The Shift from Necessity to Norm: A Story of Work-from-Home Culture in India

As the world adapted to the pandemic, so did the concept of work. Work-from-home (WFH) became a necessity, and in the early days, it was more than just a temporary solution—it was survival. No one could step outside their homes; markets, entertainment, schools—everything was shut down. In this unprecedented situation, people channeled their energy into their work. With nowhere to go and nothing else to do, employees were readily available, often working long hours. Productivity soared, and new terms like “remote work” and “nomadic working” became buzzwords.

However, when the lockdown lifted, things began to change. Some clients started sharing their concerns with me, and I began hearing similar complaints from managers. They noticed a dip in productivity and attentiveness. Employees who were once glued to their screens and always reachable seemed distracted. Conference calls became frustrating, with people frequently missing or not fully present. The complaints became more frequent, and I couldn’t ignore them.

At first, it was easy to attribute these issues to the natural shift in lifestyle. After all, once the lockdown ended, life gradually returned to normal. People were no longer confined to their homes, and with freedom came distractions. But as I analyzed the situation further, I realized it wasn’t just about life getting back to normal. The problem ran deeper than that.

In India, working from home posed unique cultural challenges, especially in households where the concept of someone “working” from home wasn’t fully understood or respected. Particularly, I noticed this more with women. For many, being physically present at home signaled availability for household chores, irrespective of their professional responsibilities. Family members struggled to adjust to the idea that someone could be at home, yet not “available” for non-work-related tasks.

But it wasn’t just cultural dynamics at play—it was also a matter of integrity. During the lockdown, employees had no choice but to dedicate themselves to work. The environment forced them to be productive. But as soon as life opened up, work was no longer the only focus. The flexibility that had once been a boon became a potential pitfall. Some employees, rather than managing their time with responsibility, began taking advantage of the freedom. Availability and focus decreased, and with it, productivity declined.

Many companies, eager to maintain the benefits of WFH, declared themselves “100% remote.” Yet, after a few quarters, they found that it wasn’t as effective as before. They struggled with collaboration, and results suffered. The solution for most was to introduce hybrid models, where employees were required to come to the office for a few days each week. But this loss of full-time WFH didn’t sit well with everyone, leading to higher attrition rates as people sought companies that allowed complete freedom.

Reflecting on this, I believe the root issue isn’t just the distractions that come with the freedom of working from home. It’s about integrity. The pandemic forced us into remote work, and for a while, it worked because there was no alternative. But once life returned to normal, maintaining the discipline to work diligently from home required a sense of responsibility that, unfortunately, some employees seemed to lose. In the end, it wasn’t WFH itself that failed—it was the erosion of the dedication that the situation once demanded.