Dr. Gleb Tsipursky – The Office Whisperer
Nirit Cohen – WorkFutures
Angela Howard – Culture Expert
Drew Jones – Design & Innovation
Jonathan Price – CRE & Flex Expert
- When distractions decrease, the overall task completion rate improves, and the quality of work remains stable.
- Reduced morale can translate into diminished job satisfaction and higher turnover rates, both of which can be costly for government agencies.
- Remote and hybrid models have been credited with reducing stress and commuting-related fatigue, allowing employees to devote more energy to their responsibilities.
As the conversation continues around whether federal employees should be required to work primarily in offices, per the Trump administration’s RTO mandate, the existing mandate from the previous administration has reignited debates about the value and feasibility of remote work.
Telework, once viewed as a temporary arrangement during the COVID-19 pandemic, has emerged as a significant driver of productivity in numerous sectors, including the public sphere.
However, some policymakers and agency leaders still believe that physical presence in the workplace is paramount for productivity, accountability, and professional development.
These assumptions underpin return-to-office requirements for federal workers, yet growing evidence suggests that these mandates might actually address a problem that does not exist.
Recent research from a study of public sector employees in the United Kingdom highlights the tangible benefits of telework.
While remote and hybrid work arrangements have been debated for years, the events of the pandemic forced a large-scale, unplanned experiment. Many organizations, including government agencies, had to shift their operations online almost overnight.
This accelerated adoption of technology and digital communication tools showed that, contrary to some expectations, essential government functions could continue without significant disruption. Even more surprising was the rise in productivity observed by many offices.
Data Underscores the Productivity of Remote Work
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence supporting the effectiveness of telework in the public sector comes from the Greater Manchester Police’s Crime Recording and Resolution Unit (CRRU).
Researchers Alessandra Fenizia (The George Washington University) and Tom Kirchmaier (London School of Economics) conducted a thorough investigation using administrative data collected from workers at the CRRU. Their methodology was particularly robust because it allowed them to use quasi-experimental designs to compare employees who worked remotely with those who stayed in the office, all while maintaining the same types of tasks.
Their findings were unequivocal: telework boosted productivity by 12% compared to office-based work. This jump suggests that, under the right conditions, having employees at home can yield significant benefits.
Unlike many tasks that are difficult to quantify, the CRRU staff had clear performance metrics — completing and accurately documenting criminal cases — which provided a consistent, measurable standard for productivity.
Over time, data showed that home-based staff could handle more cases without sacrificing attention to detail or the quality of the information provided. This indicates that telework not only matches in-office productivity but can exceed it.
More stories for you
Reduced Distractions and Organized Workflows
The key driver behind these productivity gains appears to be the decrease in office-based distractions. Traditional office settings can be lively and social, which can help build workplace culture but often undermines concentrated focus.
Employees who work in open-plan offices, for instance, cite a range of interruptions — from spontaneous conversations to ambient noise. In contrast, teleworking staff at the CRRU found it easier to maintain focus on tasks for extended periods without casual interruptions from colleagues.
Interestingly, the study also observed the effects of shift timing. Night shifts, which inherently involve fewer people on-site and fewer distractions, showed smaller differences between remote and in-office productivity.
This finding underscores the role of the work environment itself; when the office is quieter, the productivity gap between remote and on-site staff narrows. However, during busier day shifts, social engagements, unplanned check-ins, and general commotion in the office had a more pronounced impact on focus. Employees working from home during those same day shifts maintained a higher level of efficiency.
Flexibility and Earlier Start Times
Beyond managing distractions, employees who worked from home also benefited from starting their day earlier, even though they did not necessarily log more total hours.
This shift in schedule often arises because remote workers can immediately begin tasks without the need to commute or prepare extensively for an office setting. Over time, these small changes accumulate, allowing employees to handle more cases or assignments by the end of their shifts.
The ability to focus for longer, uninterrupted periods represents a second advantage of telework. Even minor interruptions in an office can disrupt an employee’s flow and require time to refocus on the task at hand.
When distractions decrease, the overall task completion rate improves, and the quality of work remains stable. The CRRU study found no increase in the time spent per case, despite the jump in overall productivity, reinforcing the notion that remote workers were simply using their hours more efficiently.
Effective Task Allocation and Supervisor Engagement
Another important aspect revealed by the study was the influence of management strategies on productivity.
When supervisors assigned tasks according to each employee’s strengths, productivity surged even further — more than doubling the gains observed under automated task assignment systems.
This suggests that a high-performing remote work environment is not simply about letting employees log in from home and work independently. Instead, it requires thoughtful leadership that understands how to best leverage each employee’s capabilities.
This point is crucial for informing federal workforce policy. If telework is to become a mainstay, agencies must invest in training supervisors to effectively manage remote teams.
For instance, implementing data-driven strategies for task allocation ensures that the right person is doing the right task at the right time. This approach taps into the potential for improved worker motivation and satisfaction, as individuals are more likely to excel at tasks aligned with their strengths.
Moreover, when productivity is measured accurately and supervisors stay actively engaged, the concerns about lack of accountability in remote work environments can be addressed.
Implications for Federal Workforce Policy
Despite these findings, many federal agencies are confronted with a demand to reduce telework options. Some policymakers argue that government offices should be fully staffed to enhance collaboration, sustain local economies, and justify the costs of maintaining large federal buildings.
On the surface, these concerns are understandable. Local businesses around government hubs often rely on foot traffic from federal workers, and unused office space can seem wasteful.
However, a closer examination of this new research challenges the notion that remote work hurts productivity. In fact, the evidence shows that telework can boost efficiency while maintaining accountability through structured management practices.
These results also caution against applying a one-size-fits-all policy across the diverse range of roles within federal agencies. Some positions require frequent face-to-face interaction — such as certain law enforcement and emergency response duties — while others, like data analysis or case processing, might benefit from extended stretches of uninterrupted work.
By mandating a uniform in-office schedule, agencies risk hindering efficiency in roles that are uniquely suited to remote work.
Furthermore, morale is an important consideration. Federal employees who have thrived in remote or hybrid setups may feel demotivated if they are compelled to return to a traditional office environment that disrupts their established routines.
Reduced morale can translate into diminished job satisfaction and higher turnover rates, both of which can be costly for government agencies. Maintaining flexibility can preserve the positive momentum observed during the pandemic-era shift to remote work.
Hybrid Arrangements as a Middle Ground
The findings from the Greater Manchester Police study highlight that employees did not gain additional productivity advantages when moving from a hybrid schedule — where they spent some time in the office — to working almost exclusively from home.
This suggests that a balanced approach could yield the best outcomes. A hybrid model, in which employees work from home a few days per week and come into the office for the remainder, might address both the need for collaboration and the desire for uninterrupted focus time.
This approach could also mitigate concerns about local economies and underutilized federal buildings. By carefully coordinating in-office days, government agencies can maintain a certain level of foot traffic in surrounding business districts.
At the same time, workers retain the flexibility that fosters the productivity and well-being benefits associated with remote work. Managers could designate specific days for team meetings, onboarding sessions, and collaborative activities, ensuring that employees still have opportunities to build relationships and share knowledge in person.
Moving Forward with Evidence-Based Policy
As policymakers weigh the pros and cons of requiring federal employees to return to the office full-time, it’s crucial to ground decisions in data.
The CRRU study demonstrates that telework can match or exceed office-based productivity under the right conditions. Far from undermining worker effectiveness, remote arrangements can enhance it, especially when supervisors employ deliberate methods of task allocation and maintain robust accountability measures.
Moreover, choosing a flexible telework policy can help agencies attract and retain talent. Many workers, especially those with family or caregiving responsibilities, value the autonomy that comes with remote arrangements.
For the federal government to remain competitive in recruiting, it must recognize that job seekers often consider work-life balance as a key factor. Denying telework opportunities where they are feasible could put federal agencies at a disadvantage compared to private-sector employers that have embraced remote work.
Finally, the debate should not ignore the significance of employee satisfaction and well-being. A happier workforce is often a more productive one.
Remote and hybrid models have been credited with reducing stress and commuting-related fatigue, allowing employees to devote more energy to their responsibilities. These intangible benefits can have a direct impact on performance, efficiency, and the overall quality of public service.
Conclusion: Rethinking Federal Telework Policy
The evidence is clear: telework can offer substantial advantages for federal employees and their agencies. From reduced distractions and earlier start times to improved task allocation and better morale, remote and hybrid options have a powerful impact on productivity.
In the face of such data, forcing a universal return-to-office mandate appears to solve a problem that, for many roles, simply does not exist.
Rather than sweeping requirements, policymakers and agency leaders should consider more flexible, evidence-based arrangements. Doing so will allow them to harness telework’s benefits, improve overall efficiency, and maintain staff satisfaction.
By balancing collaboration needs with focused work time, federal agencies can optimize performance and accountability while adapting to the evolving workplace landscape.
In short, a nuanced policy that recognizes the diversity of government roles and the tangible benefits of telework stands the greatest chance of serving both public servants and the broader public interest.
