Introduction

One of the remaining gaps in our understanding of remote work is that of its intensity and associated outcomes. Our interest therefore was in behavioral indicators of such blurred boundaries. Here, we explore time spent on life activities by remote work intensity.

Remote Work & Intensity Defined Remote work is “…a work practice that involves members of an organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours (ranging from a few hours per week to nearly full-time) to work away from a central workplace - typically principally from home - using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct work tasks” (Allen, Golden, and Shockley 2015, 44). Remote work intensity refers to the percentage of time an employee works from home.

Existing research provides some support for the assertion that remote work intensity may be important. For example, Golden and Veiga (2005) found that the relationship between extent of telecommuting and job satisfaction was curvilinear. Gajendran and Harrison (2007) found that those in high intensity telework arrangements experienced more work-family conflict than those in lower intensity arrangements.

RQ: Is the amount of time devoted to major life activities similar for different levels of remote work intensity?

Methods

Participants The sample of respondents was well-representative of US workforce racial and gender demographics, but was slightly over-representative of highly educated individuals (roughly 30% self-classified as having Masters’ or Doctoral degrees). The average reported hours worked per week was 41.09 (SD = 14.02) in: Federal government (3.8%), State government (7.6%), Local government (6.2%), Private (including incorporated self-employed; 82.2%), and Self-employed, unincorporated (less than 1%). From the sample, 21% worked in a traditional on-site only arrangement, 14% worked remotely less than once per month, 11% worked remotely once/month, 10% worked remotely twice/month, 9% worked remotely at least once per week, 14% worked remotely 1-2 days per week, 9% worked remotely 3-4 days per week, and 12% worked remotely 5 or more days per week.

Materials -Remote Work. Two variables were combined (“Do you ever work at home?” and “How often do you work only at home?”) to reflect a composite remote work frequency variable. Resulting ordinal response categories ranged from (1) No, I never work at home (traditional) to (8) 5 or more days a week. Note that this variable reflects general experiences as opposed to the time use variable described below. -Time Use. This is the total time (in estimated minutes) spent on activity categories time during the 24-hour period prior to the interview.

Procedure The current study solicited data from three Bureau of Labor Statistics sources. First, the Current Population Survey (CPS) is the federal government’s primary household survey. To capture this data, probability sampling of 60,000 households is done annually, and surveys are conducted in person or by phone regarding the prior week’s activities. During a phone interview, respondents are asked to report on how they spent their time (in minutes) from 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. the previous day. Activities (n = 17) are coded (i.e., activity categorizations; e.g., “personal care”, “educational activities”, “caring for and helping household members”, “traveling”). An additional brief survey on leave and job flexibilities sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau was administered between 2017 and 2018.

Results

Figures 1-4 illustrate the activity categories for which there was a significant difference based on remote work intensity, including: -caring for household members among the groups, F_(7, 2130) = 4.40, p < .001, -time devoted to working during the prior day, F(7, 2,130) = 2.03, p = .047, -socializing, F(7, 2,130) = 3.45 p = .001, and -travel, F(7, 2,130) = 3.34 p = .001.

Figure 1. Mean Time Reported on Caring for Household Members for Respondents with Different Levels of Remote Work Intensity.

…and the attitudinal scales:

Figure 2. Mean Time Reported on Work for Respondents with Different Levels of Remote Work Intensity.

Conclusion

We build on our knowledge of remote work here by exploring time allocation of those working different amounts of time remotely (ranging from never to 5+ days per week). Results revealed that there were differences in time spent caring for household members, working, socializing, and time spent traveling across groups, and that additional research in this area is needed as the context of work continues to evolve.

Figure 3. Mean Time Reported on Socializing for Respondents with Different Levels of Remote Work.

Figure 4. Mean Time Reported on Travel for Respondents with Different Levels of Remote Work Intensity.

Discussion

Our results suggest that there were some modest time allocation differences among those who work on site compared to those who work remotely at different levels of intensity, although the patterns were not always linear.

These findings provide the foundation for additional study of remote workers. We have some evidence suggesting that there is an ideal combination of on site and remote work time. Golden and Veiga (2005), for example, concluded that roughly 15 hours of remote work, which corresponds to ~2 days remote, was ideal in their study. Here, we can begin to explore what time use looks like for those who work remotely 1-2 days per week compared to other levels of intensity.

Limitations & Future Directions Moving forward, exploring a more comprehensive model of the experience of remote work is necessary. Further, Raghuram et al. (2019) noted that the telework literature could be immensely informed by both the virtual teams and computer-mediated work literatures. For example, whether time allocation differences equate to coping strategies, and questions about who thrives in a remote work environment will have implications for selection, training and onboarding. A further important future direction would be to distinguish between self-employed and those working for an organization.