\n<\/p>\n
Working overseas without telling one\u2019s employer is different. Beyond the dishonesty, it may expose the employer, not just the employee, to risks: licensing restrictions, as in the trader\u2019s case, and possibly tax or immigration complications, cross-border data rules, insurance that may not apply abroad and time-zone mismatches.<\/p>\n
Crucially, every hidden overseas work-from-home day makes employers more cautious with caregivers whose needs are real.<\/p>\n
The obvious response is for employers to define work-from-home policies. But rules can feel like distrust.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In 2023, a review of studies, involving 94 samples and more than 23,000 workers, found no evidence that electronic monitoring improves performance. Conversely, \u00a0electronic monitoring was associated with higher worker stress.<\/p>\n
The \u201cFBI skills\u201d request from the trader\u2019s manager illustrates the resulting loop: concealment invites surveillance, and surveillance signals distrust, which makes people less likely to be open.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n