The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a dramatic change in global business operations and employment strategies. One of the most notable changes for many employers was the rapid shift to a remote work environment. Employers who did not have a previously established infrastructure for remote work had to rapidly adapt their operations and policies to allow for business continuity during the pandemic. In the United States alone, the number of people working remotely has nearly tripled since 2019 (1, 2). At the close of 2022, an estimated 25% of all professional jobs in the United States were remote and it is projected that remote opportunities will continue to increase through 2023 (3, 4).
However, the availability of remote work varies by industry type and organization size. Industries that are amenable to virtual communication and operations, such as financial services, technical/professional services (e.g. information, accounting) saw more than 50% of establishments increase remote work. By contrast, less than 10% of establishments in industries that traditionally require face-to-face interaction or hands-on work, such as agriculture, hospitality, food and beverage, and healthcare shifted to remote work (3). Organization size may also influence the availability of remote work (3).
This commentary has two primary objectives, the first of which is to explore if there is a difference in total and section scores on the HERO Health and Well-being Best Practices Scorecard in Collaboration with Mercer © (HERO Scorecard) (5) between employers that report a high proportion of remote workforce compared to those that report a lower proportion of remote workforce. The second objective of this commentary is to explore if employee perceptions of organizational and cultural support differ between companies that report a higher versus lower percentage of remote workers.
To assess the impact of remote workforce on health and well-being practices, differences in HERO Scorecard total and section scores between groups stratified based on the reported proportion of remote workforce were analyzed. Of the 210 unique respondents of the Version 5 of the HERO Scorecard, 194 provided information on remote workforce (Table 1). These organizations were stratified into five groups based on their self-reported remote workforce: no remote workforce (0%) (n=22), <25% remote workforce (n=100), 25-49% remote workforce (n=23), 50-74% remote workforce (n=16), and greater than or equal to 75% (75%+) remote workforce (n=33).
Among the 194 organizations that reported information on percentage remote workforce, 51 respondents (26.2%) identified as a large organization (greater than 5000 employees), 78 (40.2%) identified as a midsize organization (500-<5000 employees), and 65 respondents (33.5%) identified as a small organization (less than 500 employees). Organizations were also classified by industry type. Among HERO Scorecard respondents, the industry that reported the highest proportion of remote workforce was technical/professional services, where 41.2% of respondents indicated that a majority (75%+) of their workforce is remote. By contrast, over 75% of respondents from transportation, manufacturing, education, and healthcare industries indicated that less than 25% of their workforce is remote (Table 2).
When comparing HERO Scorecard scores by remote workforce stratifications, the HERO Scorecard total score was highest in the 25-49% group (112.09 ± 39.69 points). The 25-49% remote workforce group also consistently scored higher than any other group for all six section scores. The no remote and >75% remote groups scored the lowest in the Scorecard sections. Table 1 provides the average scores for each section and total Scorecard score for the five different remote workforce groups.
Table 1. Scorecard benchmarking by percent remote workforce
| No remote
(n=22) |
<25% remote (n=100) | 25 – 49% remote
(n=23) |
50 – 74% remote
(n=16) |
>75% remote
(n=33) |
|
| Section 1: Strategic planning | 30 ± 12 | 30 ± 9 | 29 ± 11 | 31 ± 7 | 27 ±8 |
| Section 2: Organizational and Cultural Support | 23 ± 11 | 27 ± 12 | 30 ± 13 | 27 ± 9 | 25± 13 |
| Section 3: Programs | 9 ± 5 | 11 ± 5 | 13 ± 4 | 12 ± 5 | 10 ± 5 |
| Section 4: Program Integration | 6 ± 4 | 8 ± 5 | 10 ± 4 | 8 ± 4 | 6 ± 4 |
| Section 5: Participation Strategies | 13 ± 9 | 14 ± 8 | 16 ± 9 | 12 ± 6 | 12 ± 8 |
| Section 6: Measurement and Evaluation | 11 ± 5 | 12 ± 5 | 14 ± 6 | 12 ± 5 | 10 ± 6 |
| Total Score | 90 ± 42 | 102 ± 37 | 112 ± 40 | 103 ± 28 | 90 ± 37 |
In attempt to address the second aim of this commentary, the five remote workforce groups were compared in how employees perceive organizational and cultural support. Results are reported in Table 2 and show that employee perceptions of organizational and cultural support were highest in the 25-49% group (30.39 ± 12.99 points) overall, and notably higher than the 0% remote workforce group (23.14 ± 10.62 points) that scored the lowest.
Table 2. Perceived Organizational and Cultural Support by reported proportion of remote workforce
| No remote
(n=22) |
<25% remote (n=100) | 25 – 49% remote
(n=23) |
50 – 74% remote
(n=16) |
>75% remote (n=33) | |
| Not at all effective | 9.1% | 7.0% | 8.7% | 0.0% | 6.1% |
| Not very effective | 13.6% | 30.0% | 8.7% | 0.0% | 27.3% |
| Somewhat effective | 45.5% | 43.0% | 47.8% | 81.2% | 45.5% |
| Very effective | 27.3% | 17.0% | 34.8% | 18.8% | 21.2% |
| Extremely effective | 4.5% | 3.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Table 3. Proportion of organizations that report remote workforce across organization size
| No remote | <25% remote | 25 – 49% remote | 50 – 74% remote | >75% remote | |
| Small (n=65) | 18 (28%) | 20 (31%) | 7 (11%) | 6 (9%) | 14 (21%) |
| Mid-size (n=78) | 4 (5%) | 39 (50%) | 16 (20%) | 8 (10%) | 12 (15%) |
| Large (n=51) | 2 (1%) | 35 (70%) | 6 (12%) | 4 (7%) | 5 (9%) |
Data presented as n (%); Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Table 4. Proportion of organizations that report remote workforce across industry types
| No remote | <25% remote | 25 – 49% remote | 50 – 74% remote | >75% remote | |
| Communication (n=5) | 1 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (40%) | 2 (40%) | 0 (0%) |
| Education (n=28) | 5 (18%) | 18 (64%) | 2 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (11%) |
| Financial (n=26) | 0 (0%) | 14 (54%) | 6 (23%) | 2 (8%) | 4 (15%) |
| Government (n=19) | 5 (26%) | 5 (26%) | 3 (16%) | 3 (16%) | 3 (16%) |
| Healthcare (n=30) | 1 (3%) | 24 (81%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%) | 3 (10%) |
| Manufacturing (n=29) | 6 (21%) | 18 (66%) | 2 (7%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (3%) |
| Technical/professional (n=34) | 0 (0%) | 8 (23%) | 5 (15%) | 6 (18%) | 15 (44%) |
| Transportation (n=5) | 0 (0%) | 4 (80%) | 1 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Other (n=25) | 5 (20%) | 12 (48%) | 2 (8%) | 3 (12%) | 3 (12%) |
Discussion
Many employers have maintained remote work infrastructures or have moved to a hybrid or flexible work schedule model despite the reduction in social distancing policies. However, the results from this commentary suggest that organizations are not offering as many health and well-being best practices when their workforce has a higher proportion of remote workers (75%+) or when their entire workforce is in-person (no remote).
On average, organizations with 25-49% of their workforce working remote scored the highest on the HERO Scorecard, followed by organizations with 50-74% of their workforce remote. Further, the workforces with a mix of both remote and on-site employees (25-74%) were more likely to indicate that their organizational and cultural support was perceived by their employees as somewhat or very effective. One possible explanation for these findings is that organizations that employ both on-site and remote employees may try to offer more practices to appeal to all employees, regardless of their work location.
It is important to consider that the feasibility of enabling remote work largely depends on industry type, as some industries’ infrastructure is more aptly designed for remote work. For example, offering the opportunity to work remotely may be more feasible for office-based work, but may not be possible among traditional face to face jobs (e.g., healthcare, production and manufacturing sites, retail, food service). Furthermore, industry types have faced variable guidance on remote work, where national laws dictated what type of workers could work in-person versus remote, and when specific industries could return to the workplace (6). Past analyses using Scorecard data have also shown differences in total and section Scorecard scores by industry. The findings align with the current work, where the financial industry has been shown to score higher than other industry types on the Scorecard and the financial industry is more likely to offer employees the flexibility to work either in-person or remotely (5) Therefore, when interpreting the results from this commentary it is also important to consider the differences in health and well-being practices offered by industry type, as discrepancies are seen.
References:
- United States Census Bureau. (2022). The Number of People Primarily Working from Home Tripled Between 2019 and 2021. News Releases, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/people-working-from-home.html
- Dalton, M. & Groen, J.A. (March 2022). Telework during the COVID-19 pandemic: estimates using the 2021 Business Response Survey. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2022.8
- S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). 2020 Results of the Business Response Survey. Business Response Survey. https://www.bls.gov/brs/2020-results.htm
- 25% of all professional jobs in North America will be remote by end of next year. (n.d.). Ladders Business News & Career Advice. Retrieved April 11, 2023, from https://www.theladders.com/press/25-of-all-professional-jobs-in-north-america-will-be-remote-by-end-of-next-year
- HERO Scorecard. (n.d.). HERO. Retrieved April 12, 2023, from https://hero-health.org/hero-scorecard/
- De Vincenzi, C., Pansini, M., Ferrara, B., Buonomo, I., Benevene, P. (September 2022). Consequences of COVID-19 on Employees in Remote Working: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities: An Evidence-Based Literature Review. Int J Res Public Health, 19(18). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517495/
