Study questions whether remote work is really as effective as previously thought — sparking debate among companies and workers

A recent study has reignited the debate over remote work by questioning its true effectiveness. The findings challenge employers and employees to reevaluate the impacts of this model on performance, collaboration and productivity over time.

For a long time, the remote work It was seen as the perfect solution for a more balanced life. Without traffic, with more time for family and a more flexible routine, it seemed like everyone would win. But this view began to be questioned.

With companies pushing for a return to office, debates have arisen about productivity, fairness and even inequality. Now, a new study conducted by British universities provides answers that could change the course of this conversation.

In recent years, business leaders have raised an important point: Does remote work only benefit some employees?

According to figures like Elon Musk, the answer is yes. For them, working from home creates an unfair division.

While professionals in corporate areas work comfortably from home, others need to be physically present every day.

But this criticism lost strength with the results of the study carried out by three British institutions — University of Nottingham, Sheffield University and King's College London.

The research analyzed the income of remote workers since the beginning of the pandemic and brought an interesting discovery.

Yes, those who work remotely tend to earn more. However, this is not directly related to the fact that they are working from home. The main reason is another: professional qualification.

Higher salaries are linked to the role performed and the professional's level of specialization.

In other words, remote work does not, in itself, generate income inequality. The difference in earnings already existed before and continues to be linked to factors such as education and position held.

The research also revealed another important fact: the work model — remote, hybrid or in-person — does not significantly influence the salary difference between groups of employees.

Weakened criticism of remote work

With these results, the argument that home office increases inequality in the workplace loses strength.

The study suggests that companies need to be more cautious about using this justification to force a return to the office.

Rather than reinforcing the idea of ​​injustice, it is necessary to understand the true impacts and motivations behind remote work.

Inequality, it seems, is more related to the structure of the labor market than to the place where it is carried out.

What makes remote work worth it?

Even without direct salary gains, many people still prefer to work from home.

To understand why, researchers also analyzed workers’ perceptions of the benefits of this model.

The results show that professionals value more than just money. Flexible working hours, comfort and autonomy weigh heavily on the scale.

Less money, more quality of life

One interesting fact from the study is noteworthy: workers said they would accept an average salary reduction of 8,2% in exchange for the possibility of working from home two or three days a week.

This arrangement shows that, for many, the freedom to organize their own time is more valuable than a salary increase.

Being able to pick up your children from school, cook at home or simply avoid traffic are advantages that make a difference.

Additionally, working from home tends to be less stressful. The more relaxed environment, without the constant pressure of the office, allows employees to feel more at ease.

You can dress casually, create your own routine and, in doing so, improve productivity without compromising your well-being.

And what should companies do?

Given this data, a new question arises: does it make sense to use the inequality argument to end home office?

For the study authors, the answer is no. Using this discourse as a justification may be, at the very least, misleading.

If the intention is to bring employees back to the office, it may be time to rethink the strategy. Instead of imposing a mandatory return, companies could focus on incentives that make the in-person environment more attractive.

Smarter alternatives

Among the options suggested by the researchers are:

• Increase wages of those who work in person;
• Offer extra benefits, such as on-site dining, gyms or rest areas;
• Create flexible hybrid models, allowing employees to choose certain days to work from home.

These measures can help maintain engagement and productivity without causing unnecessary disruption to employees who value flexibility.

What to expect from the future of work?

The current scenario is still one of transition. The pandemic has forced rapid changes, and now many companies are trying to find the best path.

The study conducted in the United Kingdom leaves a clear message: remote work is not the villain that many imagined.

It does not increase wage inequality and, in many cases, promotes non-financial gains that are highly valued by workers.

The pressure to return to the office entirely without offering real benefits could drive away talent and create discontent.

Companies that understand employees’ new desires — autonomy, balance and well-being — are more likely to thrive in the workplace of the future.

The decision about where to work may not just be a matter of productivity, but a life choice. And for many, that choice has already been made.

Study published in papers.