Many managers want to cut remote work: Here's what researchers say

“As far as I'm aware, the research does not support a general conclusion that all employees should be required to return to the office five days a week,” says Anniken Grønstad.

She is an associate professor of organisational psychology and management at Oslo New University College.

The debate over remote work is raging in Norway. The financial services group DNB has already reduced the number of fixed work-from-home days, and Nordea is considering doing the same, according to E24, among others (link in Norwegian). 

According to an NHO survey, 4 out of 10 managers say their views on remote work have changed over the past year and that they now want employees to spend less time working from home, E24 also reports (link in Norwegian).

Grønstad says business leaders need to provide stronger evidence for their arguments when they want to require employees to return to the office five days a week.

A complex picture

There are advantages and disadvantages to both an office-based culture and the option of working from home, Grønstad says. She also wrote an opinion piece on the subject for Forskersonen in April 2026 (link in Norwegian).

For employees, autonomy and flexibility are often highlighted as clear benefits, she says. In other words: people gain more control over their working day. And they save time.

"But the other side also needs to be acknowledged. There can be greater isolation and a weaker sense of belonging. If you're single and live alone, working from home can, for example, intensify feelings of loneliness. That’s something we perhaps don’t talk about enough," she says.

For businesses, the picture is also complex, according to Grønstad.

It's not simply either good or bad

Sharing knowledge and coordinating a team’s day-to-day work can be easier when everyone is in the office.

"But just because the opportunity is there doesn’t mean it actually happens," says Grønstad.

Some managers also argue that problems are easier to identify and address when employees are physically present, Grønstad points out.

"That can certainly be true. But the way of working that makes management easier is not necessarily the same one that works best for the organisation. There are some analytical leaps being made in these arguments," she says.

Grønstad draws on both her own research and that of others in the field. She believes the research paints a more nuanced picture than simply saying yes or no to working from home.

“The most interesting question isn’t whether working from home is good or bad, but what it works well for, who it works well for, how much of it works best – and what kind of workplace we’re talking about,” says Grønstad.

She believes the debate reveals a number of flaws in the reasoning being used. Some of them are also somewhat concerning.

“Logical inconsistency”

“Many of the managers who have spoken out in newspapers and on LinkedIn say that much of the learning, culture-building, creativity, and knowledge transfer takes place in the office,” says Grønstad.

This is clearly relevant, but arguments about a better working environment, collaboration, and creativity are empirical claims, and should therefore be backed up with evidence.

Many managers are very satisfied with their staff and believe they have the best employees working for them, says Grønstad.

“At the same time, those employees are not allowed to decide where they carry out their work. To me, that's a logical inconsistency,” she says.

“It doesn't quite add up”

“It simply doesn’t quite add up when we talk so much about trust and self-management in Norwegian working life, while at the same time wanting to move the entire decision about working from home further up the hierarchy," says Grønstad.

She recommends that managers deal with problems at the individual level rather than introducing rules that everyone has to follow. Grønstad also wonders whether the managerial role has failed to adapt to the times we live in.

She believes it's perfectly legitimate for managers to feel that it is easier to follow up employees when they are in the office.

"But if employees are called back because management is perceived as more difficult from a distance, is it remote working that doesn't work? Or are management practices not adapted to the way we work? There's a lot to address here," she says.

Not just the work itself

Grønstad believes that there are ways of arranging a hybrid working day that work well for both managers and employees.

Many use the 3-2 model: three days in the office, two days working from home. But there are also other ways of combining physical attendance with flexibility, according to Grønstad.

"For example, you can have certain meetings where physical attendance is necessary, regular gatherings, or in-person seminars and workshops that everyone attends. The point is that you can define when and why physical presence is important, without necessarily imposing the same rules every day," she explains.

There is considerable room between purpose-driven attendance and a general requirement to be physically present, she points out.

Returning to the old starting point?

Grønstad believes that requiring all employees to return to the office for the entire week is a significant intervention.

"For many people, working from home reduces time pressure and makes family life more flexible. That's why I would be cautious about viewing tighter restrictions as simply a change in where people work," says Grønstad. 

For some, the effects will be felt not only in their working lives, but in other parts of their lives as well, she believes.

"The reality is that an established form of flexibility is being taken away. It may be tempting to think of this as simply returning to the way things were before the pandemic. But working life has moved on," the researcher says.

Over several years, flexibility has become an established part of how many people organise both their work and everyday lives, she says.

"I therefore don't think we're returning to an old starting point. Rather, we're taking away something that's already part of today's starting point. Those are not the same thing," says Grønstad.

Voluntary working from home was associated with fewer mental health problems

Lorena Trevino is a PhD research fellow in occupational psychology and physiology at the research institute STAMI. Together with colleagues, she conducted a study of almost 25,000 office workers. All of them worked in the Norwegian public sector.

The researchers found that participants who had a flexible work-from-home arrangement had a lower risk of reporting mental health problems than employees who never worked from home.

"Feeling that working from home was a matter of personal choice was also associated with fewer mental health problems," says Trevino.

But there was also a downside. People with a high degree of flexibility at work were also more likely to feel that they had to be available outside their normal working hours.

"They experienced greater conflict between work and private life," says Trevino.

"No clear justification for removing all flexibility"

Research also points to a number of benefits of being physically present, according to Trevino. This can be important for learning, training, and collaboration, among other things.

"But this does not provide a clear justification for removing all flexibility," says Trevino.

She believes a good solution can accommodate several different needs.

"A good arrangement can take into account the work tasks, the working environment, and where the person is in their employment or career. For some tasks, collaboration, learning, and social interaction are important. Others require peace and concentration," she says.

Trevino agrees with Grønstad:

"Returning to the office is not simply a matter of physical presence; it is also about how the working environment is organised," she says.

Can feel like a loss of control

Trevino says that she and her colleagues have not specifically studied what happens when an existing work-from-home arrangement is withdrawn. 

"If employees have organised their commuting, drop-offs, pick-ups, or other family commitments around a certain degree of flexibility over the past few years, a sudden tightening of the rules may also feel like a loss of control over their daily lives," the researcher says.

Organisations have also invested in digital solutions, and working practices have changed. Both employees and managers now have several years of experience organising work around a hybrid model, says Trevino.

"Taking away flexibility that employees have already had for several years is therefore not necessarily the same as never having offered it in the first place," she says.

According to Trevino, the question after the pandemic is no longer simply whether working from home works.

"Instead, the questions are: Who does it work for, which tasks is it suited to, how much remote work is appropriate, and under what conditions?"

———

Translated by Alette Bjordal Gjellesvik

Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no

Reference:

Garcia, L.E.T. & Christensen, J.O. Hybrid work and mental distress: A cross-sectional study of 24,763 office workers in the Norwegian public sector, International Archives of occupational and environmental health, 2025. DOI: 

Subscribe to our newsletter

The latest news from Science Norway, sent twice a week and completely free.

Sign up