Katrin Demmelhuber, Florian Englmaier, Felix Leiss, Sascha Möhrle, Andreas Peichl, Theresa Schröter - Promerit
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Katrin Demmelhuber, Florian Englmaier, Felix Leiss, Sascha Möhrle, Andreas Peichl, Theresa Schröter Remote work before and after Corona: General effects and the influence of gender Introduction Since March 2020 the Corona pandemic has taken over public and private life in Germany. Apart from the health-concerns, the economic impact of the pandemic has played a major role in current discussions. There have also been grave changes to the working world. In many industries, working from home became essential to keep businesses running amidst the Corona restrictions. A recent survey1 conducted by the ifo Institute with the management consulting firm Mercer|Promerit and FidAR e.V, examined whether and to what extent the corona pandemic will affect personnel management and what changes are expected for the future. The 1,188 survey participants include business leaders, managers and HR managers at German firms. In this study, we will present the results with regard to working from home and the differing ways men and women are affected. The full results are available in Demmelhuber et al. (2020). These results are of particular importance with respect to the current discussion around the “right” to work from home in Germany. The so-called “Mobile-Arbeit-Gesetz” (remote work act) proposes the legal right to remote working – it is however, disputed by the governing coalition. With this background, data on the effects, chances and risks associated with working from home are of enormous significance. The effect of remote working on the working world has been previously studied. For example, Alipour et al. (2020, a) present a survey-based methodology to calculate the work-from-home potential and conclude that approximately 56% of the workforce in Germany could work from home at least periodically. Alipour et al. (2020, b) document, that regions with higher levels of working from home have lower infection rates and less short-time work. The current study contributes to this literature by analyzing the potential and problems of working from home from the perspective of organizational decision-makers within the German economy. The increasing importance of working from home As a result of the Corona pandemic, there has been a significant rise in working from home2. While before the crisis, 51% of companies had employees that regularly worked from home, the numbers have climbed to 76% (see Table 1). Unsurprisingly, before the crisis working from home was more prevalent at large companies (74%) than at smaller companies (42%). Despite this, the increase in working from home was visible across companies of all sizes. Currently, almost all large companies (97%) with over 500 employees, responded that their employees are working from home.
Table 1: Answers to the question if employees were able to work from home regularly before the
Corona-crisis?
Regular work from All By company size (number of employees)
home companies 1-49 50-499 >500
Before Corona 51% 42% 50% 74%
Currently 76% 63% 79% 97%
Not only has the absolute number of companies offering remote working options increased, so too has
the extent of remote working within individual organizations (see Table 2). Considering companies which
allowed remote work before and during the crisis, the portion of the workforce working from home rose
from on average 18% before the crisis to 42% currently. Simultaneously at these companies, the average
time spent working from home jumped from 33% to 60% per employee. However, there are substantial
differences between sectors: While at manufacturing and retail companies only 24% of employees work
from home, in the service sector, 57% of employees work from home and spend 70% of their worktime
at home. These sectoral differences show that work within the services sector can be completed from
home more easily than in other industries.
The increased use of work from home is not just a temporary measure during the Corona crisis but will
determine working life in the future. 67% of companies said they would like to make more frequent use
of working from home in the future, compared to before the outbreak of the Corona pandemic. 32%
claimed there would be no changes and just 1% expect less remote working in the future.
Table 2: Proportion of the workforce and proportion of working time spent working from home
Total By Sector
Service Sector Manufacturing Retail
Proportion of Pre-Crisis 18% 27% 8% 8%
the Workforce Currently 42% 57% 24% 24%
Proportion of Pre-Crisis 33% 36% 29% 29%
Worktime Currently 60% 69% 51% 47%
Few problems with the implementation of remote work
One of this study’s key findings is that the switch from in-office work wasn’t particularly difficult. Only
16% of participants claimed to have problems transitioning to remote work, while 84% said they did not
notice any difficulties. A similar evaluation seems to remain constant across organizations of all sizes and
industries.
If there were problems, these were mostly technical (72%) or organizational (67%) (see Table 3).
Regarding the former, deficient technical requirements (55%) and insufficient bandwidth (40%) were the
most relevant problems. Difficult communication between employees (54%) and a lack of coordination
(40%) were cited as central issues regarding organizational difficulties. Over half of respondents also
reported employee-related difficulties (57%). In particular, the increasingly difficult work-life balance and
childcare (40%) were cited as problematic. In contrast, a lack of motivation (19%) or a lack of IT skills
(18%) among the workforce do not seem to have played an important role at most companies.Table 3: Types of problems when implementing home office, if any
Share of answers with “yes”
Yes, technical problems 72%
Insufficient technical requirements / IT equipment 55%
Insufficient bandwidth 40%
Too little capacity in the IT department 30%
Concerns regarding data security 30%
Yes, organizational problems 67%
Difficulties communicating between employees 54%
Lack of coordination 40%
Lack of control (options) 31%
Necessary unequal treatment due to the different suitability of 35%
different positions for working from home
Yes, employee-related problems 57%
More difficult work-life-balance / childcare 40%
Lack of IT skills among the workforce 18%
Additional burden due to the exceptional situation (stress, 30%
loneliness, etc.)
Lack of motivation / productivity 19%
Nevertheless, decreases in the quantity of work and deteriorating collaboration when working from
home were observed
The participants were also asked about changes in the quality and quantity of remote work (see Table 4).
Although many of the survey participants did not perceive any problems with the implementation of
working from home (see above), the majority tend to see a deterioration in the work of their employees
working remotely. A downward trend can be seen regarding working hours, output and in relation to the
overall work result, although some respondents also perceived a positive change in these categories. The
respondents indicated a clear deterioration in relation to collaboration (compared to face-to-face) (59%);
only a few companies (7%) see an improvement in working from home. In contrast, the effect of working
from home on the quality of work seems to be neutral, because the proportions of deterioration (23%)
and improvement (24%) are balanced here.
It is noteworthy, that participants who reported problems implementing remote work also tend to see a
greater deterioration in the quantity and quality of work than those who had no problems implementing
it. An even more pessimistic view of the quantity and quality of remote work comes from those who see
problems with the compatibility of work and family life / childcare (work-life-balance). Similarly,
Frodermann et al. (2020) found in a survey that people with children regard their work as less efficient
during the Corona crisis compared to people without care responsibilities.Table 4: Change in the quality and quantity of work by employees working from home
All Participants Worse - given Worse -
Worse No change Better implementation given
problems childcare
problems
Worktime 33% 44% 23% 44% 50%
Output 35% 38% 27% 53% 67%
Quality of work 23% 53% 24% 39% 46%
Collaboration 59% 34% 7% 70% 78%
compared to in-
person
Based on the overall 37% 44% 18% 55% 71%
work result
Greater impact on women
The survey shows that some of the consequences of the corona pandemic are not evenly distributed
between genders. This also applies to working from home. Even before the crisis, the proportion of
women (12%) working from home was slightly higher than the proportion of men (10%) (see Table 5).
Over the course of the Corona crisis, the proportion of women working from home rose slightly more (to
30%) than that of men (26%). Reasons for this could be work in different fields of activity or the
distribution of childcare related tasks.
In addition, the participants were asked whether female and male employees are affected to the same
extent by the increased use of remote working (see Table 5). The majority believe that there are no
differences (78%), while a fifth of respondents see women as being more affected. Only 2% of
participants think that men are more restricted by working from home. This assessment tends to be
shared by both female and male participants, but this observation is more pronounced amongst women.
29% of the female respondents see women as more negatively affected, while the same applies to only
15% of the male participants.
Table 5: Which gender is more affected by the increased use of home office?
Men more affected No difference Women more affected
All 2% 78% 20%
Only female 2% 70% 29%
participants
Only male participants 2% 83% 15%
The participants were also asked whether one gender is generally more affected by the numerous effects
of the Corona crisis (see Table 6). In terms of the general consequences, even more respondents see
women as being more affected (42%) than in the above question about working from home. In addition,
there is a clear difference in the perception of the sexes: While 54% of the female participants believe
that women are more affected, only 35% of the men say so. These survey results confirm the results of
the studies by Alon et al. (2020) and Fuchs-Schündeln et al. (2020) on the effects of the Corona pandemicon gender inequality. These authors document that the Corona crisis - in contrast to previous crises - has
a stronger impact on sectors with a high proportion of women within the workforce. Additionally, the
closing of daycare centers and schools have a particularly negative effect on working women. These
points could be important reasons for the different levels of affectedness between men and women.
Table 6: Which gender is generally more affected by the numerous effects of the Corona crisis?
Men more affected No difference Women more affected
All 2% 56% 42%
Only female 2% 44% 54%
participants
Only male participants 2% 56% 35%
Conclusion
The key results of our study can be summarized as follows:
1. Increased significance of working from home
2. Few problems with the implementation of remote work
3. Nevertheless, deterioration in the quantity of work and feared problems with collaboration
when working from home
4. Women are more greatly affected
The results show a mixed picture. Working from home remains an important tool within the crisis and
there were only a few problems with the implementation of remote work. The pandemic is seen as a
catalyst for the transformation of the working world: work processes were digitized within a very short
time; new communication tools were used, and digital skills were expanded. However, it is not possible
to work from home in every profession and in every industry. In addition, from the employers’ point of
view, the work result often suffers and for women - especially due to the difficult compatibility of work
and family - the negative consequences are higher. All of this provides an important contribution to the
debate about the right to work from home.
Literature
Alipour, J.-V., H. Fadinger und J. Schymik (2020, b), »My Home Is My Castle– The Benefits of Working
from Home During a Pandemic Crisis: Evidence from Germany«, CEPR Discussion Paper Nr. 14871.
Alipour, J.-V., O. Falck und S. Schüller (2020, a), »Germany’s Capacity to Work from Home«, CESifo
Working Paper Nr. 8227.
Alon, T., M. Doepke, J. Olmstead-Rumsey and M. Tertilt (2020), “The impact of COVID-19 on gender
equality”, Covid Economics: Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 4.Demmelhuber, K., R. Dirnberger, F. Englmaier, F. Leiss, S. Möhrle, A. Peichl (2020): „Die Arbeitswelt vor und nach Corona: Ergebnisse einer Befragung unter Entscheidungsträgern der deutschen Wirtschaft“, ifo Forschungsbericht, im Erscheinen. Frodermann, C., P. Grunau, T. Haepp, J. Mackeben, K. Ruf, S. Steffes, S. Wanger (2020): „Online- Befragung von Beschäftigten: Wie Corona den Arbeitsalltag verändert hat“, IAB-Kurzbericht, 13/2020. Fuchs-Schündeln, N., M. Kuhn, and M. Tertilt (2020): “The Short-Run Macro Implications of School and Child-Care Closures.” CEPR Discussion Paper Nr. 14882.
You can also read
