Work-From-Home: convenience versus consequence

By Prof Colin Thakur 

Geopolitics is wreaking havoc on international fuel supply, national availability, and pricing. The escalated costs are passed to helpless citizens. Employers, facing a recessionary economy are seeking ways to reduce headcount to survive. They are simply unable to further assist employees.  Against this backdrop, working from home (WFH) has emerged as an compelling value proposition, which reduces commuting costs as well as national fuel consumption. WFM offers further tangible economic benefits to labour as well as management.

South Africans already experienced WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic. Supported by ICT, employees and organisations collaborated remotely to keep the economy functioning under extremely difficult circumstances. That we emerged on the other side is a testament to both our collective ingenuity and our uniquely South African “make-a-plan” spirit.

The legacy of these experiences provides valuable practical lessons. We now have an opportunity to leverage this hard-earned knowledge by strategically formalising selected aspects of WFH to benefit both employees and organisations.

There are several obvious advantages to working from home. Reducing commuting immediately lowers fuel consumption, vehicle maintenance, and insurance expenses. Driving less reduces stress, travel fatigue, smash-and-grabs, and even carjacking. It also lowers the risk of accidents and pothole damage. The environmental benefits are equally important. Reduced congestion means lower carbon emissions, less road damage, and lower fuel usage, all of which ultimately benefit the broader economy and ultimately the national balance of payments.

There are also other socially related advantages. WFH potentially allows employees more time with family. In many cases, stronger family support structures contribute positively to mental well-being. Happier employees are perceived to be more productive. Productivity may also be maintained, as staff can continue working through minor illnesses. Work continuity is mitigated during disruptions such as floods and protests.

On the other hand, the blurred boundary between home and work extends the working day. Many employees struggle to switch off, which, over time, may contribute to exhaustion and burnout.

Cybersecurity presents another layer of complexity. In a traditional office environment, ICT departments maintain tighter control over digital infrastructure and security. The distributed WFH model creates multiple potential points of vulnerability, particularly when employees begin using personal or shared household devices.

One of the greatest challenges associated with WFH is the reduction in face-to-face interaction. Reduced physical engagement may weaken workplace socialisation, deepen disengagement, and foster feelings of exclusion among employees. Over time, some workers begin to feel disconnected from organisational structures and management processes.

The “out of sight, out of mind” perception becomes notably pronounced amongst quiet or less assertive employees. They fear being overlooked for promotion and career advancement opportunities simply because they are not physically visible within organisational spaces. I refer to this phenomenon as proximity bias, where career mobility is influenced less by actual performance and more by physical presence, informal networking, and visibility within the workplace.

There is also the uncomfortable reality that some WFH employees are more equal than others. Not every employee has access to reliable internet connectivity or sufficient living space for office furniture. If organisations attempt to offset these inequalities, the capital costs can become substantial. For many employees, especially those in large households, finding a consistently quiet workspace is simply not realistic.

Ironically, while Gen Z employees are often perceived to benefit most from remote work, they may also be the quickest to disconnect psychologically from organisations because they place a particularly high value on lifestyle balance and flexibility.

Many corporates spend years building and nurturing a shared vision, mission, and organisational culture. However, sustaining that culture becomes far more challenging in a fully remote environment where most human interaction is mediated through screens. Poor home office setups may contribute to ergonomic problems such as back pain, neck strain, and reduced physical activity.

If we are honest, our COVID WFH transition was more real-time patchwork than a careful implementation. While the system largely worked, it was not always plain sailing. As with all technological interventions, new solutions inevitably introduce unintended consequences.

A balanced discussion is therefore essential. COVID forced us into remote work. Economic realities and practical considerations may now encourage corporates to revisit it more deliberately. This time, however, the process requires a structured and evidence-based approach informed by the lessons of Covid.

A carefully designed pilot may be the most sensible starting point. Human resources departments should neutrally assess the labour experience. Finance divisions should conduct detailed cost-benefit analyses. Executives should evaluate the impact on productivity and the organisational bottom line. Most importantly, the authentic voices and lived experiences of employees themselves must be canvassed objectively, openly, and without fear, favour, or bias.

It is clear that WFH experimentation should be continued.

Prof Colin Thakur is a Distinguished Professor in 4IR and Digitalisation at the University of South Africa in the College of Science, Engineering and Technology.

He writes in his personal capacity.