Remote Work Delivers: What the Research Reveals

Effective September 2025, Governor McMaster’s executive order mandates clearer, more consistent remote work policies across state government—including requiring agency plans approved by State HR, limiting remote work to two days per week, and restricting remote privileges for senior managers and directors. governor.sc.gov

Across many sectors—including tech/IT—remote work has been shown to deliver real benefits: higher or stable productivity, better well-being, improved employee engagement and retention, and organizational cost savings. Many of its downsides (isolation, coordination challenges, boundary blurring) are manageable when policies are well designed. Decision-makers should consider remote work as a serious option, not just an exception.

Introduction

Remote work (or telework, working from home, etc.) became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its viability extends well beyond emergency circumstances. While some roles require in-person presence, for many jobs—particularly knowledge work—remote work offers significant opportunities. This article combines general, peer-reviewed findings and studies specific to IT/tech roles to make the case for more permissive remote work policies.

What Peer-Reviewed Studies Say: General Workforce

Productivity, Performance & Organizational Outcomes

• Anakpo, Nqwayibana & Mishi (2023) conducted a systematic review of 26 studies from 2020-2022 on the impact of work-from-home (WFH) on employee performance and productivity. They found that in most contexts, WFH had a positive impact on productivity and performance; negative or no effects were much less common. The influence of outcomes was moderated by factors such as the nature of work, employer practices, industry, and home environment.

• Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics also suggest that industries with higher proportions of remote work saw higher total factor productivity (TFP) growth in the period just before and during the early part of the pandemic, even when accounting for pre-pandemic trends.

  
  

Well-Being, Stress, Work-Life Balance

• The systematic review by Wells et al. (2023) finds that less commuting, greater flexibility, and higher autonomy tend to correlate with better well-being outcomes. However, downsides include increased sedentary behavior, more screen time, and difficulties separating work from home life.

• Winkler-Titus, Gerber & Ngalo (2025) studied remote workers in the finance sector in South Africa. Their survey found that well-being is significantly higher when remote work challenges (like loneliness, work-home interference, and procrastination) are low, and when remote work characteristics such as social support and job autonomy are strong. Self-discipline and reasonable workload also play a role.

  
  

What the Research Says for IT / Tech & Software Professionals

• A longitudinal study of software engineers (Russo, Hanel, van Berkel, etc.) during COVID-19 observed that as remote work persisted, professionals adapted: distractions lessened, work setups improved, and productivity stabilized. Social contact quality remained a strong predictor of well-being.

• Studies of remote/hybrid software teams emphasize that coordination, leadership practices, communication (especially asynchronous), and reliable technology tools are essential to sustain performance when working remotely.

Common Objections & How Evidence Counters Them

Objection	Evidence / Mitigations
“Remote work reduces productivity or causes declines.”	Systematic reviews like Anakpo et al. (2023) show that in a majority of studies, productivity is stable or improved under WFH. Negative effects tend to arise when support is lacking or work is unsuitable for remote settings.
“Teams lose cohesion, innovation, or mentoring when remote.”	Studies in the IT/tech sector show that while informal communication suffers, many teams compensate with deliberate design: virtual meetups, mentorship programs, strong documentation. Also, performance tends to stabilize as people adjust.
“Remote causes burnout, isolation, work-life boundary issues.”	The Winkler-Titus et al. study shows that challenges like loneliness, procrastination, and work-home interference reduce well-being, but presence of job autonomy, social support, and self-discipline mitigate those risks. Adaptation over time helps reduce initial negative effects.

Best Practices: What Makes Remote Work Successful

From both general and IT-focused research, the following appear repeatedly as success factors:

• Voluntary / flexible remote work rather than rigid mandates

• Clear metrics & output-oriented evaluation, rather than relying on physical presence

• Strong tools & communication practices (asynchronous work, good documentation, virtual collaboration platforms)

• Supportive environment: good home office setups, internet reliability, ergonomics, mental health resources

• Social connection & leadership: maintaining informal interaction, ensuring support from managers, building trust

• Policies for work-life boundaries: encourage breaks, limit “always on,” set expectations around email/response times

• Transition/adaptation time: many negative effects appear early, but employees and teams adapt, which improves outcomes over time

  
  

Implications for Policy Makers & Organizations

• Remote work should be permitted rather than unduly restricted, especially where job functions allow. Rules that place heavy restrictions on remote days without strong evidence may lower morale, increase turnover, and forgo productivity gains.

• Full-remote or remote-first models should not be dismissed. For many knowledge or IT roles, remote work has been shown to be viable without degrading performance—as long as the environment is well managed.

• Policies excluding senior leadership or assuming remote work is inherently inferior run counter to empirical evidence.

• Monitoring and evaluation are essential: track data on performance, engagement, retention, and well-being; iterate policies based on what works.

• Consider costs borne by employees (commute, parking, stress, home-office setup) when restricting remote options. These are real and supported by research.

  
  

Conclusion

The combined evidence from general workforce and IT/tech-specific research paints a robust picture: remote work can deliver equal or improved performance, better well-being, and stronger retention, provided policies are carefully designed. While it is not perfect for every role, the harms of over-restricting remote work are well documented—risks of burnout, turnover, reduced morale, and wasted time and cost of commuting. Decision-makers should lean toward enabling remote work, with protections and support, rather than enforcing strict limitations without clear evidence of benefit.

Key References

• Anakpo, G., Nqwayibana, Z., & Mishi, S. (2023). The Impact of Work-from-Home on Employee Performance and Productivity: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 15(5), 4529. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054529

• Winkler-Titus, N., Gerber, C., & Ngalo, V. (2025). Well-being of remote workers: Work characteristics and challenges. SA Journal of Human Resource Management.

• Russo, D., Hanel, P. H. P., Van Berkel, N., Altnickel, S., et al. (2020). Predictors of Well-being and Productivity among Software Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic – A Longitudinal Study. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10664-021-09945-9?utm_source=chatgpt.com

• Wells, J., et al. (2023). A Systematic Review of the Impact of Remote Working on Health & Well-Being. PMC.