Remote work has dramatically changed the world of work as we once knew it. The COVID-19 pandemic was a tidal wave, but rising tides have been elevating virtual, or hybrid work to greater prominence since the late 1990s and early 2000s. Last year’s dispute between the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the federal Treasury Board over Remote Work Arrangements (RWA) brought a lot of questions to the fore about how to best incorporate remote work into flexible job and work designs, and in such a way that it ultimately fosters stronger workplace motivation. The main aim should be ensuring that RWA leads to better individual job performance and organizational outcomes.
One thing is for sure, shoehorning all RWA into a one-size-fits-all mold will lead to unintended consequences. We need to consider all the nuances to get the most out of RWA. Researchers now know a fair bit about some of the benefits and drawbacks of RWA, but there’s still a lot of uncertainty and possible unanticipated costs that may emerge. More empirical work needs to be carried out to identify the ‘boundary conditions’ that delineate when, how, and under what circumstances organizations can reap the most reward from RWA while limiting any undesirable consequences.
RWA clearly benefits public sector employees and governmental organizations in numerous ways, such as raising productivity, speeding up connectivity, and offering better work-life balance. The environmental benefits from less commuting, though not my focus here, should also be recognized. But there are also concerns that the benefits may dissipate over time due to changes in relationships between employees, organizations, and workplace motivation.
A question that was likely not asked during the negotiations is how remote work will affect prosocial motivation i.e. a “desire to protect and promote the well-being of others” in the workplace. Evidence shows that prosocial motivation in the workplace is influenced by the extent of interpersonal interactions, especially with beneficiaries of one’s work. Professor Dominika Wranik and I flagged this issue in a recent article for the Conversation Canada, but I’ll dive a bit deeper in this blog post. So then, what happens if remote work starts eroding those instrumental workplace relationships, which help sustain the prosocial motivation that (partly) underlies public servants’ job performance and perceived job satisfaction?
Empirical Evidence on RWA is Growing but Key Questions Remain Unanswered
There are lots of potential benefits of remote work, though the empirical evidence is still on the sparser side. A recent literature review found that RWA can foster some desirable workplace outcomes like improving job satisfaction, lowering absenteeism, and reducing on-the-job distractions. But such benefits hinge on how remote work is designed – i.e. specific job characteristics and resources like time pressure, autonomy versus control, dispute resolution mechanisms, supervisor support, and sources of feedback. Workers who have strong social support, and those who were more emotionally stable and felt more autonomy experienced the most benefit from remote work.
However, RWA was also found to raise stress and reduce engagement in certain circumstances. The reduction, or even complete absence, of interpersonal contacts and in-person encounters has been linked to elevated feelings of social isolation and loneliness. And higher job satisfaction seemed to wane and level off as the amount of time working remotely exceeded a particular number of hours per week.
Limited research on RWA in the public sector has also uncovered some possible downsides. One study published just before the COVID-19 pandemic looked at daily reports from civil servants to analyze how RWA affected work engagement; no evidence was found that remote work fostered more engagement. On the contrary, their results suggest that civil servants who worked from home felt a stronger sense of being isolated from colleagues and fading organizational commitment – though a “high quality superior–subordinate relationship” tended to moderate the severity of these adverse effects.
That sense of isolation may eventually lead to deleterious unintended consequences. One of those potentially damaging consequences is the sapping of many employees’ prosocial motivation – which partly depends on the proximity of workplace relationships, especially with the beneficiaries of one’s work, and helps imbue meaningfulness into public service employment.
Potential Deleterious Effect on Prosocial Motivation?
Much of the discussion surrounding RWA has ignored the potential impacts on employee motivation in general, and the prosocial motivation that can make public service jobs meaningful and satisfying. Though growing, the body of research on how remote work may impact employee motivation is still relatively small and inconclusive. But overlooking the impacts of RWA on the various types of work motivation, especially prosocial motivation, may have unexpected – and likely undesirable – consequences for Canadian public service delivery.
More precisely, the social isolation of RWA could undermine prosocial motivation by eroding the Relational Architecture – those job characteristics which “shape employees’ opportunities to connect and interact with other people” – of public service jobs. We know that “personalizing and humanizing one’s job by establishing contact with those who benefit from it can have surprising motivational effects”. Similar motivational benefits have been found for assisting one’s colleagues inside of organizations. Conversely, a lack of regular, meaningful contact with beneficiaries and coworkers – due to the rise of RWA – may deplete prosocial motivation in the public service, particularly among frontline staff who regularly interact with their beneficiaries.
There is a sizable body of evidence that public sector employees care about workplace social relationships and serving other people or society. This prosocial motivational disposition is precisely what draws many people to public service careers. So how can we fortify the Relational Architecture of employment in the age of RWA, in order that interpersonal contacts – especially with beneficiaries – continue to attract prosocial and civic minded Canadians to public service careers?
Exercise Due Caution when Adopting RWA
The technological and organizational innovations that enabled RWA have led to major changes in how, where, and when public servants do their jobs. Undoubtedly this refashioning of the workspace will continue; there’s no going back into the office full-time.
Yet, the impacts of embracing RWA on employee productivity, organizational morale, service quality, and other employment outcomes have yet to be unequivocally determined. But at a time when Canadian taxpayers are increasingly dissatisfied with government performance, it’s essential that the effects of RWA on employee motivation be considered, especially the prosocial motivation that is so conducive to personally fulfilling public service careers.
One of the most important, yet little discussed issues that the recent dispute between the federal Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, is how little we know – with much certainty at least – about motivation among Canadian public servants and about the potential motivational effects of RWA. The potential to deplete prosocial motivation as occasions for meaningful interpersonal interactions dwindle, especially with beneficiaries who rely on key public services, is a deleterious side effect of remote work that must be considered and addressed.
With all the unknowns it’s imperative to move forward with caution. Human resources scholars and practitioners are still learning about how, when, and for whom the benefits of RWA in the public sector exceed the costs, and vice versa. HR managers should think carefully about buttressing the Relational Architecture of public service jobs to protect employees’ prosocial motivation before finalizing any RWA in government organizations permanent. Like all other organizational and economic considerations, potential downsides and costs must be weighed against any benefits.
Photo by Ketut Subiyanto
