Home office and digital well-being in the face of job automation: a critical review of the evidence on teleworking

Introduction: From home office as a flexible solution to the challenge of digital well-being

Teleworking shifts work activity outside the office and relies on information and communication technologies to coordinate tasks, monitor results, and maintain professional relationships. The literature has associated it with less time pressure, greater autonomy, and a reduction in certain role conflicts, although also with ambiguity, less support, and isolation ( Sardeshmukh et al., 2012) . Therefore, working from home is not a uniform intervention: its effects depend on the intensity, job design, quality of support, and home conditions. Recent reviews have found heterogeneous results in terms of health, satisfaction, and productivity, with particularly weak evidence for several health indicators (Beckel & Fisher, 2022; Lunde et al., 2022) .

Job automation adds a specific challenge. As digital surveillance, platform-mediated coordination, and the need to update skills increase, surviving remote work requires protecting digital well-being without confusing availability with performance. This article organizes the evidence around four related issues: health and disconnection, productivity, control and support, and contextual inequality. The thesis is that a sustainable home office depends less on working from home than on how demands, resources, and decision-making power are distributed.

Well-being and health in teleworking: between flexibility, technostress and isolation

Research on well-being shows a conditional relationship between teleworking and health. Flexibility can reduce pressures, but the same digital infrastructure can lengthen the workday, intensify interruptions, and weaken the boundaries between work and private life. A systematic review of 14 studies and 22,919 participants categorized outcomes in terms of general health, pain, well-being, stress, burnout, and life satisfaction, but rated the evidence as low or very low due to suboptimal designs and insufficiently studied outcomes (Lunde et al., 2022) . Beckel and Fisher’s conceptual review proposes that the effects depend on individual, work-related, family, organizational, and macrostructural factors, rather than a direct relationship between home and health (Beckel & Fisher, 2022) .

Exhaustion, psychosocial stress and health complaints while working from home.

The labor demands-resources model explains why flexibility produces opposing effects. In the study by Sardeshmukh, Sharma, and Golden, teleworking was linked to less job pressure and role conflict, as well as greater autonomy, but also to more ambiguity and less support and feedback; these conditions mediated the relationship with burnout and job engagement (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012) . The overall result was a negative association with both burnout and engagement, which precludes presenting autonomy as sufficient protection. The reduction of one demand can coexist with a loss of social resources and guidance.

Representative German data reinforce this interpretation. Wöhrmann and Ebner identify indirect relationships between teleworking and psychosomatic complaints through time management, time pressure, the extension of flexible work schedules, relationships with colleagues, interruptions, and disturbances (Wöhrmann & Ebner, 2021) . This finding shifts the focus from the modality itself to the specific conditions under which it is performed. It also advises caution in interpreting self-reported health data, as these do not, in themselves, establish that working from home causes physical or psychological symptoms.

Technostress, digital invasion, and difficulty disconnecting

Technostress arises when technology increases workload, accelerates the pace, or encroaches on non-work time. Molino and colleagues validated the Italian translation of a brief scale through two studies with 878 and 749 participants, respectively, and observed positive relationships between workload, technological stressors, work-family conflict, and behavioral stress during the health emergency ( Molino et al., 2020) . The context of lockdown limits the extrapolation to voluntary remote work arrangements, but it demonstrates how digitalization can transform spatial flexibility into continuous availability.

Overload and technological intrusion were also associated with intentions to leave work, work-life conflict, and family burnout in a longitudinal sample of 253 users of workplace technology (Harris et al., 2021) . In 601 knowledge workers, interruption overload increased work-life conflict, and this mechanism was more pronounced when control over when and how to work was low (Tams et al., 2020) . Disconnecting, therefore, does not depend solely on individual discipline: it requires the ability to effectively filter messages, prioritize tasks, and reject outside of work hours.

Workplace loneliness, work-life balance and subjective well-being

Isolation is a social mechanism with health consequences. In a study of 804 teleworkers from 28 organizations in New Zealand, organizational social support and teleworker-specific support were associated with greater job satisfaction and lower psychological stress; social isolation mediated part of the relationship between support and outcomes (Bentley et al., 2015) . A comparison between hybrid and low-intensity teleworkers revealed differences in some structural relationships, suggesting that the frequency of presence modifies connection needs. Support should include communication, feedback, and access to resources, not just encouraging messages.

The two-wave US study found that greater job control was favorably related to emotional exhaustion and work-life balance, while job loneliness showed detrimental associations with these indicators, depression, insomnia, and minor counterproductive behaviors (Becker et al., 2022) . In Spain, satisfaction with teleworking predicted subjective well-being and self-perceived performance, with well-being partially mediating the latter; those with children reported lower satisfaction, although higher subjective well-being (Blahopoulou et al., 2022) . Work-life balance, therefore, is not an automatic outcome: it can coexist with family well-being and a less satisfying work experience. This ambivalence leads directly to the question of productivity.

Online productivity: conditions, intensity, and digital tools that sustain performance

Online productivity does not consistently increase with distance from the office. Reviews distinguish between voluntary and mandatory teleworking, partial and full-time teleworking, and between self-reported performance and organizational measures. Hackney and colleagues reviewed 37 articles: before the pandemic, 19 studies showed positive effects and 5 mixed or neutral results; during the pandemic, 3 were positive, 5 mixed, and 5 negative (Hackney et al., 2022) . The difference may reflect the imposition of remote work and the simultaneous presence of lockdowns, family caregiving responsibilities, and organizational disruption.

{“typebartitleProductivity and performance results under reviewxLabelPeriod and outcomeyLabelNumber of studiesseries”:[{“nameBefore the pandemicdata[{“xPositivey”:19},{“xMixed or nully”:5}]},{“nameDuring the pandemicdata[{“xPositivey”:3},{“xMixedy”:5},{“xNegativey”:5}]}]}

The non-linear relationship between teleworking hours and productivity.

The duration of teleworking shows a non-linear relationship with performance. In Japan, Kazekami found that an appropriate number of hours increased work productivity, while excessive hours reduced it (Kazekami, 2019) . The study also observed greater benefits among people whose commutes exceeded one hour or who used congested trains and buses, linking the effect to the time and cost saved. The result does not allow for the establishment of a universal threshold, because the appropriate amount depends on the job, the household, and time management.

Life satisfaction was another mechanism associated with higher productivity in that study, while the stress of combining work and home life reduced life satisfaction without directly reducing productivity (Kazekami, 2019) . This separation between immediate performance and subjective cost is analytically relevant. A person can maintain their output while accumulating domestic stress, fatigue, or reduced recovery. Evaluating only achieved objectives can mask a transfer of costs to the worker and their family.

Satisfaction with teleworking, digital collaboration, and perceived performance

Job satisfaction is an intermediate indicator between working conditions and perceived performance. In Spain, satisfaction with teleworking had direct positive effects on well-being and self-perceived performance, and well-being partially explained the association with performance (Blahopoulou et al., 2022) . In a sample of 128 teleworkers from different sectors, reduced communication with colleagues, supervisor support and trust, and the suitability of the home workspace explained various outcomes, including self-perceived productivity (Nakrošienė et al., 2019) . Less communication may reduce unnecessary coordination, but it does not equate to quality collaboration.

Digital tools yield benefits when their use is coordinated. In a study of 438 employees in Luxembourg, the profile associated with increased productivity combined daily or weekly heavy use of groupware, workflows, instant messaging, and videoconferencing, albeit at the cost of lower job satisfaction (Martin et al., 2022) . Conversely, increasing the frequency of use of these four tools led to excessive information overload, greater stress, and reductions in satisfaction and productivity (Martin et al., 2022) . Digital performance, therefore, depends on communication rules, priorities, and skills, not on accumulating channels.

Job quality and technological resources as mediators of performance.

Job quality encompasses autonomy, clarity, support, resources, and time control. Nakrošienė, Bučiūnienė, and Goštautaitė found that a suitable workspace at home, less communication time with colleagues, and the ability to care for family members were associated with higher self-perceived productivity (Nakrošienė et al., 2019) . Evidence also indicates that the material adequacy of the home unevenly distributes productivity, as not everyone has comparable space, equipment, or acoustic conditions.

The review by Hackney and colleagues concludes that voluntary arrangements can improve productivity and performance, while mandatory, full-time arrangements yield less favorable results (Hackney et al., 2022) . This conclusion aligns with the earlier review by Bailey and Kurland, which found little clear evidence of overall increases in satisfaction and productivity and called for more precise organizational and theoretical analyses (Bailey & Kurland, 2002) . Sustainable productivity requires a shift from measuring attendance to assessing demands, resources, and outcomes. This transition leads to the question of who controls the work and who receives support.

Control, organizational support, and cultural context: who can best survive remote work

The distribution of workplace control determines whether flexibility operates as a resource or a burden. Teleworking simultaneously modifies supervision, coordination, and the domestic boundary, so its effects depend on institutional rules and the worker’s social position. The literature shows that organizational support, autonomy, and job quality are median between work modality and well-being (Beckel & Fisher, 2022) . It also shows that not all workers can transform their homes into equivalent productive spaces.

Autonomy, labor demands and socio-technical support for teleworkers

Autonomy reduces burnout and improves work-life balance by allowing individuals to prioritize tasks and manage interruptions (Becker et al., 2022) . The demands-resources model adds that autonomy can be undermined by ambiguity, insufficient feedback, and inadequate support (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012) . Sociotechnical support should include appropriate equipment, training, clear communication channels, and availability expectations that are conducive to recovery. Without these conditions, the responsibility for resolving coordination failures shifts to the individual.

Bentley and colleagues linked organizational social support and specific support for teleworkers with job satisfaction and reduced psychological stress, using a sociotechnical systems model (Bentley et al., 2015) . The mediation of isolation indicates that remote management must preserve bonds of belonging and access to colleagues. Monitoring by results requires explicit criteria, because informal control through physical presence is no longer viable. Thus, trust must be complemented with information about priorities, deadlines, and actual workload.

Power distance, individualism, and diversity of experiences in teleworking.

The effects of teleworking also vary according to cultural beliefs about autonomy, authority, and isolation. In a three-wave survey of 604 teleworkers from different countries, Adamovic found that teleworking reduced stress only when people did not believe it produced social isolation (Adamovic, 2022) . Those with high power distance beliefs had more negative views about teleworking, while those with higher individualism showed more favorable beliefs about its effectiveness (Adamovic, 2022) . These associations should not be interpreted as deterministic traits, but rather as conditions that can modify the reception of a common policy.

The intensity of teleworking also does not have uniform effects on technostress. Suh and Lee observed, in 258 teleworkers from two global information technology companies, that technology and job characteristics induced technostress, which reduced job satisfaction; those with low intensity were more vulnerable than those with high intensity (Suh & Lee, 2017) . Habituation, preparedness, and the predictability of the arrangement may explain some of this difference, although the survey design limits causal inferences. Organizations should avoid assuming that less digital exposure implies less risk.

Work-family, life balance and inequalities in the quality of remote employment

Work-life balance distributes benefits and costs unevenly. An analysis of 35,765 European workers showed that gender and the type of teleworking, along with location and intensity of information technology use, affected job quality; occasional teleworkers had better conditions, while highly mobile workers showed worse quality and work-life balance (Rodríguez-Modroño & López-Igual, 2021) . Women working from home had better quality and time commitment than highly mobile workers, but less discretion, income, and career prospects (Rodríguez-Modroño & López-Igual, 2021) . Working from home can facilitate family care and, at the same time, reinforce professional disadvantages.

Work-family conflict was linked to technological stressors and workload in Italy (Molino et al., 2020) , and to technological overload and intrusion in a longitudinal study on work and family (Harris et al., 2021) . These findings challenge policies that place the burden of simultaneously managing employment, caregiving, and connectivity on the worker. Surviving automation requires protecting job quality, not just expanding remote access. The following summary outlines what can be concluded and what remains unanswered.

Critical synthesis and gaps: what the evidence on teleworking contributes to survival in the face of automation

The evidence points to a tension between potential benefits and cumulative costs. Less commuting, greater autonomy, and fewer interruptions can improve satisfaction and productivity (Kazekami, 2019; Nakrošienė et al., 2019) . At the same time, digital overload, invasion of private time, isolation, and ambiguity can negatively impact health, satisfaction, and performance (Martin et al., 2022; Molino et al., 2020; Tams et al., 2020) . Automation can intensify both of these trends if it transforms every task into a monitored sequence and every pause into a measurable deviation.

The tension between the potential benefits and cumulative costs of labor digitization

Positive outcomes are more evident when there is choice, control, support, and job suitability. Negative outcomes increase when teleworking is mandatory, prolonged, technologically saturated, or combined with extraordinary family demands (Beckel & Fisher, 2022; Hackney et al., 2022) . This contextual dependence prevents productivity from being used as a substitute for well-being. An efficient design should limit interruptions, define availability, and preserve working relationships that reduce isolation (Bentley et al., 2015) .

Methodological limitations and lack of direct evidence on job automation

The empirical base consists of numerous surveys, self-reported measures, and studies conducted during the pandemic. The systematic review on health rated the evidence as low or very low and noted the absence of many relevant health outcomes (Lunde et al., 2022) . The review on productivity identified a reversal of results between pre-pandemic and pandemic studies, but it does not allow for precise separation of work modality, lockdown, and production reorganization (Hackney et al., 2022) . Furthermore, the cited studies examine teleworking and digitalization, not the direct effects of automation systems on employment, autonomy, or well-being.

Implications for disconnection policies, work design, and digital well-being

Policies must establish contact limits, prioritization mechanisms, and effective rights to disconnect, along with technical resources and social support. Work design must assess hours, interruptions, ambiguity, autonomy, domestic space, and caregiving burdens, not just completed tasks (Rodríguez-Modroño & López-Igual, 2021; Wöhrmann & Ebner, 2021) . Future research needs longitudinal designs, objective performance measures, populations with diverse jobs and households, and automation-specific analyses. Without these improvements, the promise of digital efficiency will continue to obscure who will bear its costs.

Conclusion: Towards a productive, sustainable, and people-centered home office

remote work is not defined by working away from the office, but rather by the relationship between autonomy, demands, resources, and time constraints. Evidence indicates that appropriate intensity, a suitable workspace, organizational support, and regulated digital collaboration can promote performance and well-being (Bentley et al., 2015; Kazekami, 2019; Nakrošienė et al., 2019) . It also shows that constant connectivity, isolation, ambiguity, and work-family conflict can transform this flexibility into burnout and a loss of satisfaction (Becker et al., 2022; Molino et al., 2020) . In the face of workplace automation, organizations must measure the quality of remote work using indicators of health, control, equality, and performance, not just availability or productivity. Digital well-being should be a design feature and a shared organizational responsibility. Automation can reinforce this orientation if it is introduced through participation, training, and genuine decision-making power, rather than by expanding surveillance or intensifying the pace of connectivity (Beckel & Fisher, 2022) . Thus, online productivity should be understood as an outcome conditioned by labor resources, organizational support, and control over digital demands, not as an automatic consequence of incorporating new tools (Sardeshmukh et al., 2012) .

References

1. Adamovic, M. (2022). How does the cultural background of employees influence the effects of teleworking on work stress? The role of power distance, individualism, and beliefs about teleworking. International Journal of Information Management , 62 , 102437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102437
2. Bailey, DE, & Kurland, NB (2002). A review of teleworking research: findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 (4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144
3. Beckel, JLO and Fisher, GG (2022). Teleworking and workers’ health and well-being: A review and recommendations for research and practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (7), 3879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073879
4. Becker, W.J., Belkin, L.Y., Tuskey, S., & Conroy, S.A. (2022). Surviving remote work: How job control and loneliness during a forced shift to remote work impacted employee work behaviors and well-being. Human Resource Management , 61 , 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22102
5. Bentley, T., Teo, S., McLeod, L., Tan, FB, Bosua, R., & Gloet, M. (2015). The role of organizational support in the well-being of teleworkers: A sociotechnical systems approach. Applied Ergonomics , 52 , 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019
6. Blahopoulou, J., Ortiz-Bonnín, S., Montañez-Juan, M., Espinosa, GT, & Buades, EG (2022). Satisfaction, well-being, and performance in teleworking in the digital age: Lessons learned during the COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. Current Psychology , 41 , 2507–2520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02873-x
7. Hackney, A., Yung, M., Somasundram, KG, Nowrouzi-Kia, B., Oakman, J., & Yazdani, A. (2022). Working in the digital economy: A systematic review of the impact of work-from-home modalities on personal and organizational performance and productivity. PLoS ONE , 17 , e0274728. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274728
8. Harris, KJ, Harris, RB, Valle, M., Carlson, JR, Carlson, DS, Zivnuska, S., & Wiley, B. (2021). Technostress and the entitled employee: Impacts on work and family. Information Technology and People , 35 , 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-07-2019-0348
9. Kazekami, S. (2019). Mechanisms to improve labor productivity through teleworking. Telecommunications Policy , 44 , 101868–101868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101868
10. Lunde, L.-K., Fløvik, L., Christensen, JO, Johannessen, HA, Finne, LB, Jørgensen, IL, Mohr, B., & Vleeshouwers, J. (2022). The relationship between teleworking from home and employee health: A systematic review. BMC Public Health , 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12481-2
11. Martin, L., Hauret, L., & Fuhrer, C. (2022). Impact of the digital transformation of teleworking on job satisfaction, work stress, and work productivity. COVID-19 findings. PLOS ONE , 17 (3), e0265131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265131
12. Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M.L., Russo, V., Zito, M., & Cortese, C.G. (2020). Welfare costs of technology use during teleworking due to Covid-19: A study using the Italian translation of the Technostress Creators Scale. Sustainability , 12 , 5911–5911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155911
13. Nakrošienė, A., Bučiūnienė, I., & Goštautaitė, B. (2019). Working from home: characteristics and results of teleworking. International Journal of Manpower , 40 (1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-07-2017-0172
14. Rodríguez-Modroño, P., & López-Igual, P. (2021). Job quality and work-life balance of teleworkers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (6), 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063239
15. Sardeshmukh, SR, Sharma, D., & Golden, TD (2012). Impact of teleworking on burnout and job engagement: A labor demands and resources model. New Technology, Work and Employment , 27 (3), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005x.2012.00284.x
16. Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research , 27 (1), 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-06-2015-0181
17. Tams, S., Ahuja, M., Thatcher, J.B., & Grover, V. (2020). Job stress in the age of mobile technology: The combined effects of perceived interruption overload and worker control. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems , 29 , 101595–101595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101595
18. Wöhrmann, AM, & Ebner, C. (2021). Understanding the upside and downside of teleworking: An empirical analysis of working conditions and psychosomatic health complaints. New Technology Work and Employment , 36 , 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12208