More satisfied but less engaged: agile work, fragile engagement

The debate on remote work is polarized and often divisive. Until recently, many considered it a panacea; today, in many quarters, it is portrayed as an anomaly to be corrected. Research conducted on more than 2,100 workers instead presents it as a mirror of job quality and organizational relationships. Remote working, in itself, does not automatically improve either well-being or engagement. Its effects on people and firms depend largely on how work is designed and how relationships function within the organization.

The analysis also shows that two constructs that appear very close—job satisfaction and the level of engagement within the company—are not always aligned in the case of remote work. The study finds that as the number of remote working days increases, individual satisfaction tends to remain stable (or grow slightly), while engagement declines significantly. People may have an immediate positive reaction (this is satisfaction), but then participate with less engagement in the company’s trajectory. This dynamic overturns many optimistic narratives about agile work and should raise a warning flag.

Emotional states and deep ties

In just a few years, remote work has shifted from a niche practice to a widespread mode. Before the pandemic, it was mainly the domain of highly skilled workers and technologically advanced companies; today, it is a structural component in many organizations.

The literature has long oscillated between two views: on the one hand, remote working as a driver of productivity and flexibility; on the other, as a source of isolation, coordination difficulties, and a loss of social cohesion.

The point is that work is not only productivity. Work is also relationships, identity, and motivation. For this reason, variables such as satisfaction and engagement—which measure, respectively, an immediate emotional state and a deep connection to work—are central to understanding what is really happening in organizations.

The questions the research seeks to answer are therefore:

• Does remote work really increase well-being and engagement?
• How do job characteristics and relationships influence these effects?
• What happens when work moves outside the firm as a social place?

The centrality of relationships with managers and colleagues

The study analyzes a sample of 2,141 employees of a large service company: 1,879 staff members and 262 managers.

This is a particularly interesting context because remote work is widespread and varies in intensity: the company requires a minimum level of presence (about 40 percent) but leaves ample individual discretion. As a result, 67.5 percent of employees work remotely three days a week; 22.7 percent two days; smaller shares go up to five days.

The researchers analyze the impact of remote work on job satisfaction and engagement, relating it to job characteristics (autonomy and interdependence), social factors (relationships with managers and colleagues), and individual conditions, particularly the level of perceived fatigue.

The results are important and, in some cases, counterintuitive:

• No significant relationship between remote work and satisfaction (a weak positive effect is observed, but it is not statistically significant).
• A negative relationship between remote work and engagement. The sense of fatigue at the end of a day spent working remotely strongly and significantly reduces both satisfaction and engagement.
• Relationships are highly relevant: the relationship with the manager has the strongest positive effect on both variables, while the relationship with colleagues mainly increases engagement.
• Job characteristics matter especially for staff members: autonomy increases both satisfaction and engagement; interdependence reduces satisfaction.

A particularly relevant finding is that remote work has different effects on satisfaction and engagement, which have historically been considered closely linked outcomes. It is precisely this divergence that raises questions for those concerned with organizational design.

Redesign rather than relocate

The research shows that remote work acts as an amplifier of existing organizational conditions.

Managers cannot limit themselves to measuring satisfaction. This is a short-term variable, influenced by contingent factors. Engagement, by contrast, is what holds people together over time.

What emerges is the social dimension of work. Relationships with managers and colleagues are the main factor that offsets (or amplifies) the effects of distance, and leadership becomes even more central, as the relationship with the manager is the most powerful factor in sustaining engagement and mitigating fatigue.

Efforts to define an “ideal” number of remote working days do not appear very useful, because the effects depend on context, job design, and the quality of relationships.

Ultimately, work needs to be redesigned, not just relocated.

At a broader level, there is a risk of a gradual weakening of the firm as a social community. Remote work can, in fact, have negative effects especially on informal and spontaneous interactions, which are essential for building trust, learning, and a sense of belonging.

The evolution of organizational structures is covered in the Nuove forme di organizzazione e lavoro program (in Italian).

Rossella Cappetta, Sara Lo Cascio, Massimo Magni, Alessia Marsico. “Beyond the office: an examination of remote work, social and job features on individual satisfaction  and engagement.” Personnel Review, ahead-of-print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2024-0357.