Remote Work Penalties: Work Location and Career Rewards

Abstract

Remote, home-based work has long been devalued in the United States as it is associated with flexible work, disproportionately pursued by women, and a violation of ideal worker norms. The shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic created a scenario where a large proportion of professional/white-collar workers experienced remote work; and workers and managers witnessed the potential for continued productivity. This potentially shifted managers’ perceptions of remote work, no longer signaling deviance from the ideal worker norm. Conversely, it may still trigger workplace penalties, despite wider adoption during the pandemic. Understanding these perceptions is important, especially for workers with young children who disproportionately access remote work. This study tests competing explanations for productive employees with young children through a survey experiment that assesses whether managers perceive that managers (i.e., their peers) (1) are equally supportive of remote and in-person employment; (2) think that rewards should be allocated differently in light of work location; and (3) impose different performance expectations in light of work location. We find that managers perceive that peers allocate higher rewards to in-person workers. This is partially explained by different perceptions of leadership, work commitment, and to a lesser extent competence. We do not find gender effects.