth, there was a strong culture to come to the office. That can easily unravel, which would be bad.’

Kenneth Judd agrees: ‘The advantage of less commuting may balance the lower level of social interaction. And Robert Shimer concludes: ‘Again, a lot of heterogeneity. Revealed preference suggests many workers want to work from home, but this will decrease job attachment.’

The impact of working from home on women’s career progression

On the third statement about whether having the opportunity to work two to three days a week from home is, on average, like to be more beneficial for women’s career progression than for that of their male colleagues. Weighted by each expert’s confidence in their response, 1% of the panels strongly agree, 25% agree, 55% are uncertain, 17% disagree, and 2% strongly disagree.

Among those who agree about the positive effect, several comment on the value of job flexibility for women’s careers. Pinelopi Goldberg at Yale says: ‘More flexibility is good for the careers of women, especially when they have young children.’ David Autor notes that: ‘Claudia Goldin has documented that the economic costs of job inflexibility fall at present most heavily on women.’

Several who agree comment on social expectations of women’s role at home. Barry Eichengreen states: ‘Likely to be true insofar as women, for reasons of tradition and gender roles, are still responsible for more household/childcare duties.’ Darrell Duffie notes: ‘Many women have, historically at least, taken relatively greater responsibility for child rearing. This may provide added flexibility.’

Karl Whelan at University College Dublin declares: ‘I wish this wasn’t true – ideally child-minding duties would be shared equally – but in practice this probably is the case.’ Daron Acemoglu adds a caveat: ‘Provided that there are not perverse incentives, where women will be expected to work even harder to signal work-ahead-of-family commitment.’

Among those who say that they are uncertain, Nicholas Bloom states: ‘This might be correct, but I am not aware of robust evidence on this – indeed more research on this would be invaluable.’ And Larry Samuelson at Yale notes: ‘These key questions will play a role in shaping future working conditions and warrant careful study.’

Others explain how the outcome could go either way. Nicola Fuchs-Schündeln at Goethe University Frankfurt says: ‘On the positive side, it might increase hours worked for women. On the negative side, they will be less engaged in the office networks.’ Christopher Pissarides replies: ‘Pros: easier to combine office work with home production. Cons: more difficult to escape home production than in an office.’

Daniel Sturm, who is also uncertain, notes: ‘While remote working may well hold back the careers of both women and men equally, women will likely make more use of this option.’ John Van Reenen, who disagrees that working from home will benefit women, explains why that might be a problem: ‘Although good for participation, women may end up being less visible in workplace.’ Robert Shimer adds: Work-from-home likely means child-care-during-work for many people, particularly women.’

Others who disagree link to evidence. Christian Leuz comments: ‘Lots of evidence (e.g., COVID) that traditional gender roles in childcare persist, which can lead to gender differences in WFH that hurt [women’s] career progression.’ And finally, Ricardo Reis points to US evidence on alternative work arrangements.

All comments made by the experts are in the full survey results.

Romesh Vaitilingam
@econromesh
January 2022

Question A:

Employees who spend two of their days each week working from home are, on average, likely to be more productive over the longer term.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question B:

Employees who spend two of their days each week working from home are, on average, likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction over the longer term.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question C:

Having the opportunity to work two to three days a week from home is, on average, like to be more beneficial for women’s career progression than for that of their male colleagues.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Question A Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
We do not yet know long-run consequences on trust, collaboration and coordination in organizations.
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Maybe less productive on average, but it really depends on the job.
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
No data
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
9
Bio/Vote History
I am pretty certain that there is not enough evidence to have a certain opinion.
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
No evidence. Just a guess based on introspection.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
All we know is some employees yes, other employees (where interpersonal contact is important)no. Average is still uncertain.
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Finkelstein
Amy Finkelstein
MIT
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Most jobs require collaboration. The formal communication channels of email and Zoom lack the value of spontaneous meetings.
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
there are competing forces, organizational capital depends on some in person contact can't tell if 3 days in office is enough
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Waiting for evidence. Probably small after adaptation.
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Surely depends on the nature of the job and the management style of the firm. I've seen no evidence on the overall average.
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
This will be very dependent on the particular position. The claim is more likely to be true for knowledge workers
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
How is anyone supposed to know the answer to this?
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Seems unlikely in equilibrium ...

Question B Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Provided that it is a choice, not imposition.
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
Lots of evidence that people prefer this arrangement. I suspect that in steady state, it will increase satisfaction
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
9
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Agree, but these may simply be people who work in occupations offering more flexibility and personal control (pattern is driven by selectivity).
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Agree
1
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Finkelstein
Amy Finkelstein
MIT
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Will employers expect them always to be on call?
-see background information here
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Strongly Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
The advantage of less commuting may balance the lower level of social interaction.
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Though if promotions lag eventually from insufficient organizational investment they may have regrets
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Harder to measure
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Agree
6
Bio/Vote History
That's what most seem to want, and it will likely make them happier.
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Agree
8
Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Again, a lot of heterogeneity. Revealed preference suggests many workers want to work from home, but this will decrease job attachment
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Again, no way to generalize. At Chicago Booth there was a strong culture to come to the office. That can easily unravel, which would be bad.
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Same as above. There will be (lots) of exceptions, though.

Question C Participant Responses

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Provided that there are not perverse incentives, where women will be expected to work even harder to signal work-ahead-of-family commitment
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Claudia Goldin has documented that the economic costs of job inflexibility fall at present most heavily on women
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Uncertain
7
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
8
Bio/Vote History
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Strongly Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Agree
2
Bio/Vote History
Many women have, historically at least, taken relatively greater responsibility for child rearing. This may provide added flexibility.
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Yes is a reasonable guess but only a guess.
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Agree
5
Bio/Vote History
Likely to be true insofar as women, for reasons of tradition and gender roles, are still responsible for more household/childcare duties.
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Agree
1
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Finkelstein
Amy Finkelstein
MIT
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale
Agree
9
Bio/Vote History
More flexibility is good for the careers of women, esp. when they have young children.
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
NO, IF we assume more women will work from home. Working at home will hurt career advancement compared to those who go to the office.
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Disagree
3
Bio/Vote History
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
See prior comment, same concern applies
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Obstfeld
Maurice Obstfeld
Berkeley
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Uncertain
2
Bio/Vote History
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
These key questions will play a role in shaping future working conditions and warrant careful study.
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University
Agree
4
Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
I can tell stories both ways. Evidence would be nice.
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Uncertain
3
Bio/Vote History
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Work-from-home likely means child-care-during-work for many people, particularly women
Stock
James Stock
Harvard
Agree
3
Bio/Vote History
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
My crystal ball is broken here too. Yes, more flexibility about job design would help women,, especially mothers, but otherwise, who knows?
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History