by Wayne Forster          September 2020

In April 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 lockdown, 5 million Canadians were working from home, an increase of about 300% from pre-pandemic figures. While many of these have returned to their workplaces as restrictions have gradually been lifted, many have not. The question now being asked is this: Will the number of employees working from home return to pre-COVID-19 numbers once the pandemic has passed, or will COVID-19 create a permanent increase in this workplace arrangement?

For some businesses, the working-from-home arrangement is not an option. For restaurants, retail stores, and many services, employees must interact with customers at the place of business, rather than remotely. For most manufacturing, production, and industrial operations, employees must come together in a central facility to do their work. But for those businesses where WFH is possible, does that mean it’s advisable? Or is it still preferable for most employees to congregate together at the workplace, with WFH remaining a secondary option to be used only in certain situations?

To answer that question, businesses need to look at the pros and cons of WFH, then assess those in relationship to the type of business they operate, the type of customer they service, and the business’s overall strategic objectives. They can then make an informed decision about whether WFH is a good idea for them, and if so, at what level. Business owners and managers should not be making decisions about WFH because it is trendy, or because employees prefer it. They should be basing their decisions on what is best for the business.

So, what are the pros and cons of WFH?

One of the most frequently cited advantages of WFH is the savings in office or facility rents that will result. Of course, these savings will only be realized if the shift to greater levels of WFH becomes permanent. Right now, no such savings are occurring. For the most part, businesses are still paying office rents while their employees work from home because of the pandemic.

What must also be taken into account is the possibility that employees will expect compensation for the use of their homes for the employer’s business. This is already happening in a limited number of cases and is likely to increase. Unions, in particular, are beginning to push for this. As well, employees will expect employers to pay for computers, phones, internet services, and other office amenities they would normally have at the workplace. These costs will, at least in part, offset the savings in rents. Businesses will need to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine the net result.

One of the more controversial, and complex, topics around the pros and cons of WFH is the issue of employee performance and productivity. There is plenty of research to suggest that employees are more productive and achieve higher standards of performance when working from home rather than in the office. There are a number of explanations for this. At home, they are not being constantly interrupted by co-workers or managers; they are not attending low-value or unnecessary meetings; and they save time by not commuting and going out to lunch.

Of course, there’s also research that suggests the opposite; that employees are less productive and less efficient if they work from home. At home, they face interruptions and distractions from family members. It’s easier to sleep in, or watch TV, or spend hours on Facebook. With no one there to supervise or observe their work, the work-from-home employee is too tempted to slack off.

Who’s right? It depends. It depends on the type of business, the type of job, and the type of employee. If it’s the type of business that doesn’t require much interaction between employees, then WFH can work fine.

However, if it’s the type of business where synergies are essential to maximize creativity and innovation, then it might be better to have everyone in the same place. If it’s the type of job where employees are measured by individual performance, like sales, working from home likely won’t negatively impact results. However, if collaboration and communication between employees is key to providing a better product or service, then face-to-face discussions and meetings are more effective than virtual communications. If it’s the type of employee who is self-motivated and manages their time well, then WFH may improve their productivity. However, if it’s the type of employee who requires constant supervision and oversight, they may need the structure of the traditional workplace arrangement.

WFH presents a number of other challenges. How do you assess performance and productivity of remote workers? How do you monitor hours of work, if paying people on an hourly basis? How do you validate claims for overtime pay? Then there are the health and safety issues. Home-based workers are still covered by Worker’s Compensation, so businesses will still have to ensure a safe work environment. Do WFH employees have the proper work space and equipment to prevent back problems, or eye strain, or carpal tunnel syndrome? And finally, there’s the technological issues, everything from communication procedures, to security issues, to confidentiality concerns. Can businesses cost-effectively meet the IT needs of the home-based employee?

In summary, WFH may provide positive benefits for a business; potential cost savings, enhanced employee performance; greater flexibility in work hours and assignments. But it could have the opposite effect. It could result in higher employee-related costs, lower performance and productivity, and greater legal liability. Businesses will need to assess WFH on a case-by-case basis to determine what’s best for them as we move into the “new normal,” whatever that may look like.