Realities behind the global experiment of ‘remote work'

The Hindu

22-07-2025

The quiet revolution of remote work, once hailed as the future of labour, has become far more complicated than anyone imagined. Millions of workers across the world dream of the freedom and the flexibility that come with working from home. However, in reality, far fewer actually enjoy it. This gap between aspiration and practice reflects a dense web of cultural expectations, managerial hesitation, infrastructural challenges, and the hidden costs of working outside the traditional office.
Survey findings, gender issues
The 'Global Survey of Working Arrangements', conducted by the Ifo Institute and Stanford University, covering over 16,000 college-educated workers across 40 countries between 2024 and 2025, lays bare this paradox. No matter where they live, workers express a clear wish for more remote days. How this plays out on the ground varies widely. In countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, people average 1.6 remote workdays per week. In much of Asia, the figure is only 1.1 — a little more than half of what employees there say they ideally want. Africa and Latin America fall somewhere in between.
Why the lag in Asia? The reasons are unsurprising. In India, China, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere, physical presence in the office still signals loyalty, discipline and seriousness. The old culture of 'presenteeism' endures stubbornly. Compounding this are cramped living conditions, shared spaces and unreliable Internet, all of which make remote work unattractive or even unfeasible, for many urban dwellers.
But geography is only part of the story. Gender casts its own long shadow. In most countries, women, particularly mothers, tend to work from home more often than men — and desire it more strongly.
For them, remote work offers a partial answer to the long-standing struggle of balancing paid work with care-giving. Survey data show that mothers express the highest ideal number of remote days per week (2.66 days), closely followed by childless women (2.53). Fathers also want flexibility, but to a lesser extent. Curiously, it is only in Europe that men do report slightly more actual remote workdays than women.
These numbers reopen an old, unresolved question: is women's desire for remote work truly a sign of empowerment? Or is it merely a response to the continuing burden of unpaid care? For all the talk of gender equality, the division of household labour remains deeply unequal. For many mothers, the chance to work remotely may reflect not freedom of choice but hard necessity: the only practical way to manage two full-time roles (employee and caregiver) under the same roof.
The appetite for working from home points to cultural shifts among men, too. Many men without children say they prefer remote work not because of family obligations but because they value freedom: there is time for health, hobbies, creativity, or simply relief from the daily grind of office life. The COVID-19 pandemic years proved that productivity could survive, perhaps even thrive, without office cubicles. Having tasted this autonomy, many are reluctant to surrender it.
Still, the most striking revelation is the widening gap between what workers want and what they get. The global average for 'ideal' remote days is now 2.6 days per week. The reality? Just 1.27 days in 2024, a drop from 1.33 days the year before, and sharply down from 1.61 days in 2022.
The unease of employers, health concerns
What explains this retreat? Many employers remain uneasy. They worry about falling team spirit, lost oversight, and declining innovation. Some industries lack the tools or the systems for remote success. And the ingrained habits of office life continue to exert a powerful influence.
That is only half the picture. The risks of working from home, especially to health, are becoming clearer. Data from Statista Consumer Insights (2023) reveal that remote workers are more prone to physical ailments: backaches, headaches, eye strain and joint pains, more so than their factory- or office-bound counterparts. The mental toll is significant as well. Isolation, blurred boundaries and constant digital connection all exact a price.
Most homes, after all, are not designed for ergonomic safety or sustained mental focus. These hidden costs may explain why some companies are quietly pulling back on remote options. However, to abandon the model completely would overlook its real advantages: greater autonomy, better work-life balance, less commuting stress, and higher job satisfaction.
Possible alternatives
So, where does this leave workers, employers and policymakers? In need of imagination and honesty. Hybrid work, a carefully designed mix of home and office time offers the best path for most jobs. However, hybrid models alone will not suffice. Companies must invest in making home offices safer and more productive, support healthy routines and breaks, and create clear digital boundaries to prevent burnout. Governments, too, must catch up. Remote work demands fresh protections: universal broadband access, stipends for home-office upgrades, and enforceable health standards. These are especially critical in developing economies, where infrastructure lags behind.
Furthermore, beneath all this lies a deeper social reckoning. If women remain saddled with the bulk of care-giving even when working from home, can we really speak of progress toward gender equality? If men now seek remote work more for freedom than family, what does that say about changing male identities in the workplace? The global experiment in working from home is not just about technology or convenience. It is a mirror, reflecting the unresolved tensions between freedom and control, trust and suspicion, autonomy and loneliness.
P. John J. Kennedy is former Professor and Dean, Christ University, Bengaluru