Ever since the Covid-19 pandemic popularised the concept of Work-From-Home, the work model has become a perk most employees seek as a must. Many are even willing to work for lower compensation if the company allows them to work from home.
However, despite the generally positive image of the WFH model, access to this perk also reflects an existing class privilege that many might not be willing to talk about. Furthermore, the WFH model has also, in some cases, exacerbated the pre-existing gender and role-based hierarchies common in Indian society.
Working remotely is mostly relegated to white-collar roles. What some have come to see as a must-have remains a foreign concept for most in India. Depending on roles, industries, locations, and even socio-economic factors, access to WFH offers a window into the persistent class divide in India.
Who Actually Gets to Work From Home?
Despite the widespread talk of WFH as a must-have perk, the work model is mostly limited to white-collar jobs. In particular, private corporate employees have much easier access to WFH models than those in blue-collar and/or frontline roles.
To understand the divide in WFH access, one need not compare people from two different companies/institutions. Even within the same company, while knowledge workers, managers, and global-facing teams may be working in hybrid or WFH models, operational staff and maintenance workers often come to the office every day to keep operations running smoothly.
The difference in WFH access also reflects the digital divide persistent in India. To truly work from home, an employee needs reliable internet access, a reliable electronic device, power backup, and a private space. All of these are advantages that are not available to everyone in India, making even working from home a challenge.
In other words, WFH is an undeniable marker of one’s professional status and is not dependent solely on job design. For someone to work from home, they need to be in a certain sector, perform mostly electronic work, and have access to reliable digital infrastructure.
Class Bias in Remote Work Policies
Depending on one’s class background, WFH can actually serve as an obstacle rather than a positive perk. From family responsibilities to local facilities, this type of work model might not be one that everyone can truly enjoy.
Housing Realities
For employees with multiple family members who share rooms or live in densely populated areas, working from home can be counterproductive. Working, no matter one’s job, requires an environment that allows one to concentrate with minimal distractions.
However, while some individuals may indeed have access to such a space in their homes, not everyone has that privilege. Constant distractions from everyday household activities can decrease productivity and increase work frustration.
Financial Privilege
As mentioned earlier, working from home does not always mean being able to work from anywhere a person wants. This, too, requires a delicate balance between having one’s own space while living in the same house as one’s family.
Not everyone, especially freshers and/or low-earning employees, has the financial ability to afford a working room of their own with the required digital facilities, such as strong internet access and even functioning electronics, to support proper work operations.
Office Visibility
Being in the office is not just about working but also about networking. However, while working from home, the concept of informal networking becomes almost nonexistent, leading many employees, especially those new to the industry, to struggle to make themselves visible in a crowd of like-minded professionals.
This hold double true for first-generation professionals who lose out on valuable opportunities by not being in close proximity to other professionals. While working in an office, employees gain knowledge beyond their job profile, something that working from home may not provide in the same way.
Informal Penalties
With reduced workplace interactions and semi-formal discussions during downtime, employees often face informal penalties. Working from home often reduces employees’ opportunities to showcase their soft skills, such as leadership, public speaking, and conflict resolution.
All of these soft skills are factors often evaluated during appraisals. However, with employees getting fewer chances to show them off, their promotions might come slower, and they might get fewer stretch opportunities to use skills not utilised in their existing job profile.
Gendered Realities of Working From Home
Apart from the class privilege that divides access to the WFH model, there are also gendered realities becoming more and more evident for working women who do have access to WFH.
India, as a society, has historically considered childcare a “woman’s job,” while husbands worked. As women entered the workforce, childcare responsibilities were increasingly being shared between partners, rather than resting on a single parent to meet the child’s needs and manage the household.
A Step Back at Home for Women
However, with the rise of the WFH model, the lines between childcare responsibilities have, in many cases, blurred once more. With both partners at home and societal expectations in place, many working women now find themselves not only doing their jobs but also taking care of their children at home at the same time.
The domestic and caregiving responsibilities have, once again, started to disproportionately fall on women. Many working women are encouraged to opt for WFH jobs, even at a lower salary, as it allows them to also take care of their work at home.
The expectation for women to be constantly available and flexible in their work has been increasing since they are, after all, “working from home” and can “adjust their work” around household tasks.
In other words, WFH, rather than being a perk for some women, has begun to accelerate burnout. Rather than being a relaxing option, WFH has become, for many women, a reason to be responsible not only for their professional jobs but also for unpaid labour at home, since they are “home anyway.”
The Motherhood & Caregiver Penalty in the Office
Due to WFH options, many working women opt for WFH to take care of household tasks. This, in turn, can lead to a bias against them for opting for WFH “too often.” Despite the fact that their day at home might really be as free as some might think, it can also give the impression that the woman in question does not have “enough commitment or ambition.”
In other words, WFH has paved the way for the rise of invisible labour, where women have started to manage household tasks during working hours. This undoubtedly impacts their productivity, but is not given due credit because of societal factors.
These situations can severely impact the career progression of female professionals. They might find fewer opportunities to take on leadership positions owing to reduced time in office and increased non-office responsibilities.
A Case for All Genders
Admittedly, it is not just women who find themselves juggling personal responsibilities with professional tasks while working from home. Being at home for employees of any gender more often than not ends up leading to handling personal chores while on call. Small grocery runs during “work breaks” just mean that employees never really get a break at all.
Another aspect of the issue arises when employees are given WFH instead of a day off when trying to avail of leave for personal tasks. This means that rather than being able to focus solely on either work or the personal task, employees find themselves having to balance both in the name of “flexibility.”
Managerial Discretion and Unequal Access
Another factor to be considered when discussing WFH models is a lack of proper structures for their proper implementation. How one can avail WFH days often depends on systematic approvals that can be hard to access and may lead some to not even be able to avail the days they are owed as compensation.
Case-by-Case Approvals and Favouritism
In many offices, WFH days require manager approval. This can lead to a disproportionate allocation of said perk. Managers may end up favouring the employees they like more and might take personal feelings into account when assigning WFH days.
There can also be a case to be made regarding varying manager standards. Within the same company, while one team may be able to get more WFH days because their manager is open to it, another team may have to come to the office more, as their manager may have stricter WFH standards. Such a discrepancy can lead to increased employee frustration.
Trust Deficits for Junior Employees
WFH is often dependent on trust. Companies and leaders showcase their trust in their employees by assuring them that their employees will work diligently, even from home. However, for some companies, such a trust is hard to place on junior employees and/or those who have not been with the company for a long time.
Many companies are hesitant to allow junior employees to work from home in case they make a misstep. Similarly, for newer employees, companies might not be confident in their ability to work in accordance with the company’s policies and framework.
Unclear Criteria for WFH Eligibility
A company may promise WFH to its employees, but if the eligibility criteria are unclear or vague, many employees may not actually be able to work from home. In many cases, informal norms override written policies, especially when the latter are too complicated to navigate.
This means that while some employees in India do have access to WFH days on paper, the complicated process to avail of them can make them inaccessible in practice. Some might even think taking a day off is less of a hassle than proving oneself to be eligible for WFH.
Intersectionality: When Class, Gender, and Caste Overlap
The concern with existing WFH models in India is the unequal access to the perk to employees across class, gender, and even caste. Instituting a “one-size-fits-all” WFH policy may seem progressive, but it fails to account for the varied societal expectations and restrictions across different population groups in India.
Women from Lower Socio-Economic Backgrounds
For women from lower socio-economic backgrounds, WFH can be a boon, especially for those with large families. However, for most women in such backgrounds, the only roles available require them to be on location.
Additionally, they often lack access to digital infrastructure or tools of trade that might allow them to work from home. For example, a woman might be working as a tailor/seamstress, but without being able to afford a sewing machine of their own, they might find it impossible to work from home.
Scrutiny on Marginalised Groups
For members of marginalised groups, who may have found themselves being discriminated against historically, the same bias can rear its ugly head when trying to avail work from home. As previously stated, a WFH model requires employers to trust their employees. However, even today, in certain areas of India, employers and managers tend to fall into society’s discriminatory class system to label someone as “trustworthy.”
Consider that an employer is considering allowing their accountants to balance the books at home. However, their ingrained biases might lead them not to trust a particular accountant because they might be from a certain “caste” or “group.” This lack of trust rooted in discriminatory practices can critically hamper employee morale.
Bias in Remote Visibility
WFH means teams with members hailing from different parts of the country. While this can create a diverse workspace, it can also lead to increased accent bias, language barriers, and cultural differences. A lack of team homogeneity can lead to heightened innovation or a complete breakdown, depending on the mindsets of the manager and the team members.
The Myth of Choice: Is WFH Really Optional?
With all these factors in mind, one has to ask: Is WFH really optional? Is it a perk worth pursuing? In many companies, employees are forced to choose between flexibility and career growth, even if they adhere to the letter of the WFH policy in place.
As many companies have started “voluntary” return-to-office policies, informal penalties on remote workers are likely to continue to increase. Many are now evaluating the financial costs of staying at home versus commuting to work. Each has its pros and cons, but requires changes in one’s lifestyle.
Many workers since COVID-19 have framed their lives around a WFH style. For many, it has become a survival strategy rather than a lifestyle preference. For others who lack adequate digital infrastructure, WFH has become a hurdle they cannot overcome.
Rethinking Equity in Remote Work Policies
WFH models in India need to change how its assigned and provided. Rather than a simple promise of flexibility, it should take into account the different circumstances of the employees and whether or not the “perk” is really an advantage.
Instead of role-based WFH eligibility, a shift to person-based eligibility may be required to achieve true equity. Providing WFH options should include appropriate stipends, equipment, and childcare, so WFH is truly productive and feasible.
Moreover, the stigma surrounding WFH employees needs to be lessened. One’s presence in office should not be considered an indication of their commitment and ambition. Rather than relying on one’s ability to stick to traditional work models, Indian employers need to evaluate outcomes to take the true measure of an employee.
In the End…
The WFH model in place in India is a mirror of the workplace and societal inequality prevalent in the country. Rather than treating WFH as a simple perk, it should be viewed as a structural issue, evaluated by assessing who truly benefits from such a model.
The future of work in India depends on who gets included and who gets left out. The WFH model has indeed paved newer and better paths for some and has helped them grow by leaps and bounds. On the flip side, a portion of the population struggles to navigate workplace norms due to a lack of in-office norms.
At its core, WFH is a dream for many. However, this flexibility cannot be fully enjoyed without the equity that should accompany it. Whether from home or the office, work should still be considered proper work and not devalued in importance simply because of who the employee is or where they work.
Similarly, companies need to institute programs that bridge the gap between the informal knowledge that employees gain while in the office. In the absence of in-person interactions, online team bonding sessions can significantly boost morale and trust among teams that may never meet in person.
