{"id":4006,"date":"2025-08-19T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-19T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/?p=4006"},"modified":"2025-07-11T12:26:07","modified_gmt":"2025-07-11T17:26:07","slug":"is-remote-hybrid-or-on-site-work-best-for-workers-it-depends-on-their-preferences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/2025\/08\/19\/is-remote-hybrid-or-on-site-work-best-for-workers-it-depends-on-their-preferences\/","title":{"rendered":"Is remote, hybrid, or on-site work best for workers? It depends on their preferences"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a>
This picture was created by Gemini. Caption: \u201cThe benefits of remote vs. in-person work likely depend on which arrangement workers prefer.\u201d<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The debate<\/a> about what type of work arrangement is best for worker well-being and work-life balance has raged for years. Most recently, this issue was brought to the foreground by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the mass transition to remote work during the pandemic opened the door for many workers to finally have the job flexibility they craved, essential workers who did not have that option experienced worsened mental health<\/a>. Nonetheless, not all benefited from remote work during the pandemic. Indeed, the Great Resignation<\/a> was fueled in part by some workers, mothers especially<\/a>, who struggled substantially with the intrusion of home and family into their workday, and found themselves cutting back on work hours or leaving their positions altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pandemic demonstrated that on-site work and remote work both have costs and benefits. On-site work benefits workers by helping them maintain clear boundaries between work and family, reducing the possibility of work-family conflict. The downside, however, is that the rigidity of those boundaries makes it difficult to manage multiple roles. The benefits of remote work are in many ways the opposite. Working remotely provides employees the flexibility to manage their multiple role obligations and maintain work-life balance. Yet, flexibility can also foster role conflict by weakening the boundaries between work and family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though work locations may each come with their own costs and benefits, that does not mean that they come in equal measure. Research nonetheless is quite mixed, leaving the answer to whether on-site or remote work is best as elusive. One potential reason for this is that workers\u2019 preferences often are not considered when employers make decisions about work location.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a recent study published in Society and Mental Health<\/em><\/a>, we examined work-place mismatch \u2013 the degree to which preferred and actual work locations are not aligned \u2013 and the degree to which this mismatch is associated with working parents\u2019 well-being. To do this, we used national survey data collected in 2023, and focused on approximately 2,300 employed parents. Parents were asked how frequently they worked from home, as well as how frequently they preferred to work from home. We used this information to assess the degree to which parents\u2019 actual work location matched their preferences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We found that most parents (60%) report experiencing some work-place mismatch. But, this varies by where parents work. <\/a>Work-place mismatch is least common among fully remote workers (15% experience mismatch), more common among hybrid workers (58%), and most common among on-site workers<\/a> \u2013 87% of on-site workers report some degree of work-place mismatch. In fact, just under half of parents who worked fully in-person reported a very high<\/em> degree of work-place mismatch according to our measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though disconnect between parents\u2019 actual and preferred work location is common, the most important question is: does this matter for workers? In our study, we found consistent evidence that work-place mismatch is associated with lower well-being among working parents. Specifically, parents who experience greater work-place mismatch report higher work-family conflict, higher stress, and more depressive symptoms. In fact, our findings suggest that the disconnect between actual and preferred work location matters more for parents\u2019 well-being than work location itself. Moreover, we found that failure to account for preferences masked the impact of work location on well-being. When looking just at work location, we found no differences in well-being between remote, hybrid, and on-site workers. Yet, when we looked at both work location and work-place mismatch together, we found that on-site working parents actually experience lower<\/em> work-family conflict, stress, and depressive symptoms compared to hybrid or remote working parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this demonstrates is that failure to account for workers\u2019 preferences (and subsequent mismatch between actual and preferred work location) leads to underestimation of some intrinsic benefits to on-site work, particularly because work-place mismatch is much more pervasive among those working exclusively in-person. Put another way, while on-site work may have benefits to worker well-being, workers\u2019 overwhelming preference (and need) for workplace flexibility diminishes any benefits that on-site work may provide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, our research suggests that there is no one \u201cbest\u201d work location. Instead, the work location that is best for workers is the one that suits their own preferences and needs. When parents work in a location that matches their preferences, which overwhelmingly involves at least some remote work, they report less work-family conflict and higher psychological well-being compared to workers who experience mismatch between their actual and preferred work location.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Organizations are increasingly investing in workplace wellness programs, acknowledging that employee well-being is linked to positive outcomes<\/a> such as organizational commitment and productivity. Our findings suggest that recognizing variations in workers\u2019 preferences about working remotely, on-site, or in a hybrid format \u2013 and designing policies that enable workers to align their preferred and actual work locations \u2013 would promote higher well-being among workers and alleviate some of the challenges experienced by workers and organizations during the Great Resignation, including promoting employee retention and commitment<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Richard J. Petts<\/em><\/strong> is a Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean of the College of Sciences and Humanities at Ball State University. He also serves on the board of directors for the Council on Contemporary Families. You can read more about his research at www.richardpetts.com<\/a><\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daniel L. Carlson <\/em><\/strong>is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Family and Consumer Studies at the University of Utah. He is a sociologist and family demographer studying the gendered division of labor. He serves on the board of directors for the Council on Contemporary Families.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wen Fan <\/em><\/strong>is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston College. Her research focuses on the work, family, and well-being implications of alternative, new ways of working. You can read more about her research at wenfan.co<\/a><\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The debate about what type of work arrangement is best for worker well-being and work-life balance has raged for years. Most recently, this issue was brought to the foreground by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the mass transition to remote work during the pandemic opened the door for many workers to finally have the job flexibility […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2124,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4006","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2124"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4006"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4006\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4010,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4006\/revisions\/4010"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/ccf\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}