History: Working from home

Over the past few years, working from home has shifted from a rare privilege to a normal arrangement for millions of office employees. While I accept that it can weaken certain kinds of collaboration, I largely agree that it is a positive development, provided it is managed sensibly.

The most obvious benefit is for employees themselves. Removing the daily commute can save many workers an hour or more each day, time that can be spent with family, exercising, or simply resting. This flexibility also makes employment more accessible to people who find a fixed office routine difficult, such as parents of young children or those with disabilities. When staff are less exhausted and better able to balance their responsibilities, they are generally more motivated and less likely to leave, which reduces the costly process of recruiting and training replacements.

Employers can benefit financially as well. Companies that adopt remote or hybrid working need less office space, which is one of their largest fixed costs, particularly in expensive city centres. They can also recruit from a much wider geographical area rather than being limited to candidates who live within commuting distance, giving them access to more skilled applicants.

Nevertheless, critics are right that some aspects of work suffer when nobody shares a physical space. New employees, in particular, learn a great deal informally by observing experienced colleagues, and spontaneous conversations often generate ideas that scheduled video calls do not. For this reason, the most effective approach is probably a hybrid model, in which teams meet in person for planning, training and creative work, and work remotely for tasks requiring concentration.

In conclusion, although working from home is not ideal for every task or every person, its advantages for both workers' wellbeing and companies' costs outweigh its drawbacks. Organisations that combine remote work with regular face-to-face contact are likely to gain the most.