In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the introduction of remote work in various companies, and some companies have continued remote work even after the pandemic ended. A new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined ‘what happens when employees who work entirely remotely are required to come into the office just one day a month.’
The Value of One Office Day a Month | NBER
One office day a month? A remote-work experiment finds surprisingly large gains
https://www.scienceofmoney.org/one-office-day-a-month-a-remote-work-experiment-finds-surprisingly-large-gains-1014/
During the pandemic, there was a shift from office work to remote work, mainly in the IT industry. However, some companies are moving back to office work, citing reasons such as ‘remote work lowers productivity and morale.’
The research team collaborated with a major Turkish outsourcing company to conduct a nine-month randomized controlled trial involving customer service representatives who handle phone calls from a telecommunications company’s customers. The company had adopted remote work as its primary work style since 2020, but managers had reported problems such as ‘decreased team cohesion,’ ‘reduced coaching,’ and ‘low employee retention rates.’ The researchers investigated whether face-to-face interaction, to the extent that it does not undermine the benefits of remote work, could resolve these issues.
The experiment involved 248 volunteers, selected based on factors such as years of service and commute distance from the office. They were divided into two groups of 124 each. One group continued to work entirely remotely, while the other group was required to come into the office one day a month on a fixed day between August 2024 and April 2025.
In this series of experiments, there were no changes to salary, working hours, workload, work tools, incentives, or training, other than requiring participants to come into the office one day a month. Participants commuted to the office using the company shuttle bus, worked during their usual hours using their usual laptops, and shared meals and coffee breaks with colleagues. The attendance rate of participants during the experiment was approximately 95%.
When comparing the ‘number of calls processed per hour,’ which was used as the main productivity indicator for employees, both groups averaged 10.8 calls per hour before the experiment began, and there was no change for the first few months after the experiment started. However, after 6 to 9 months from the start of the experiment, the productivity of the group that came to the office gradually began to increase. At the end of the experiment, the average number of calls processed by employees working entirely remotely was 11.5, compared to an average of 12.4 for employees who came to the office only one day a month.
While the average call duration for the group working in the office decreased compared to before the experiment began, the time spent on administrative tasks, holding calls, and taking breaks remained largely unchanged. Furthermore, customer satisfaction and internal audit scores remained stable, indicating that the improvement in processing speed did not lead to a decline in service quality.
The improvement in group productivity is thought to be due not only to increased productivity per employee, but also to a reduced turnover rate among top talent. Furthermore, the fact that the results accumulated gradually rather than immediately after the introduction of the new in-office system suggests that it was not simply due to novelty or a temporary boost in morale.
Next, the research team investigated what changes occurred in employee communication at the end of the experiment period. The results showed that employees assigned to the in-office group spent 36 minutes more per week communicating with their ‘three most frequently contacted colleagues’ compared to employees who were not assigned to the in-office group. Furthermore, analysis based on the randomly assigned seating positions upon arrival at the office revealed an increase in interaction with ‘people who happened to be sitting next to them.’
Furthermore, employees in the group that returned to the office were significantly more likely to respond to a survey on the work environment with comments such as ‘I receive regular feedback from my supervisor,’ ‘Communication within the team is going well,’ and ‘I feel comfortable with the company culture.’ On the other hand, no statistically significant intervention effect was observed in broader indicators of well-being, such as life satisfaction and work-life balance.
One notable result of the one-day-a-month office attendance program is the improvement in employee retention. During the experiment, the cumulative turnover rate reached 21% in the fully remote work group, compared to a mere 13.7% in the one-day-a-month office attendance group. This difference persisted even after the last day of attendance, suggesting that the delay was not simply due to a psychological tendency to stay until the next time employees saw a particular person.
Further investigation into employees who left revealed that in the fully remote work group, those who left were slightly more productive than those who remained. On the other hand, in the group that came into the office one day a month, those who left were reported to be significantly more productive than those who remained. The research team believes that this result suggests that the one day of face-to-face contact per month made it easier for managers to identify high-performing employees, which helped them retain them.
A cost-benefit analysis revealed that the expenses for 124 employees coming into the office one day a month, including transportation, meals, and office space, amounted to approximately $13,000 (approximately 2.08 million yen) over nine months. On the other hand, the reduction in employee turnover prevented an estimated nine employee departures, resulting in cost savings of approximately $6,400 (approximately 1.02 million yen). Furthermore, the increase in productivity, when converted to labor costs, amounted to approximately $60,300 (approximately 9.63 million yen). In total, the cost savings from having employees come into the office one day a month are roughly five times the expenses incurred, indicating a significant return on investment.
It should be noted that this study was conducted in a highly standardized inbound customer service environment, and the work content was uniform among employees. Therefore, further research is needed to determine whether the same effects would be observed in companies with more flexible work arrangements or those with different histories regarding the introduction of remote work.
Behavior of more than 60,000 Microsoft employees reveals ‘impact of remote work on corporate collaboration’
Reason why all employees shifted to remote work by abandoning the physical office due to an increase in the number of employees
Remote work improves productivity, with the number of remote workers increasing five times since the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic
What is the conclusion of Iceland, which has been experimenting to reduce working hours to 35 hours a week for about 7 years?
Does remote work hurt productivity?
About half of Dell employees who were forced to choose between quitting remote work or giving up promotion reportedly gave up on promotion
What did Microsoft discover as a result of analyzing the changes after the introduction of remote work?
Research shows a close relationship between local economic conditions and the mental health of residents.
Sep 05, 2026 20:00:00
in Science, Posted by log1h_ik
