Commentary: Why work from home doesn’t mean work from anywhere

In a well-known 2006 experiment, economists Armin Falk and Michael Kosfeld found that most participants worked less hard once they were controlled, and described it as a signal of distrust and a limit on their autonomy. 

In 2023, a review of studies, involving 94 samples and more than 23,000 workers, found no evidence that electronic monitoring improves performance. Conversely,  electronic monitoring was associated with higher worker stress.

The “FBI skills” request from the trader’s manager illustrates the resulting loop: concealment invites surveillance, and surveillance signals distrust, which makes people less likely to be open.

Yet how rules are set makes a difference. The 2023 review found that more transparent, less invasive monitoring was linked to more positive attitudes. A separate UK study of knowledge professionals working remotely during the pandemic found that many accepted heavier workloads as a fair trade for the autonomy of working from home, especially where trust ran both ways.

The distinction is between clarity and control. Clarity sets out what is allowed and why. Control is about enforcement and that is where the costs to motivation tend to lie.