The Behavioral Science of Remote Trust
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic shift to remote work, revolutionizing the workplace. For many of us, the idea of returning to a five-day in-office week feels almost unthinkable now. We’ve built new routines, new rhythms, and clearer expectations about how work fits into our lives. Not only that, but remote work has become a major selling point for talent; teams can now collaborate across borders and time zones, and employees have more flexibility in structuring their day.
Despite these trends, many organizations are pushing for a return to the office, with mandates ranging from a few days a week to full-time. High-profile companies have implemented return-to-office policies, with little input from employees. In some cases, these mandates have sparked significant backlash. For example, in 2023, over 20,000 Amazon employees signed a petition protesting the policy, with more than 1,800 staging walkouts in May of that year.
At the heart of this push lies a persistent belief among many leaders: visibility equals trust. Interestingly, this mindset appears to be at odds with much of the available evidence. Workplace research consistently shows that employees working remotely often report equal or higher productivity and well-being. By contrast, when employees feel monitored or coerced, they disengage. Behavioral science can help explain this through models like the Job Demands-Resources framework and Social Exchange Theory. These frameworks both show that autonomy and perceived fairness are essential for motivation and trust. Surveillance and rigid mandates undermine these principles, often triggering disengagement rather than accountability.
This article will explore the behavioral science behind remote trust, beginning with the visibility bias that drives many return-to-office mandates. We’ll look at how monitoring and control can paradoxically reduce engagement, and walk through key behavioral models that help explain why employees often feel frustrated or disengaged under these policies. Finally, we’ll dig into evidence-based strategies for rebuilding trust through autonomy, fairness, and reciprocal design, showing how organizations can thrive without relying on physical presence.
“If I Can’t See You, I Can’t Trust You”
Employees have made their preferences clear. A Harvard study found that 21% of workers surveyed would accept a pay cut of more than 10% to continue working remotely. Another study revealed that workers were willing to forgo an average of 7% of their salary for the option to work from home two or three days a week.
Why are employees so attracted to remote work options? The answer lies in tangible benefits such as:
- Less time spent commuting, a long-standing source of stress and lost productivity.
- Improved work-life balance, especially for caregivers and parents.6
- Greater flexibility, which enhances organizational performance when supported by leadership and policy.
- Reduced stress, due to the ability to manage personal and professional roles during the day.
- Improved mental health and performance, evidenced by increases in cooperation, engagement, and sleep quality.3
Importantly, remote work doesn’t just feel better—it often performs better. Self-reported productivity levels tend to remain stable or even improve for employees working remotely or under flexible arrangements. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that total factor productivity (TFP) growth was positively associated with the rise in remote work between 2019 and 2022 (though multiple factors likely contributed to this trend).11 Additionally, a well-known study of call-center employees demonstrated that working from home led to a 13% performance increase—and when employees were later allowed to choose between home or office, performance gains rose to 22%.
The Job Demands–Resources Model helps explain these effects. The model suggests that productivity and engagement are highest when job resources (e.g., flexibility, support, autonomy) outweigh job demands (e.g., stress, workload). Remote work reduces certain demands (such as commuting and office distractions) and can increase resources (such as time flexibility and better work-life balance), which supports sustained productivity and well-being.
Despite this growing body of evidence, return-to-office mandates persist. One reason is a deeply ingrained belief among some leaders: If I can’t see you, I can’t trust you. In practice, return-to-office mandates are often perceived as being less about productivity and more about reasserting control. Research suggests that leaders may attribute organizational underperformance to remote work, even when evidence does not show that in-person work improves financial outcomes.4
This visibility bias can be understood through Theory X and Theory Y.Theory X assumes employees are inherently unmotivated and require close supervision, whereas Theory Y views employees as self-directed and motivated when trusted. Leaders operating under implicit Theory X assumptions are more likely to equate visibility with productivity and to see remote work as a threat to accountability. The result is a mismatch, a Theory X management mindset applied to a largely Theory Y workforce.
References
1. Business Insider. (2025). The list of major companies requiring employees to return to the office. https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-requiring-return-to-office-rto-mandate
2. CNBC. (2023). Amazon workers walk out over ‘lack of trust’ in leadership. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/31/amazon-workers-plan-to-walk-out-over-lack-of-trust-in-leadership.html?msockid=06548ce24ba965c1275d991a4a8f6480
3. Wiese, C. W., Dormann, C., Vaziri, H., Tay, L., Wille, B., Chen, J., Moran, L. H., & Li, Y. (2025). Happy work, happy life? A replication and comparison of the longitudinal effects between job and life satisfaction using continuous time meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2861
4. Ding, Yuye and Ma, Mark (Shuai), Return-to-Office Mandates (December 25, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4675401 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4675401
5. Bartik, A. W., Cullen, Z. B., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. T. (2023). The rise of remote work: Evidence on productivity and preferences from firm and worker surveys (Working Paper No. 20-138). Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/20-138_eca954c7-dde8-4154-8d7b-5688fd5caf94.pdf
6. Barrero, Jose Maria and Bloom, Nicholas and Davis, Steven J., Why Working From Home Will Stick (April 22, 2021). University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper No. 2020-174, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3741644
7. de Graaff, T., & Rietveld, P. (2007). Substitution between Working at Home and Out-of-Home: The Role of ICT and Commuting Costs. Transportation Research. Part A, Policy & Practice, 41(19), 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.02.005
8. Chatterjee, Sheshadri & Chaudhuri, Ranjan & Vrontis, Demetris, 2022. "Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1501-1512.
9. Shimura, A., Yokoi, K., Ishibashi, Y., Akatsuka, Y., & Inoue, T. (2021). Remote Work Decreases Psychological and Physical Stress Responses, but Full-Remote Work Increases Presenteeism. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 730969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730969
10. Awada, M., Lucas, G., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Roll, S. (2021). Working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 69(4), 1171-1189. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210301
11. Pabilonia, S. W., & Redmond, J. (2024). The rise in remote work since the pandemic. Beyond the Numbers. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12. Stanford Report. (2024). Study finds hybrid work benefits companies and employees. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/06/hybrid-work-is-a-win-win-win-for-companies-workers, Nicholas Bloom, James Liang, John Roberts, Zhichun Jenny Ying, (2015) Does Working from Home Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,165–218, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju032.
13. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
14. Miller, S. (2024). Theory X and Theory Y. EBSCO Knowledge Advantage. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/economics/theory-x-and-theory-y
15. Kellerman, A. (2022). Social-spatial interaction, proximity, and distance: from face-to-face to virtual communications. Applied Mobilities, 7(4), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2021.1928992
16. Bloom, Nicholas, Steven J. Davis, and Yulia Zhestkova. (2021). "COVID-19 Shifted Patent Applications toward Technologies That Support Working from Home." AEA Papers and Proceedings 111: 263–66.
17. Zitron, E. (2023, November 7). The fight over return-to-office is getting dirty. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/return-to-office-mandates-employees-managers-fight-messy-remote-work-2023-11
18. Steinhorst, C. (2025, April 17). Return-to-office: It’s not about productivity, it’s about power. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/curtsteinhorst/2025/04/17/return-to-office-its-not-about-productivity-its-about-power/
19. Christian, A. (2023, September 5). The CEOs drawing a hard line on return-to-office policies. BBC Worklife. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20230905-workers-now-face-a-hard-line-on-return-to-office-policies
20. CNBC. (2025). Return-to-office policies are ‘creeping up,’ researcher says. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/heres-how-workers-feel-about-return-to-office-mandates.html
21. Starner, T. (2023, August 10). Struggling with return-to-office? Why hybrid may offer “balance”. HR Executive. https://hrexecutive.com/struggling-with-return-to-office-why-hybrid-may-offer-balance/
22. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
23. Vyas, L., & Butakhieo, N. (2021). The impact of working from home during COVID-19 on work and life domains: An exploratory study on Hong Kong. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 59-76. doi: 10.1080/25741292.2020.1863560
24. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
25. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.
26. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
27. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68
About the Author
Jess Taylor
Jess holds an MSc in Behavioral Science and works in Culture Risk Consulting at Deloitte, where she helps financial institutions strengthen decision-making, reduce behavioral risk, and build healthier organizational cultures. She previously served as President of UCL’s Behavioral Innovations Society, a community focused on delivering practical and sustainable behavior change across campus. She has designed behavioral frameworks for major banks, produced thought leadership on culture and investment behavior, and delivered workshops on emerging behavioral risks. Standing at the intersection of human behavior, financial services, and rapid technological change, she believes it is essential to embed behavioral science into how organizations navigate new challenges and make better decisions.
About us
We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy
Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations
“
I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.
Heather McKee
BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST
GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT
OUR CLIENT SUCCESS
$0M
Annual Revenue Increase
By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue.
0%
Increase in Monthly Users
By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.
0%
Reduction In Design Time
By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75%.
0%
Reduction in Client Drop-Off
By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%
