William Perugini/ShutterstockMore than five years into the homeworking revolution, a narrative seems to have emerged – of employees being hauled back to the office against their will. This contrasts with what COVID taught us: that people can work flexibly, benefit from not commuting, and even work for employers based far from their home – expanding the labour pool for employers.In fact, both of these arguments are oversimplifications.There is nothing inherent to working from home that makes it inefficient or efficient. It may not be particularly flexible, and may lead to people working longer hours (though this is variable). Even if employees welcome it, they may still experience downsides like missing in-person relationships.The one pre-COVID study which used objective data to compare homeworking and onsite working, from Stanford University in the US, found that productivity of homeworkers was higher. But later studies, using objective and subjective measures, have produced mixed results.The pre-COVID study later found no difference in average productivity levels between hybrid and full-time on-site working. Hybrid workers did nonetheless have higher levels of job satisfaction and lower quit rates.But these studies do not delve behind the figures, implying that productivity simply reflects employees’ effort. In contrast, my recently published research, using professional workers from two universities in the last phase of COVID lockdowns, reveals a more complex picture.The employees I interviewed reported that homeworking enhanced their ability to focus, particularly through having fewer interruptions from colleagues. They were saying they were more effective but not necessarily more efficient. Their emphasis was on getting tasks done, rather than the working hours or effort this required.The majority did not report a significant increase in hours worked. If their working day was longer, it often reflected a change in when work was done – for example, to accommodate home-schooling.Fewer interruptions and better focus may lead to workers achieving more in less time. But it may equally mean employees take more care over their work, or delve into issues in more detail – both of which may actually reduce the number of tasks achieved. Of course, better quality of work can sometimes translate into greater productivity. If a worker is more focused when writing reports, for example, this could result in fewer drafts and less time spent proof-reading.The paradoxes of homeworkingHomeworking is characterised by paradoxes. In my study, many employees missed the social side – yet the lack of interruptions was a positive consequence of this. One employee called homeworking “a two-sided coin. Yeah, I really enjoy the ability to concentrate better and focus, [but] I miss being able to engage with people [in] daily contact.” A second paradox emerged: remote working allows people to spend more time at home, but it also makes it harder for them to detach from work. Again, the positive and negative sides of homeworking are interdependent.Consequently, homeworking has similar effects on performance. The lack of social interaction diminishes people’s ability to do their job, yet the lack of interruptions increases it. More time with family and for domestic duties is good for wellbeing, yet struggling to switch off is detrimental to it.How well employees perform in their jobs (and domestic tasks) will reflect how well they manage these tensions – and deal with questions such as: “Should I complete a task, or attend to my family?” These challenges are managed in various ways, using substitutes for face-to-face interactions and strategies to detach from work. Methods used within my sample include having a separate office or asking family members not to interrupt them during work hours.More subtle strategies to separate work from home life include people dressing in work clothes before logging on, then changing when finishing work. One man used a towel to cover his PC after logging off, to hide his work equipment and signal the end of his working day. Dress for the role you want. Elnur/Shutterstock What employees wantHow successful people felt in managing these homeworking conflicts had a big influence on how they judged their performance – and their view of homeworking and its role in their future lives.Hybrid working – where an employee combines working at home with working on-site – is a way of managing these contradictions so employees achieve a more integrated life. Most participants in my study preferred it – even though they had learned to manage working at home during their forced experimentation with it during COVID lockdowns.I found that attitudes to homeworking changed over the course of the pandemic. At first, many people were wary. For example, a personal assistant believed she could not possibly do her work at home, as it depended on a close relationship with her boss – but later began to realise that she could. Most participants said they would not want to go back to a full-time on-site role, because they did not want to lose this improved work–life balance. But the majority were particularly attracted to hybrid working, which they said helps to manage the paradoxes of homeworking. There was widespread recognition that some aspects of work are best done on-site and others at home. Strikingly, avoiding commuting or wanting to spend more time at home were not key considerations for most of my interviewees.However, my findings suggest that reversing the trend towards homeworking, or attempting to limit hybrid working patterns, may be at odds with the preferences of workers. Reports of conflicts over hybrid working are commonplace – for example, the dispute at the UK’s Office for National Statistics.I believe there is no need to pit the benefits of on-site working and homeworking against each other. Rather, the aim should be to make both options function optimally. Employers should encourage line managers and employees to review what can – and cannot – be done at home. As for employers who really want on-site working as the default, they should begin by ensuring they provide an attractive work environment and opportunities for employees to feel involved.Stephen Wood's research was part-supported by a grant from the University of Leicester’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (GrantES/T501967/1).