…of a single company<p>> Researchers analyzed survey data from 7,704 employees at a large healthcare organization.<p>I’ve been remote and worked for remote companies for a long time. In my observation, the well-being is bimodal. The people who adapt well to remote thrive. There are a lot of people who think they’re going to love remote who ultimately flame out from the loneliness, isolation, lack of visual boundaries between work and home life, and lack of externally enforced routine.<p>It’s really sad when the latter happens because it’s almost always someone who was hired for their great work and abilities. Then over time they get drained and you can see that the remote work wasn’t what they expected.<p>It’s basically impossible to predict who will fall into each category at the interview stage, or at least I can’t do it. Prior remote work success (not just experience) is the best indicator but it’s hard to evaluate, too. Some of the most difficult remote hires I’ve worked with had past remote work experience, but it’s only after being hired that you learn they struggled at those companies too.
I absolutely detest this framing of remote vs onsite. What it really is is accommodated vs not-accommodated.<p>Accommodated employees perform better. Non-accommodated employees perform worse.<p>For some people, an office is an accommodation - they need that not-home space with other people in it. For others, a home office is an accommodation - a very convenient/local space with very few distractions.<p>It should come as absolutely no surprise that putting someone somewhere they do not feel accommodated is going to reduce performance.<p>I also really reject this boomer-esque idea that in-office helps underperformers underperform less. Instead I find it helps under-performers _appear_ to underperform less because they can chat up the boss and more visibly do performative stuff like showing up early or leaving late.
How do you know they're flaming out/struggling/etc because of remote work issues rather than other issues like company culture etc?
I’ve talked with colleagues that have confirmed exactly what the parent comment is saying. They benefit from the external structure, routine, and separation of work/home life.<p>Some people just don’t want to work next to their gaming PC, completely unsupervised. Others live alone and don’t live near their friends and family. Both these groups (can) suffer from a fully remote environment.
I fully support coworking spaces for folks who need the in person socialiation, but I will leave work entirely before I ever go back into an office (~12 years remote, ~25 years in tech). I have a partner and kids, coworkers are not my friends, but I understand other lives differ. Your social needs are not my needs. I get to eat lunch with my partner every day, see my kids more, no commute, etc.
I am doing well with remote because I'm pathologically introverted and find that being around people is exhausting. I can imagine things being the other way around for extroverts and that is saddening.
>There are a lot of people who think they’re going to love remote who ultimately flame out from the loneliness, isolation, lack of visual boundaries between work and home life<p>This used to be me but pair programming / in-call collaborative working solved 100% of all of those problems.<p>Even the work/life boundary was solved because as soon as I dropped off the call at the end of the day my brain immediately switched off work mode.<p>These days the first thing I do in a new team is try to suss out who else is a bit like this and try to work out a collaborative working pattern that works for all of us.<p>It's not just more fun it's almost unreasonably effective. People who work non collaboratively tend to make more mistakes, bugs and worse decisions.
Here is the actual study:
<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1848857/full#sec6" rel="nofollow">https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....</a><p>They didn’t control for occupation, pay, managerial status etc.. An on-site physical job like nurse, facilities, or technician was compared to predominantly remote administrative jobs.
I have been remote working for the past ~5 years or so. I had to RTO briefly for 3-4 weeks, which was about as long as it took me to find a position with a new org. I love the benefits at this stage in my life (young children, etc.) but I'm not sure the networking relationships I developed early on in my career "in the trenches" would be nearly as strong or beneficial as they have been had I started remote. I'm curious to see how that plays out over the long-term for folks that may start remote and attempt to stay that way throughout their entire careers.
So I was part of a very small company (<15 people) that was bought by a mid-sized company that otherwise had no presence in our country.<p>Leadership left and there was a few years where no one else in the office was in the same teams or reporting chains. The majority of people were in a single office in another company. I found it very difficult to participate and was left out of most decisions. Then covid hit and everything changed. With everyone working from home remote networking opportunities were built, I was an equal part of every discussion. Now I am in a large fortune 500 organization with a mix of working arrangements and I don't have any issues networking. I like to think we do a pretty good job with junior participation as well. The main thing I'm missing is the rumour mill and the pulse on what unrelated roles like sales/finance are saying on the ground.
There are a thousand factors, but one of the biggest and simplest is getting commute time back. Gaining even one hour a day is life-changing. Imagine gaining two hours.
No longer commuting from Shoreline to downtown Seattle and spending 2+ hours in a car each day certainly helped my sense of well-being.
>> "This suggests you let people work remotely if they want to work remotely,"<p>I can't believe people need studies to see that. All you need is some common sense.
If there were no previous study available, there would be no argument to enforce a policy to enable this. So I am thankful that someone made a study, now there is <i>more</i> ”data” to back the claim up.
Here is the full study.<p><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1848857/full" rel="nofollow">https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....</a>
This is partly self-selecting, though. For example, it could really be saying that introverts - more likely to select remote work - are also more likely to be happy on their own. Extraverts are more likely to be happy around other people, but also more likely to be unhappy because of the behaviour of other people.
Been working remote for over 15 years. It is the best.
About 10 years here, and I agree. At first I found myself missing the day to day interaction with co-workers, but after about 6 months I completely acclimated and can't imagine ever willingly going back to an office with bad privacy, commutes, coffee, smells and noise unless the need is extreme.
Oh, I'm sure! And the highest concentration of weekday Costco shoppers.
Just the amount of time and life you waste for commute can be staggering. And of course all the other overhead that comes with going to and back from the office.
Since full remote I can spend 8 hours a day on work instead of 10 (an hour commute each way). Putting aside other benefits like easy and cheap lunches, way better desk ergonomics and equipment, and all the sundry other benefits, working remote allows me to have a life that I never could when I worked in an office because of those 2 hours a day.<p>It's nice to be face-to-face with people, but I don't need that every day (and frankly don't want it neither), but all the benefits in quality of life overwhelming favor remote work for me to the point I will put up with way more shenanigans just to keep this benefit.
yeah that's why the trend is now to call all back to the office so that you don't feel too well.
My F500 employer has on-site requirements. Colleagues and I sad-laugh because we all commute into the office, and spend most of the day on Zoom meetings with colleagues from other locations - you know, exactly the same thing we would do from home.
The sample is not high quality, but the conclusion is pretty obvious. No thinking person can doubt that improving work/life balance, flexible hours, sleeping more, commuting less and comfy pants is going to lead to any other outcome.
Related:<p><i>Remote work benefits are much bigger than a paycheck</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49346149">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49346149</a>
> at a large healthcare organization<p>Isn't there kind of an inherit bias here where on-site healthcare workers would have vastly different job requirements than remote workers?
been remote for quite a while. and i love it. but i've got some friends who absolutely hate it, and really struggled with remote working during covid.<p>so. works for many people, but not for others
This seems hard to prove a direct causal link.<p>Remote employees are also in demand enough to negotiate / find a role with remote work. They probably then are experienced, senior, and better compensated than their peers.<p>It could be that the underlying cause is being more in-demand in a position to negotiate remote work, not remote work by itself.<p>Where am I wrong?
Many companies that are offering remote work knowingly provide lower salaries. And many people agree because added flexibility has a price too.
This is a survey of 20,000 health care workers in one organization. I doubt that <i>that</i> many of them are senior.