New research indicates that men who work from home for the majority of the week might experience a more significant career setback than women when it comes to job prospects and promotions. This finding, stemming from a comprehensive study of attitudes towards remote work in the UK and Germany, suggests that the perceived "homeworking penalty" is not a uniform experience and is influenced by gender and parental status. The research, a collaborative effort by academics from King’s Business School at King’s College London, the National University of Singapore, and the Institute of Economic and Social Research at the Hans-Böckler Foundation, analysed nearly 13,000 assessments made by approximately 5,300 employed individuals across both nations.
The study, published in the journal Community, Work & Family, revealed a consistent pattern: individuals described as working remotely were rated less favourably than their office-based counterparts, even when all other qualifications were identical. This negative bias intensified significantly with the frequency of remote work, with those working from home three or four days a week facing a more substantial dip in evaluations than those working remotely only one or two days. While fathers and workers without children generally saw larger declines in their ratings, the researchers cautioned against interpreting this as an inherent advantage for mothers. In the UK, mothers already tended to receive comparatively lower ratings even when assessed as exclusively office-based, meaning their smaller additional penalty for homeworking was, at least in part, a reflection of a lower starting point.
The Escalating Cost of Remote Work: Beyond Two Days
The frequency of working from home emerged as a critical factor in the study’s findings. Employees who worked remotely for one or two days a week experienced a comparatively smaller reduction in their evaluation scores. However, this positive perception eroded significantly for those who embraced remote work for three or four days per week.
In the UK, the impact was particularly pronounced. Compared to their office-bound peers, individuals working remotely for one or two days a week saw their ratings decrease by 0.56 points on the study’s 10-point scale. This penalty nearly doubled for those working from home for three or four days, with ratings falling by 0.94 points. Germany, while also exhibiting a homeworking penalty, showed less severe reductions. Here, ratings dropped by 0.24 points for those working remotely one or two days a week, and by 0.74 points for those working remotely three or four days.
These findings underscore a persistent negative perception of homeworking in both countries, even as remote and hybrid working arrangements have become significantly more prevalent since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic catalysed a rapid shift towards remote work, with many companies initially adopting flexible policies out of necessity. However, this research suggests that the ingrained biases against remote workers may still be influencing evaluative processes.
Gender and Parental Status: A Complex Interplay
The study’s analysis of gender and parental status revealed a nuanced picture of how these factors intersect with attitudes towards remote work. For mothers, working from home for one or two days a week did not result in a statistically significant reduction in their ratings in either country. Similarly, women without children in Germany did not experience a significant decline.
In stark contrast, men generally began from a stronger position when assessed as office-based workers, which, in turn, provided greater scope for their ratings to decrease once homeworking was introduced. This distinction is crucial when interpreting the data concerning mothers. As noted, mothers in the UK, in particular, already received lower ratings when candidates were described as working exclusively in the office, especially when compared to women without children. Therefore, their seemingly smaller additional penalty for homeworking might be more indicative of a lower baseline evaluation rather than more favourable treatment in flexible work arrangements.
Professor Heejung Chung from King’s Business School, a lead author of the study, highlighted the broader implications of these findings, challenging the prevailing narrative that flexible working is primarily an issue for mothers. "Flexible working has often been seen as a mothers’ issue, but this study shows that fathers also need protection from career penalties when they use it," Professor Chung stated. She further argued that fostering greater acceptance of flexible working among fathers could contribute to a more equitable division of caring responsibilities within households. "Making flexibility safe and normal for fathers can support mothers’ employment while improving outcomes for fathers and children," she added. This perspective suggests that normalizing flexible work for all employees, regardless of gender or parental status, is essential for achieving true workplace equality.
UK Workers Face Stiffer Penalties for Limited Homeworking
A notable difference emerged when comparing the impact of limited homeworking (one to two days a week) between the UK and Germany. In the UK, the penalty associated with this level of remote work was significantly more pronounced than in Germany. However, when employees worked remotely for three or four days a week, this statistically significant difference between the two countries diminished.
The researchers propose that national institutions and established workplace cultures play a substantial role in shaping perceptions of flexible workers. The mere provision of homeworking facilities does not automatically dismantle ingrained negative assumptions about employees who utilize them. This points to a critical distinction between organisations formally endorsing flexible working and employees feeling genuinely empowered to leverage these arrangements without fear of professional repercussions.
Addressing Proximity Bias and Fostering True Flexibility
The study’s authors advocate for a critical examination of current promotion and performance evaluation processes within organisations. They suggest that an overemphasis on employees’ physical presence and visibility in the workplace may be contributing to proximity bias, a phenomenon where individuals who are physically closer to decision-makers are perceived more favourably. To mitigate this, employers are urged to place greater emphasis on tangible outcomes and contributions rather than solely on the amount of time spent in the office.
Furthermore, the normalization of flexible working across the entire workforce is identified as a key strategy. The researchers contend that framing flexibility predominantly as an arrangement for mothers or employees with caregiving responsibilities risks reinforcing outdated stereotypes. Such framing might inadvertently discourage fathers and other male employees from embracing flexible work options, thereby perpetuating traditional gender roles and hindering progress towards a truly equitable work environment.
The Nature of the Research: Hypothetical Scenarios and Real-World Implications
It is important to note that this research does not establish a direct causal link between working from home and actual career progression or hiring outcomes. The study’s methodology involved participants assessing hypothetical candidates whose characteristics, including gender, parental status, and homeworking frequency, were experimentally varied. The participants were not engaged in real recruitment or promotion decisions, and the researchers did not track the subsequent careers of any individuals.
Instead, the experiment provides robust evidence that otherwise comparable workers can be evaluated differently based solely on their chosen working arrangements. This insight into evaluative biases is crucial for understanding the potential barriers faced by remote workers. The data was collected in the latter half of 2023, a period when many companies were navigating the complexities of post-pandemic work models.
The research, titled "Flexibility stigma in the UK and Germany post-pandemic: intersectionality of stigma across gender and parental lines," was conducted by Professor Heejung Chung, Assistant Professor Senhu Wang of the National University of Singapore, and Dr. Yvonne Lott of the Institute of Economic and Social Research at the Hans-Böckler Foundation. The findings contribute significantly to the ongoing discourse surrounding the future of work, highlighting the need for a more nuanced and equitable approach to flexible working policies and practices. The implications extend beyond individual career trajectories, potentially influencing broader societal shifts in work-life balance and gender equality.
