Following the Trump Administration’s push for federal workers to return to the office, a new study emphasizes the potential drawbacks of this directive. Conducted by Alessandra Fenizia and Tom Kirchmaier, researchers from George Washington University and the London School of Economics, the investigation focuses on how work-from-home (WFH) arrangements affect productivity in public sector roles. Their findings reveal that working remotely enhances productivity by 12% compared to traditional in-office work.
The common belief suggests that physical presence ensures greater accountability and output. However, the study’s conclusions indicate that such arguments may stem more from perception than objective reality.
The research, which analyzed detailed administrative data from police staff who alternated between home and office environments, found that employees working remotely managed a higher number of cases daily, without any increase in errors or decline in quality. These results remained consistent even when the researchers adjusted for variables such as shift duration and task type, confirming that the outcomes were not simply due to different work schedules. Moreover, the boost in productivity was amplified when supervisors assigned tasks, rather than relying on automated systems, implying that the structure and oversight of remote work can be crucial in maximizing its benefits.
A primary factor contributing to the increased productivity was a reduction in workplace distractions. The study observed that in an office setting, employees were more prone to interruptions from conversations, coffee breaks, and other non-work-related interactions. In contrast, the relative solitude of remote work fostered sustained concentration, leading to a greater volume of cases completed from home. This contradicts a prevalent narrative promoted by some legislators, who argue that employees working remotely are more likely to be idle without the direct supervision provided in office environments.
For example, Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, at the January 15, 2025 “Stay-at-Home Federal Workforce” hearing, attributed service backlogs to officials “coddling federal workers with a perk—telework—that allowed them to shirk their duties.” Similarly, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, informed reporters on December 5, 2024, that only “about 1 %” of federal employees were “actually working in the office,” adding that workers must “return to their desks and get back to the work they are supposed to be doing”—a claim Politifact rated as “Pants on Fire.” Nonetheless, Fenizia and Kirchmaier’s data showed no such shirking; instead, it demonstrated that remote work can improve efficiency without sacrificing quality.
The study’s findings present a nuanced view. The researchers determined that productivity gains were most significant when supervisors actively participated in assigning tasks based on the workers’ strengths, rather than using an automated system. This suggests that remote work, when paired with effective management practices, can unlock even greater productivity gains than those observed in a typical office setting. The advantages of telework, therefore, extend beyond mere flexibility—they can encompass improved task alignment, fewer distractions, and greater efficiency.
Yet, despite this evidence, the movement to compel a return to in-office work has been gaining traction. Lawmakers assert that local economies, such as small businesses in downtown areas, suffer when federal offices remain vacant. For instance, in an April 30, 2024, subcommittee hearing on commercial real-estate risks, Michigan Republican Rep. Lisa McClain stated that “Even Mayor Bowser has told President Biden that his administration’s telework policies are killing Washington, D.C.’s local businesses.” However, the study suggests that a blanket return-to-office policy might be addressing the wrong problem. If telework enhances efficiency, the true question should be how to establish remote work as a sustainable and secure option, not how to force a reversion to the pre-pandemic norm.
Ultimately, a persistent insistence on returning to the office could jeopardize federal efficiency and employee morale. The data presents a clear picture: remote and hybrid work, when thoughtfully implemented and managed, can be more than just a temporary solution. It represents a viable long-term strategy for boosting productivity, reducing costs, and fostering a more satisfied workforce. Instead of focusing on filling office desks, policymakers should prioritize performance outcomes and seek ways to combine the benefits of both remote and in-office work.