The Trouble with Remote Work

18 Jun

If we consider the current changes in our collective Work spaces broadly, we might come to conclude that digitisation in general is causing more problems than perhaps thought it would. When I say digitisation, I mean something that was once analog has been converted into a digital form [1]. In this case, I'm focusing on the integration of DICT (digital information and communication technologies) into work processes [2].

Perhaps some examples would be useful in reminding us just how rapidly this has happened in our work lives. A study published in 2025 found that WFH job postings quadrupled across 20 countries from 2020 to 2023. It also found that interest in remote work increased fivefold after the pandemic [3]. To facilitate that kind of increase, what processes that were once analog had to be converted into a digital form? Clouds for storage; platforms for asynchronous, shared input; project management tools; video conferencing tools; a suite to pull it all together, and, of course, endless tracking of employees' output. The process of making humans more machine-like, which has been evolving since Taylorism (well, long before really… ), hit warp speed.

With the addition and conversion to digital tools, what was left behind in those analog days-gone-by? There are fewer face-to-face meetings, a reduction in phone calls, and coffee and lunch breaks now taken alone. There is a reduction in ‘weak ties’ such as those with your co-passengers on public transportation, or even with others who work in a different department. Not catastrophic, you could argue, but a general reduction in seeing yourself as part of something.

Outcomes like these are the consequence of a hyper-individualisation process in which roles, tasks, and processes are chopped up into pieces that can be more easily used as neat data points which, in turn, are much easier to categorise and predict for maximum efficiency. In this form, they do not require you to be somewhere that is defined by its physical space and time of day. Additionally, this reduction of endeavor to data points also reduces many aspects of work that give it purpose, meaning, connection, and dignity. Something those aspects share is the human-ness to that which you do - and to that which is done to you. It doesn’t have anything to do with efficiency.

In general, humans like being around other humans. That is not to say everyone likes the same quantity, nor is it to suggest all human interaction is positive. It is not. However, we remain social creatures and need to function within differently sized groups in different ways for different reasons in order to be well. We respond positively to synchronous movement [4], we experience 'emotional contagion' [5], and mortality risk factors are lowered with quality relationships [6] as some general examples.

More specific to the professional side of our lives, we humans respond positively to working on small teams where there is trust, clarity, and collective effort [7]. This does not necessarily need to happen in the same room at the same time, but does require consistently good communication, reading emotions and body language, and suffering the slight inconvenience of compromise. I suspect asynchronous and poorly edited emails mimicking an algorithmic approach to ‘engagement’ are not going to cut it.

Remote work and loneliness has been of great interest to researchers over the past few years. Doubtlessly driven by the impact of Covid-19 on employees and organisations, but also in response to what has come to be viewed as a globally growing loneliness problem. In fact, the WHO published a report in 2025 which found isolation and loneliness to be widespread, and that the impacts on health, well-being, and society were serious yet under-recognised. Back in the office, a study published in 2026 sought to understand how remote work impacted isolation and mental health. The results suggested "that remote work substantially increases isolation and worsens mental health, particularly for those living alone," [8]. Researchers additionally noted that workers requesting remote work may not be aware of its potential impact on their well-being as it may build up slowly.

Another problem that contemporary work designs have with bodies can be found in the never-ending effort to overcome them. As jobs and tasks are increasingly digitalised, they can be accomplished anytime and anywhere there is a suitable device. The physical boundaries between your professional self and the other versions are then collapsed. In our optimism of no longer having a brutal commute, or being able to 'multi-task', it seems we've accidentally contributed to the worst version of the Ideal Worker - one who is always available [9]. If you are always available, always 'on', when and how do you switch off? How will you cultivate other parts of self? How will you initiate and strengthen relationships? How will you do the things that make you human?

So. What to do?

This is not an argument for an immediate return to the way things were in the 90s (although, I am tempted to get a landline again just for the charm factor). No, this is an argument to re-imagine work using what good social science tells us. We do well when we are with others, but it isn’t going to happen magically nor against all odds. There are ways to design work that allow for our humanness to be centered, and there are plenty of experts who know how to do that. It’s time to re-think the work week, to proactively and purposely support good teamwork, and to prioritise trust and communication in every sense of the over-used term. This isn’t an argument against remote work, rather one in favour of doing it well in a version that fits our place in history. Clinging to the current version is merely acting as an obstacle.

There are many, many alternatives to the version of remote work that we’re doing now. I would start with a four-day work week. Despite this potentially having an out-sized impact on women, I would argue to frame this as a way for everyone to become more fully themselves with each other. I leave you with a quote from Kathi Weeks:

Shorter hours could thus be about having time for housework, consumption work, and caring work; time for rest and leisure, time to construct and enjoy a multitude of inter- and intragenerational relations of intimacy and sociality; and time for pleasure, politics, and the creation of new ways of living and new modes of subjectivity. It could be imagined in these terms as a movement for the time to imagine, experiment with, and participate in the kinds of practices and relationships - private and public, intimate and social - that '“we will”.

The Problem with Work, 2011, p. 170 - 171