Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort well being and work life balance

From Digital Culture & Society

In "Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well-being and work like balance”, Alan Felstead and Golo Henseke examine the assumptions that working remotely, or from home, is a benefit for both the employer and the employee. In order to prove or disprove this assumption, the pair first go though their research criteria. First asses the rate at which work is being detached from the traditional office space because their theory is based on the growing working remotely phenomena. Secondly, the pair examine how working from home effects three main criteria for the involved parties (work effort, job-related well-being and work-life balance) and conclude that these factors are the basis for a positive or negative opinion on remote working.

Felstead and Golo apply social exchange theory in their research. Social exchange theory is broadly described as a negotiated exchanges between parties where one or each would use a pros and cons approach in making decisions or assessments. The application of this theory can be seen when the pair articulate three assumptions about the current state of the workplace. They use evidence from national and global censuses to also back where these assumptions are coming from. The first is that there is a growing emphasis on the ‘knowledge economy’ in existing and growing labour fields. The second is the notion that employers are engaging labour in more responsive ways to when are where work is needed. Then finally, there is the assumption that employers adapt and change in response to how society is changing. Using the social exchange theory, the pair outline how these assumptions brought to be and how they are grounded by statistics.

Next the authors provide a literature review to address the “work-life balance” concept that is dated before the rapid advancements of technology resulting in remote working in the last couple decades. They explain how maintaining a work-life balance s important to employees and can be taken advantage of with employers. For example, if you are done work at your office at 5pm, back up you lunch and leave, you are removed from the environment. Additionally you may be more likely to leave behind your computer and on-going work. In comparison, if you work from home and have you computer and notes, “turning off” is argued to be much harder because you are not removed from the physical space. You may be more likely to have to take calls from you boss as well since they are aware you have the tools necessary to send an e-mail or complete a task after hours if needed. They argue that this work-life balance is an extremely important factor when employees are deciding to remotely work.

In the data-heavy section of the article, the pair demonstrate how there is a growing number of working individuals remotely working one or more days a week. They also show how the data suggest that remote working has increased in all sectors except factory-based work. This was very important to be highlighted because it contributes to their previous ideas of a knowledge economy. Many other connections are drawn closely together in the concluding pages.

Felstead and Golo end by revisiting the basis’ of their research theory. They summarize that they demonstrated a growing number of remote workers. They also link the ideas of a knowledge, economy, responsive labour and social trends to important influencing factors of this growth. Then they examine studies as well as their own that explains how effort, well-being and work-life balance are viewed by the workers. Some stated that they may have had to put in more effort because they worked harder and/or longer outside of the “normal” office hours, but that these things did not outweigh the benefits of remote working and the flexibility that contributed to the well-being of employees. In conclusion, the pair state that the hard work and job satisfaction of the employee resulted in happy employers, exemplifying a “win-win” situation.

The overall thorough analysis of multiple mediated factors makes for a well formulated argument and a reasonably derived academic conclusion. Additionally, both authors come from well-established and respected backgrounds. Dr. Golo Henske states that his research cuts across “multiple themes in labour economics. Among others, it illuminates patterns and determinants of heterogeneity in graduate outcomes in the labour market and beyond […] and the relation of job quality with workers' health and wellbeing.” This is clearly highlighted by the topic of the paper and the way in which certain patterns and trends were examined to prove their theory. His partner, Professor Alan Felstead has a lengthy list of publications, awards, and academic responsibilities at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom. He too specializes in areas of labour-economics making both of the writer’s backgrounds important understandings of their proper analysis.


Henseke, G. (n.d.). Dr Golo Henseke. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from [1]

Professor Alan Felstead. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2018, from [2]