Around telework, a battle of belief versus evidence

Despite the abundance of data supporting the benefits of telework, ideological resistance persists.

Telework, once a necessity during the pandemic, now stands at the forefront of a political battle. Republican members of Congress are castigating government leaders for insufficiently reining in the practice of employees working from home. They are demanding more data about the impact of telework.

Yet such demands evince a failure to acknowledge the evidence, which overwhelmingly supports the benefits of telework. In short, ideological beliefs seem to be outweighing empirical facts.

Evidence gathered by the federal government shows that telework offers a myriad of advantages for both employees and employers. The White House Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) annual report sheds light on the tangible benefits of telecommuting.

For instance, it reveals that 68 percent of frequent remote workers express intentions to remain in their roles, compared to a mere 53 percent of those who do not telework. Moreover, engagement levels soar among frequent teleworkers, with a staggering 77 percent reporting high levels of engagement, compared to just 59 percent among their office-bound counterparts. The performance benefits are equally striking, with over 84 percent of employees and managers acknowledging improvements in work quality and customer satisfaction.

This data from OPM underscores the positive impact of telework on employee retention, engagement and performance.

Separately from this in-depth report, OPM released the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. Assessing a variety of issues, including telework, OPM found that over 62 percent report being “very satisfied,” and more than 26 percent indicate they are “satisfied” with their current work schedules. In turn, more than 55 percent “strongly agree” that their current work schedules enable them to work productively, in addition to the more than 35 percent who simply “agree” with that statement.

Individual agencies have produced parallel findings. For example, an internal survey conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed strong support for remote work arrangements. A large majority (66 percent) of respondents expressed willingness to explore other opportunities if the government leadership curtailed its flexibility. Moreover, almost all employees (97 percent) credited work-from-home flexibility for enhancing their productivity levels.

A survey conducted by the Federal News Network among 6,338 federal workers showed that, despite the purported aim of enhancing collaboration and productivity by forcing employees to return to the office, 64 percent of respondents working on a hybrid schedule find themselves less productive in the office. A substantial 47 percent feel more negatively about senior leadership due to the return-to-office mandates, while an additional 49 percent feel the same way as before — which is to say, only a tiny fraction to have more positive views. This shift underscores pervasive skepticism over the intentions and judgment of those in leadership roles around mandates to return to the office.

A survey by the Federal Times of 960 current and former government employees indicates that, considering those who departed their government positions, over one-third cited the lack of telework flexibility as the determining factor. In turn, an additional 30 percent acknowledged this as a substantial influence on their decisions to leave their roles.

Despite the abundance of data supporting the benefits of telework to employers, ideological resistance persists. House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has been vocal about the need for data on telework's impact, despite the abundance of data already available.

In a recent hearing, Comer reiterated frustration at not promptly receiving data regarding telework's effect on productivity and service delivery. He emphasized the importance of concrete data to inform policy decisions regarding telework.

Comer's stance reflects broader Republican skepticism regarding the long-term viability of telework. Other Republican lawmakers, such as Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Bill Cassidy (La.), have expressed concerns about telework's impact on taxpayer dollars and workforce productivity. In a letter, Blackburn and Cassidy criticized the Department of Education, stating that lax telework policies undermine the department's ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. They emphasized the importance of determining the agency's current telework policies to make informed decisions about its budget — a clear threat to slash the department's funding if it doesn’t cut back on telework, despite the evident benefits of such telework.

In response to Republican pressure, government leaders have defended their approach to telework, emphasizing the importance of flexibility in accommodating diverse mission needs. Jason Miller, Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), outlined the administration's position on telework before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

He stated that about half of federal workers have to be at a federal work site to perform their job responsibilities, making them ineligible for telework. For office workers, the expectation is for agencies to achieve at least 50 percent in-person work, while giving them flexibility based on their diverse mission space. According to Miller, the White House’s willingness to provide telework stems from “competing for talent… We increasingly need a set of highly technical skills.”

Miller's testimony reflects the administration's commitment to balancing telework with the operational needs of federal agencies. As the extensive evidence suggests. This clearly requires substantial telework to boost recruitment, retention, productivity, engagement, morale, and well-being.

Yet despite the abundance of data supporting the benefits of telework, ideological resistance persists. Congressional Republicans are pressuring the administration to ignore the evidence, and the administration keeps bowing to their demands.

Their requests for more data stem not from an honest desire for evidence, but from an effort to put pressure on government agencies and the administration to limit telework, even though telework has so much upside. It is imperative not to allow their political rhetoric to guide policy and undermine the organizational effectiveness of government agencies. Ultimately, a balanced approach to telework in the modern workplace requires a departure from ideological dogma and a commitment to data-driven solutions.

Gleb Tsipursky is CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and the author of “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.“