A dual pathway model of remote work intensity: A meta‐analysis of its simultaneous positive and negative effects

As the COVID‐19 pandemic wanes, many organizations are asking employees to return to the office concerned that more extensive remote work could hurt employee morale and productivity. Employees, however, prefer to work remotely because of the flexibility it provides. In light of such competing perspectives, we conducted a meta‐analysis examining remote work intensity's (RWI) effects on employee outcomes. RWI refers to the extensiveness of remote work ranging from one or two days a week to full‐time remote work. We propose a dual pathway model linking RWI to employee outcomes arguing that it has indirect but opposing effects on the same outcomes via two mediators—perceived autonomy and isolation. Findings from a meta‐analysis of RWI's effects based on 108 studies (k = 110, N = 45,288) support the dual pathway model. Allaying organizational concerns about remote work, RWI had overall small but beneficial effects on multiple consequential employee outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, supervisor‐rated performance, and turnover intentions. We also conducted a meta‐analysis of the effects of remote work use (RWU), a binary construct taking on two values—remote workers (users) versus office‐based workers (non‐users of remote work). Findings from the RWU meta‐analysis based on 62 studies (k = 63, N = 41,904) suggest that remote workers generally have better outcomes than their office‐based colleagues. Altogether, findings suggest that remote work offers modest upsides with limited downsides—even for those who spend more time working away from the office.