Articulo Cientifico

administrative
sciences
Article
Remote Work in Peru during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Alexander Frank Pasquel Cajas 1 , Verónica Tomasa Cajas Bravo 2 and Roberto Carlos Dávila Morán 3, *
1 Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán, Huánuco 10003, Peru

2 Escuela de Turismo y Hotelería, Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas y Turismo, Universidad Nacional
Hermilio Valdizán, Huánuco 10003, Peru
3 Escuela de Ingeniería Industrial, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Continental, Huancayo 12001, Peru
* Correspondence: rdavilam@continental.edu.pe
Abstract: The objective of this research is to investigate the characteristics of remote work in Peru
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the study will allow exploring the advantages, disadvan-
tages, challenges and opportunities that Peruvian remote workers face during this crisis scenario. This
was a basic-type, descriptive-level study employing a quantitative approach and a non-experimental
design. The sample consisted of 275 workers from two companies located in Metropolitan Lima,
and the data were collected in the year 2021. A questionnaire with 30 questions was proposed for
data collection; it was validated by three experts, and its reliability was α = 0.85. The findings of
the remote work variable place it at a medium level with 40.73%; in the flexibility dimension, the
medium level prevailed with 42.55%; the autonomy dimension exhibited a high level with 41.09%;
and the productivity dimension exhibited a medium level with 43.64%. In the technology dimension,
the low level prevailed with 36.36%, while the psychosocial risks dimension exhibited a medium
level with 33.18%. In conclusion, the characterization of remote work in Peru during the COVID-19
pandemic allowed us to establish the most relevant aspects that affected workers who migrated to
this form of work.
Keywords: remote work; flexibility; autonomy; productivity; technology; psychosocial risks
Citation: Pasquel Cajas, Alexander 1. Introduction

Frank, Verónica Tomasa Cajas Bravo, As a result of the declaration of the COVID-19 virus as a pandemic by the World
and Roberto Carlos Dávila Morán. Health Organization (World Health Organization (WHO) 2020), a series of important
2023. Remote Work in Peru during
economic changes were generated worldwide. Among the most notable effects is the
the COVID-19 Pandemic.
temporary closure of companies, causing the collapse of economic activity, a measure
Administrative Sciences 13: 58.
adopted by governments with the aim of counteracting the spread of the virus. However,
https://doi.org/10.3390/
entrepreneurs had to be resilient, innovative and strategic (Messabia et al. 2022). Despite
admsci13020058
this, many companies implemented the remote work modality to continue operations after
Received: 13 December 2022 the drastic measures against the development of all economic activities (Kooli 2022).
Revised: 5 February 2023 For Chuco Aguilar et al. (2020) in the field of COVID-19, remote work was the
Accepted: 7 February 2023 main strategy to continue the work of companies, in turn representing a challenge for
Published: 13 February 2023 workers, due to work pressure and uncertainty in the labor market. Under the pandemic
environment, the adverse effects on the labor market are clear, such as decreased hours,
reduced salaries, layoffs, suspension of contracts, decreased access to compensation and
job opportunities, closure measures, confinement, distancing, increased informality and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
extension of working hours (Herrera et al. 2021).
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
From a general context, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic had permanent
distributed under the terms and
effects on companies. Since remote work was typically the exception to the rules for
conditions of the Creative Commons
many companies, employers could increasingly embrace it, considering that the experience
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// obtained during the health crisis may have influenced the perception of remote work. If
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ workers can equally meet work-at-home goals, many incredulous employers would change
4.0/). their minds on the matter (Bamieh and Ziegler 2022).
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020058 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 2 of 25
In some cases, the experiences of workers who migrated to work remotely at home
almost immediately, as a consequence of the health crisis, are still being recorded. From
the business side, employers had to find new ways to ensure that productivity was not
affected by this change. Consequently, the flexibility of working at home was the new way
to continue working (Matli 2020).
The demands of remote work in conditions of social isolation involve different aspects
that can affect people’s work performance. Remote workers must face staying at home
together with other family members, where high levels of uncertainty about work, health
and the economy are generated, which can cause high levels of work stress (Sandoval-Reyes
et al. 2021). In addition, the inconveniences that the coronavirus has generated for workers
continue to deteriorate their psychological well-being (Baburajan 2021).
According to Sidhom (2021), as a result of the pandemic and the new sanitary measures,
a high level of concern was generated in people related to the risk of COVID-19 infection.
Other possible causes of stress were related to the fear of a possible loss of economic income
due to the restrictions on the operation of companies and workplaces.
According to Iwashita (2021), the institutional and cultural environment of countries
can make remote work difficult or hindered, caused by mismanagement between remote
work and human resources management. This is especially the case in Asian countries,
where employment and short-term results are a priority. Likewise, it can occur in cultures
that prefer collective management, the differentiation between the working and managerial
classes, as well as having the least possible uncertainty.
Within this framework, Althoff Lukas et al. (2022) point out that, if the experience in
the USA during the pandemic can be a guide, the transition to remote work will be more
harmful in the most densely populated cities. When workplace proximity considerations
are less important to residence decision making, such cities tend to shrink their workforce.
Another important aspect is the impact of the transition in relation to the qualification level
of the workers.
In general, most of the effects of the pandemic are perceived a priori as negative;
certainly, they are for many people. However, there are positive effects such as the imple-
mentation of telemedicine or remote patient care by doctors and specialists, which has been
promoted in many countries, particularly in Uruguay. This ultimately represents a benefit
for public health and for society (Reyes Caorsi 2020).
In addition to this, the health crisis made it evident that a large number of patients
could be cared for remotely by specialized personnel, without compromising their health
or the quality of care; that the logistics required to implement it are minimal; and that this
modality was well received by clinicians and patients (Bashshur et al. 2020).
In the same way, Mostafa (2021) explores the perception of remote work after the
COVID-19 quarantine, its effect on psychological well-being and the incorporation into
the working life of workers in Egypt. In this sense, the author confirmed that remote
work is perceived positively by workers as improving their psychological and occupational
well-being.
Data on remote work performance in Latin America are scattered and unclear. Ac-
cording to a study by the International Labor Organization (ILO 2020), worldwide, 17% of
employed people perform tasks that allow them to adopt remote work and live in countries
that have the necessary infrastructure for this purpose. Within this range, 6% are located in
Sub-Saharan Africa and 30% in Northern, Western and Southern Europe. In Latin America
and the Caribbean, this figure is in the order of 23%. Similarly, the Economic Commission
for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC 2021) estimates that in Latin America and
the Caribbean, 21.3% of people can work remotely.
On the other hand, the ILO (2021) points out that remote work had a significant
increase in the countries that were most affected by the health crisis and where this modality
was already carried out before the pandemic. Their estimates indicate that, by the second
quarter of 2020, around 23 million people became remote workers in Latin America and
the Caribbean.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 3 of 25
Within this perspective, ECLAC (2021) indicates that one of the work changes favored
by digitization is remote work, which has generally been driven by its versatility in the work
context and also by its contribution to a better link between work and family development,
the clearance of urban traffic and the subsequent reduction in pollution. In this sense, Kooli
(2022) points out that remote work stands out as a strategy that minimizes the impact of
confinement measures and allows companies and institutions to continue with economic
activities. Consequently, remote work during the COVID-19 health crisis stands out as a
strategy that mitigates the incidence of confinement measures and allows the continuity of
economic activities in companies and institutions.
In this sense, in Peru, a large number of companies stood out for adopting this strategy,
supported by different government measures, considering that the country already had
laws regarding teleworking before the pandemic. In the Law that Regulates Teleworking
No. 30036, promulgated by the Congress of the Republic (2013), it is described as a modality
for the development of tasks characterized by the use of information and communication
technologies (ICT), in public and private organizations, without the physical presence of
the worker in the workplace.
In addition to this, with the appearance of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Peruvian
government adopted emergency measures to reduce infections and the impact on the
health system caused by the disease. In this sense, the Presidency of the Republic of
Peru (2020) implemented Emergency Decree No. 026-2020, which defines remote work
as “the provision of services subordinated to the physical presence of the worker at his
home or place home isolation, using any means or mechanism that makes it possible
to carry out work outside the workplace” (p. 10). Likewise, the Ministry of Labor and
Employment Promotion (2020) prepared the Guide for the Application of Remote Work,
with the objective of establishing the regulations that would allow employers and workers
in the private sector to implement this modality.
In other words, according to Peruvian law, the acceptance of the workers is needed
to implement teleworking, and their tasks are subordinates; they demand the use of
ICT and do not require a physical presence in the workplace. It can also be adopted by
public and private companies, unlike remote work, which is not chosen by the worker. Its
implementation occurs due to the appearance of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim of
preventing the spread of the virus. In this case, the worker’s work is carried out in a place
of home isolation that must be known by the employer (Sánchez Antícona 2021; Uribe
Kajat et al. 2021).
It is certainly necessary to regulate this modality of work, as well as to study its
characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, in order to promote the generation of this
type of employment, but within an environment of safety and well-being of workers and
employers. The foregoing must be considered because the health crisis has deepened the
heterogeneity of the forms of work, and among them, the implementation of remote work
has increased. In short, these new challenges will make it possible to achieve sustained and
inclusive economic development and productive and decent employment for the entire
population (ECLAC 2021).
Therefore, the present study aims to explore the characteristics of remote work in Peru
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study will also help us to explore the advantages,
disadvantages, challenges and opportunities faced by Peruvian remote workers in the
context of the health crisis.
In this sense, a review of the literature related to remote work and its consequent
application during the health crisis was carried out and is presented in Section 2. Section 3
presents the methodology used in the development of the research. Section 4 presents the
results, which are discussed in Section 5. The conclusions are presented in Section 6.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 4 of 25
2. Literature Review
2.1. Origins of Remote Work
The concept of remote work is attributed to NASA scientist Jack Nilles, who in 1973
worked remotely on a telecommunication system for NASA (MacRae and Sawatzky 2020).
At that time, the first global oil crisis occurred, increasing transportation costs in such a
way that in 1979, The Washington Post published the article “Working from home can save
gasoline” by Frank Schiff. It is estimated that this article was what led to the first conference
on remote work in 1980 (Oszlak 2020).
Although remote work is not a new organizational model, its widespread implemen-
tation by professional and managerial-level employees is one of its main drivers. The
work-from-home model originated from the oil crisis of the 1970s, which together with
technological advances led to increased interest in this modality among high-level workers
(Nilles et al. 1974).
However, remote work at that time was an abstract idea and an almost impossible
modality to adopt, since personal computers were very rare and remote work technology
was in its infancy (Oszlak 2020). In this regard, Nilles (1997) states that jobs must be recon-
figured so that workers can be autonomous from their location, or an information storage
and communications system must be created as sophisticated as possible, to transmit
information as if the workers were located in the office.
At the beginning of the century, remote work experienced significant growth, as
reflected in the data from Global Workplace Analytics (2022), which indicate that 66% of
workers in the USA work remotely part-time. Additionally, 68% of Americans today prefer
to work fully remotely. On the other hand, in the years after 2015, remote work modalities
have increased by 140%, that is, 10 times more than all forms of work. Regarding the
opinion of workers, 86% think that it relieves stress.
Definitely, the number of people who have migrated to work remotely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic has increased at a dizzying rate, causing a revolution in this modality.
Without considering that the agreements to make the execution of digital works more
flexible have been constant, the increase in the adoption of remote work is occurring on
an unforeseen scale (Popovici and Popovici and Popovici 2020). In this sense, de Araújo
and Lua (2021) point out that the pandemic generated double pressure on workers: on the
one hand, there was an increase in requirements; on the other hand, the possibilities of
escaping the tensions were limited by the restrictions of social contact.
2.2. Remote Work Concept

Remote work is an arrangement where work activities are carried out giving the
worker the flexibility to execute them in places far from their offices or regular facilities.
In this modality, the workers do not have personal contact with their colleagues but can
interact with them through technological means (Wang et al. 2021).
For de Araújo and Lua (2021), remote work is characterized by an agreement that
establishes the performance of work outside the company’s facilities, standing out as a
flexible modality of employment. In the same way, this type of work has been generalized
under the name “home office”, since it is carried out remotely and sometimes at the
worker’s home.
It is important to note that there are various elements that describe the level of adapta-
tion of employees to remote work. Among them are satisfaction, commitment, productivity
and the ability to achieve a balance between work and non-work demands. From a general
scope, the structural factors are specified, referring to independence and work criteria.
There are also relational factors, referring to interpersonal relationships and social isolation;
finally, there are contextual factors such as changing the workplace and interrupting work
activities (van Zoonen et al. 2021).
Another aspect of remote work to consider is that workers must get used to new
technologies, discover ways to integrate their personal and work lives, and try to fulfill
their tasks in the best possible way, considering that after COVID-19 and its social and
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 5 of 25
professional changes, society has faced serious challenges in the implementation of new
ways of working (Varner and Schmidt 2022).
As a result of the implementation of remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
fine line between work and life has disappeared. Work becoming synonymous with life and
life synonymous with work, causing life–work integration (Sengupta and Al-Khalifa 2022).
2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Remote Work

The changes generated in organizations are always accompanied by advantages and
disadvantages, especially when it comes to making the ways of working more flexible
(Galanti et al. 2021). In the case of remote work, it is usually done as a planned alternative,
which requires a stage of preparation and adaptation. This is with the aim of giving
companies the advantage of managing the productivity of workers, guaranteeing them an
adequate balance between personal and work life (Toscano and Zappalà 2020a).
However, the appearance of COVID-19 has forced most companies to implement this
type of work unexpectedly and generally without consolidating the skills required for this
purpose in workers (Vander Elst et al. 2020).
Remote work can be an interesting alternative for organizations that seek to increase
their internal flexibility or the mobility of workers. In addition, it is a convenient strategy
for companies that seek to reduce costs, allowing them to hire in cheaper regions and
allowing workers to save on transportation costs. In the same way, it is presented as an
excellent way for workers to plan their day, combining work and work issues, which can
improve their motivation and productivity (Ferreira et al. 2021).
Table 1 below shows the advantages and disadvantages of remote work for workers,
for companies and for society.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of remote work.
Entity Advantages Disadvantages

It improves the environment Low identification with the
and personal life. Autonomy company. Elimination of work
and responsibility. Flexible environment. Lack of
schedule. Reduced work interaction with peers. Social
Worker
stress. Lower costs. Balance isolation. Lack of inspiration.
between personal and work Operating costs on behalf of
life. More time for health care. the worker. Fewer career
Improved productivity. opportunities.
It requires less physical space. Decreased learning. Lower
Decrease in transportation productivity. Possible loss of
costs, food, uniforms. confidentiality. Exposure to
Company Working for goals. Salary cyber-attacks. Investment
savings. Decrease in expenses and initial costs.
absenteeism. Increased Increase in technological
productivity. investment.
Decrease in unionization.
Pollution reduction. Increased individualism.
Reduction in urban Reduction in socialization
congestion. Promotion of spaces between colleagues.
Society
mobility. Increased jobs for Decreased organizational
people with disabilities. culture. Inconvenient to
Promotion of family life. control work environments.
Attention to social security.
Information obtained from Cardozo and Bulcourf (2020).
Zhang et al. (2021), in their work on the analysis of feelings about forced remote
work during the pandemic, through a survey on the social network Twitter, showed that
the tweets referring to remote work were slightly positive in general. Additionally, the
trade-offs perceived by the general public are especially important for people who have
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 6 of 25
no choice but to work remotely. In a similar study, Hegde et al. (2022) affirm that it is
important for organizations to study these trends, with the aim of determining whether
they should continue with this modality or reopen workspaces, of course analyzing the
behavior of productivity and the level of satisfaction of the worker.
Within this framework, Ipsen et al. (2021) found in their study that the majority of
people who worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic had a more positive than
negative experience. Three factors stood out as the main advantages of remote work:
balance between work and personal life, increased efficiency at work and improvement
in work control. This study also determined the top three disadvantages: home office
restrictions, job uncertainties, and inadequate or insufficient tools. All these factors make it
possible to establish the necessary actions that organizations must implement to guarantee
performance, as well as the well-being of their workers.
2.4. Dimensions of the Remote Work Variable

For the development of this study, the remote work variable was analyzed, as were
the dimensions that describe it and allow it to be measured. Considering the definitions of
remote work by the authors Wang et al. (2021), de Araújo and Lua (2021), van Zoonen et al.
(2021), Varner and Schmidt (2022) and Sengupta and Al-Khalifa (2022), in this study, the
following dimensions were established to help study and measure it: flexibility, autonomy,
productivity, technology and psychosocial risks.
The flexibility of remote work can be considered as the adaptability that workers have,
with respect to the location, time and way of carrying out their work activities (Interfell
Corp 2016). It includes all the actions that an organization can execute to create favorable
conditions that allow achieving a balance between the work and personal lives of its
workers (Ahlers 2016).
Despite the advantages of having greater freedom and possibilities, in the context of
the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers feel more pressure and are concerned about not
being able to meet work demands under the remote work modality (Donati et al. 2021).
Autonomy at work includes the degree of freedom that workers have to manage
aspects of their tasks and make decisions in this regard, allowing them to be more creative
and productive (Universidad IEU 2018). However, allowing workers to control the planning
of their workday is a controversial practice that can be complex, since they can go to the
extreme of working less or working more. Despite this, according to previous studies,
autonomy at work improves performance and productivity (Beckmann 2016).
For Wang et al. (2021), labor autonomy allows workers to decide when and how to do
their work. Consequently, workers with too much work autonomy can more effectively
balance the various responsibilities or goals in all aspects.
During the health crisis, the autonomy provided by remote work has positive effects
that can be seen or even accentuated in the context of the pandemic. Since remote work is an
unforeseen condition, necessary due to the appearance of the pandemic, many workers had
to face this situation and manage the autonomy generated with their colleagues (Galanti
et al. 2021).
Productivity is a measure of activity that calculates the goods or services produced
according to the resources used, where the resources can be tangible or intangible. This is
estimated according to the time spent in the process (Juez 2020). Consequently, there are a
number of factors that affect worker productivity; among them are job satisfaction, sense of
belonging, job stress, motivation, autonomy, teamwork, interpersonal relationships, social
interaction and resistance to change (Ganga Contreras and Moyano 2018).
One of the most critical aspects of work is productivity, especially in the remote work
modality (Toscano and Zappalà 2020b). The future of remote work is based on the factors
that determine the level of productivity and well-being of workers. In addition, in remote
work, the level of productivity that a worker has is determined by the individual opinion
that the worker has about remote work (Howe and Menges 2022).
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 7 of 25
According to Jacks (2021), the implementation of remote work in organizations gen-

erated an increase in labor productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is
important to delve into the impact that remote work had on organizational productivity, as
well as on individual productivity.
Fear of COVID-19 is positively related to high levels of productivity and commitment.
Workers who were more emotionally impacted also reported being more productive work-
ing from home. In this way, remote work can play a protective role for workers, since
possible exposure to the virus and therefore contagion was avoided (Galanti et al. 2021;
Giorgi et al. 2020; Błaszczyk et al. 2022).
In the same way, perceptions of lower productivity during the pandemic are related to
the increase in the age of workers. This may be associated with the inconveniences that
older workers may have with the use of digital tools and their lesser ability to adapt to
these changes (Galanti et al. 2021).
Technology is fundamental in the implementation of remote work since technological
infrastructure is needed to be able to do it. The use of virtual platforms, telecommunications
and computing allows the worker to carry out their activities without having a physical
presence in the company (Paladines Morán et al. 2021).
Undoubtedly, the advancement of technology has transformed labor relations and
ways of working. Currently, there is a constant process of advancement and technological
transformation that must be constantly analyzed (López Ahumada 2021).
In previous studies, it was determined that technology and the possibility of working
outside the usual facilities are directly related. Work activities that use ICT have led to the
generation of flexible forms of work, such as remote work (Vargas Espín 2020).
Indeed, the fact that workers are in constant connection with organizations, based on
remote connection technological tools, provides great autonomy in time management, as
well as the possibility of more flexible execution (López Ahumada 2021). However, the use
of technologies can attenuate the social isolation suffered by workers during the pandemic,
compared to the interaction they experience in normal conditions, such as in workplaces or
places for carrying out activities of daily living (Galanti et al. 2021).
Psychosocial risks at work are generated by the interactions that the worker has
when performing their tasks in a specific environment, influenced by the strategies, norms,
culture and organizational climate, including the requirements of the worker, their level of
satisfaction, and their social and personal life outside the company (International Labor
Organization (ILO) 1984).
These psychosocial risks affect worker performance, health and job satisfaction.
Among these stand out the overload of work, long work hours, lack of clarity in the
jobs, policies contrary to participation in decision making, deterioration of relations be-
tween members and changes not adequately explained. Therefore, the effects on the worker
are reflected in problems at the cognitive, emotional and self-image levels, as well as
changes in attitudes (Flores Polanco 2021).
According to Carvajal Villamizar et al. (2021), the workplace can be any environment
where people can work. Promoting health in the workplace involves both workers and
employers and other actors in society interested in adopting jointly agreed initiatives to
guarantee the health and well-being of the workforce. Therefore, proper management and
control of the risks faced by workers can reduce health problems.
Before the pandemic, many people had not previously worked remotely, regardless
of their willingness to adopt this alternative and the conditions offered by employers.
This situation could generate conflicts between private life and work activity, negatively
affecting workers’ mental health. However, the forced confinement during the pandemic
can also give them the opportunity to improve their family relationships (Izdebski and
Mazur 2021).
At the beginning of the pandemic, people feared the spread of the disease and its
impact on health. Among the most common manifestations they suffered were malaise,
depression, anxiety and stress. On the other hand, the implementation of remote work
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 8 of 25
as an alternative to face a difficult situation, which required flexibility and the ability to
quickly adapt to other forms of work, constituted a challenge for the mental health of
workers (Kondratowicz et al. 2022).
The implementation of remote work has been more widely accepted by people with a
highly positive perception of job satisfaction than before the health crisis. This minimizes
the conflict between work and family life, a fundamental aspect of personal well-being
(Delgado Zamalloa et al. 2022).
In summary, Table 2 presents the different dimensions of remote work, as well as the
indicators that will allow the analysis of each one, in addition to its measurement in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 2. Details of the dimensions and indicators of the remote work variable.
Dimensions Indicators
Organizational support, development of
activities, adequate adaptation, appropriate
Flexibility
communication, achievement of goals, target
fulfillment time
Freedom of workload, planning of activities,
execution of activities, decision making,
Autonomy
necessary inputs, work schedule, required
equipment
Control and monitoring of activities,
achievement of goals, performance evaluation,
Productivity
teamwork, working conditions, job satisfaction,
work overload
Technological infrastructure, communication
Technology platforms, ICT, remote connection (internet),
digital skills, resistance to change
Stress, discomfort, depression, anxiety,
Psychosocial Risks motivation, creativity, social isolation,
interpersonal relationships
3. Materials and Methods

As part of the methodology implemented in the development of the research, the
general objective was to investigate the characteristics of remote work in Peru during
the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the study will allow exploring the advantages,
disadvantages, challenges and opportunities faced by Peruvian remote workers during the
scenario of the health crisis.
On the other hand, the research was developed according to various methodological
aspects, including the type of study, the approach, the design, the level, the population
considered and the sample selected. Regarding the type of research, the work was of a
basic type, being the one that is carried out with the objective of satisfying the curiosity of
obtaining new knowledge; it also serves as a foundation for the advancement of science
(Ñaupas Paitán et al. 2014).
According to the approach, the study was quantitative, which according to Palella
Stracuzzi and Pestana (2012) is one that includes the use of mathematical models and
whose findings must be analyzed through statistical formulas. Likewise, the study was
framed within the non-experimental design, considering that the remote work variable and
its dimensions were evaluated in their natural context; that is, they were not manipulated
(Hernández-Sampieri and Torres 2018). Regarding the level, the study was descriptive,
since its objective was to verify the reality of a phenomenon, considering its characteristics,
as well as the analysis and interpretation of the facts (Palella Stracuzzi and Pestana 2012).
For the present study, the population employed in formal jobs in Peru in times of
pandemic was considered; obviously, this universe is too large, considering that, only in the
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 9 of 25
case of Metropolitan Lima, the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (NISI 2022)
indicates that the employed population reached 4,909,300 people in the fourth quarter of
2021.
In this case, the population is considered to be infinite, defined as that in which the
total number of subjects that make it up is unknown, since there is no record of them,
since its elaboration would be unfeasible. In this sense, this study employed intentional
non-probabilistic sampling, where the study elements are chosen according to criteria
pre-established by the researcher (Arias, Fidias Gerardo 2016). Therefore, 275 workers from
two companies that adopted remote work during the pandemic, located in Metropolitan
Lima, were selected. The study was carried out in the months of March and April of the
year 2021, in Metropolitan Lima, Peru, at the height of the global health crisis.
For the collection of primary data, a survey or questionnaire was used. This data
collection tool is especially used for huge queries. It consists of the design of a questionnaire
with a series of questions, generally sent by virtual means to the people that make up the
population or sample, who must respond (Kothari 2004). Therefore, the questionnaire
was configured with 30 questions related to the remote work variable and its dimensions
(flexibility, autonomy, productivity, technology and psychosocial risks).
The questions in the questionnaire were designed according to the dimensions of the
variable. For the flexibility dimension of remote work, items 1 to 6 were designed. The
autonomy dimension of remote work was addressed by items 7 to 12. In the same way, the
productivity dimension of remote work was addressed by items 13 to 18, the technology
dimension of remote work was addressed by items 19 to 24 and the psychosocial risks
dimension was addressed by items 25 to 30.
All the questions in the questionnaire had three response alternatives: always (A),
sometimes (St) and never (N). In accordance with the established scale, the scores were
established as follows: values between 61 and 90 points will be considered high; values
between 31 and 60 points will be medium; and values between 1 and 30 will be low.
To visualize part of the questionnaire, Table 3 presents a detail of each variable with a
question that is part of it and its response options.
Table 3. Detail of the questionnaire: dimensions, items and response options.
Dimension Item Options

Always
Do you find the established
Flexibility Sometimes
work schedule flexible?
Never
Do you have the freedom to Always
Autonomy schedule the activities you Sometimes
must do during the week? Never
Do you receive rewards or Always
Productivity recognition bonuses when Sometimes
you do your job effectively? Never
Always
Do you use personal or
Technology Sometimes
company cloud storage?
Never
Always
Have your stress levels
Psychosocial Risks Sometimes
decreased working remotely?
Never
The validity of the instrument (questionnaire), defined as the measure in which

an instrument measures and what it intends to measure, was verified. Validity is the
dimension where the conclusions of the findings generated with the use of the test are
guaranteed (Kimberlin and Winterstein 2008). In the present investigation, the validity of
the questionnaire was determined through the judgment of three experts, who evaluated
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 10 of 25
the questions according to construct parameters, pertinence, relevance, coherence and

clarity, with the final verdict being that the questionnaire was applicable.
Similarly, the reliability of the questionnaire, which consists of the degree to which the
findings achieved by a measurement can be repeated, was calculated. Lack of reliability
can result from differences between researchers or instruments, such as a questionnaire,
which will definitely affect the validity of the questionnaire (Rothman et al. 2008; Wong
et al. 2012). In this case, reliability was estimated by conducting a pilot test with 27 workers
(10%) who were not part of the sample, but with characteristics similar to those of the study,
where a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was obtained. α = 0.85. In this way, it was verified
that the instrument is reliable.
Once the validity and reliability of the questionnaire for data collection were verified,
it was sent virtually by email to the workers who made up the sample, for their response.
Subsequently, the collected data were tabulated using the Microsoft Excel and SPSS version
25 programs.
The findings were evaluated from the descriptive scope, firstly, by analyzing the
behavior of the variable and its dimensions, considering the sociodemographic data of
the sample, such as age and gender. In this sense, an analysis of the relationship between
remote work and the gender of the workers was carried out using the non-parametric
chi-square test.
The chi-square test was designed to study the differences when the dependent variable
is measured from the nominal point of view. This test does not require equality of variances
between the study groups, nor does it require homoscedasticity in the data. Through this
test, the analysis of dichotomous independent variables can be carried out, as can studies
of multiple variables (McHugh 2013).
Subsequently, the measures of central tendency (mean, median and mode), defined as
the statistical measures that seek to synthesize a group of values in a single value, were
analyzed. Similarly, dispersion measures (standard deviation and covariance), which aim
to summarize the dispersion of a group of data in a single value (Quevedo Ricardi 2011),
were used.
Finally, the findings were analyzed through the absolute and relative frequencies of
the variable and each of its dimensions, which allowed for the discussion and comparison
of the results and the corresponding conclusions.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive and Inferential Study of the Remote Work Variable According to the
Sociodemographic Data of the Sample
To evaluate the behavior of the sample in reference to remote work during the COVID-
19 pandemic, certain specific characteristics or sociodemographic data were collected. With
this information, the descriptive analysis was carried out, considering gender, age, service
time and working hours.
Regarding gender, of the total sample, 60.0% are men, while 40.0% are women, demon-
strating that the majority of the individuals that make up the sample are men.
Regarding the age of the respondents, 38.55% are between 41 and 50 years old, 24.00%
are between 31 and 40 years old, 22.91% are between 21 and 30 years old, 10.18% are
between 51 and 60 years old and 4.36% are over 61 years of age. This indicates that most of
the subjects that make up the sample are between 41 and 50 years old.
Regarding the time of service that the respondents have, 40.73% have between 1 and 5
years working, 29.82% have between 6 and 11 years and 29.45% have more than 12 years
of service. In other words, the majority of those surveyed have between 1 and 5 years of
service.
Finally, in reference to the working day, 65.09% of those surveyed work full-time;
while 34.91% work part-time. Consequently, most of the respondents work a full-time shift,
as presented in Table 4.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 11 of 25
Table 4. Sociodemographic data of the sample.
Sociodemographic Data Characteristic Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Male 165 60.00
Gender
Female 110 40.00
Total 275 100.00
21 to 30 years 63 22.91
31 to 40 years 66 24.00
Age 41 to 50 years 106 38.55
51 to 60 years 28 10.18
more than 61 years 12 4.36
Total 275 100.00
1 to 5 years 112 40.73
Service time 6 to 11 years 82 29.82
more than 12 years 81 29.45
Total 275 100.00
Full-time (8 h) 179 65.09
Workday
Part-time (5 h) 96 34.91
Total 275 100.00
Regarding the analysis of the remote work variable according to the gender of the
sample, it was possible to verify that, in the case of men, 18.55% of the respondents reported
a medium level, 10.91% reported a low level and 10.55% indicated the existence of high
level; for women, 22.18% of the respondents reported a medium level, 21.82% a high level
and 16.00% a low level, as can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5. Level of the remote work variable in Peruvian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic,
according to gender.
Low Medium High

Gender Total
Frequency (f) % Frequency (f) % Frequency (f) %
Male 30 10.91 51 18.55 29 10.55 40.00
Female 44 16.00 61 22.18 60 21.82 60.00
Total 74 26.91 112 40.73 89 32.36 100.00
This shows that both the majority of men and women perceive a medium level in the
remote work variable in Peruvian companies, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the other hand, for the remote work variable according to the age of the participants,
it was corroborated that in the case of those surveyed between the ages of 21 and 30, 8.73%
indicate that there is a high level, 8.36% indicate a medium level and 5.82% indicate a low
level. For respondents who are between 31 and 40 years old, 8.73% reported high and
medium levels, while 6.55% reported a low level.
In the case of workers aged between 41 and 50 years, 17.45% reported a medium
level, 10.91% a high level and 10.18% a low level. Regarding workers aged 51 to 60 years,
5.45% reported a medium level, 2.91% reported a high level and 1.82% reported a low level.
Finally, among workers over 61 years of age, 2.55% indicated that there is low level, 1.09%
indicated that there is high level and 0.73% indicated that there is medium level, as shown
in Table 6.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 12 of 25
according to age.
Low Medium High

Age Total
21 to 30 years 16 5.82 23 8.36 24 8.73 22.91
31 to 40 years 18 6.55 24 8.73 24 8.73 24.01
41 to 50 years 28 10.18 48 17.45 30 10.91 38.54
51 to 60 years 5 1.82 15 5.45 8 2.91 10.18
more than 61
7 2.55 2 0.73 3 1.09 4.37
years
Total 74 26.92 112 40.72 89 32.37 100.00
Consequently, the majority of workers between the ages of 21 and 30 perceive a high
level, unlike the majority of workers between the ages of 31 and 40 who perceive a medium
level. The majority of those surveyed aged between 41 and 50 years perceive a medium
level, in the same way as those aged between 51 and 60 years. On the contrary, those over
61 years of age affirmed that there is a low level.
In other words, workers between the ages of 41 and 50 had a moderate perception of
remote work, accepting it as the new normal they faced.
In reference to the analysis of the remote work variable according to the service time
of the workers, it was confirmed that for the respondents who have between 1 and 5
years of service, 17.09% reported a medium level, 12.00% reported a high level and 11.64%
reported a low level. Regarding workers who have between 6 and 11 years of service,
13.09% reported a medium level, 9.09% reported a high level and 7.64% reported a low
level.
Finally, for those with more than 12 years of service, 11.27% affirm that there is a high
level, 10.55% that there is a medium level and 4.64% that there is a low level. In other
words, the majority of those surveyed whose service time is between 1 and 5 years affirm
that there is a medium level, as do the majority of those whose service time is between 6
and 11 years. On the contrary, for those with more than 12 years of service, there is a high
level, as can be seen in Table 7.
according to service time.
Low Medium High

Service Time Total
1 to 5 years 32 11.64 47 17.09 33 12.00 40.73
6 to 11 years 21 7.64 36 13.09 25 9.09 29.82
more than 12 years 21 7.64 29 10.55 31 11.27 29.46
Total 74 26.91 112 40.73 89 32.36 100.00
In summary, workers whose service time is between 1 and 5 years had the greatest
acceptance and positive adaptation to remote work as a way to continue performing their
tasks.
In reference to the analysis of remote work, according to the working day, it was
confirmed that in the case of respondents who work full-time, 27.64% perceive a medium
level, 21.82% perceive a high level and 15.64% perceive a low level. For those surveyed
who work part-time, 13.09% perceive a medium level, 11.27% a low level and 10.55% a
high level, as can be seen in Table 8.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 13 of 25
according to the working day.
Low Medium High

Workday Total
Full-time 43 15.64 76 27.64 60 21.82 65.09
Part-time 31 11.27 36 13.09 29 10.55 34.91
Total 74 26.91 112 40.73 89 32.36 100.00
This means that the majority of full-time workers perceive an average level of remote
work, as do most of those who work part-time.
Additionally, the inferential analysis of the level of remote work was carried out
according to the different sociodemographic variables of the workers: gender, age, length
of service and working hours. This calculation was performed by applying the chi-square
test, since this allows recognizing the association between two categorical variables, with
the aim of verifying the goodness of fit between the expected and observed results. First,
the association between remote work and the gender of workers was analyzed through the
following hypotheses:
H0 . There is an association between remote work and the gender of the worker.
H1 . There is no association between remote work and the gender of the worker.
Based on these considerations and according to the results described in Tables 9 and 10,
the null hypothesis (H0 ) is rejected, with p-value = 0.176 > 0.05; consequently, there is no
association between remote work and the gender of the workers.
Table 9. Cross table of remote work level and gender.
Gender
Female Male Total
Low Count 30 44 74
% within the gender of
27.3% 26.7% 26.9%
the person
Medium Count 51 61 112
Remote work % within the gender of
46.4% 37.0% 40.7%
the person
High Count 29 60 89
26.4% 36.4% 32.4%
the person
Total Count 110 165 275
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
the person
Table 10. Chi-square tests: remote work and gender.
Asymptotic
Value df (Bilateral)
Significance
Pearson chi-square 3.478 a 2 0.176
Likelihood ratio 3.512 2 0.173
linear by linear association 1.254 1 0.263
No of valid cases 275
a 0 cells (0.0%) have expected a count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 29.60.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 14 of 25
To verify the association between the age of the workers and remote work, the follow-
ing hypotheses were established:
H0 . There is an association between remote work and the age of the worker.
vs
H2 . There is no association between remote work and the age of the worker.
In this sense, the null hypothesis (H0 ) is denied, since p-value = 0.195 > 0.05; therefore,
there is no association between remote work and the age of the workers, as shown in
Tables 11 and 12.
Table 11. Cross table of remote work level and age.
Age
21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 More Than
Total
Years Years Years Years 61 Years
Low Count 16 18 28 5 7 74
% within the gender
25.4% 27.3% 26.4% 17.9% 58.3% 26.9%
of the person
Medium Count 23 24 48 15 2 112
Remote Work
% within the gender
36.5% 36.4% 45.3% 53.6% 16.7% 40.7%
of the person
High Count 24 24 30 8 3 89
% within the gender
38.1% 36.4% 28.3% 28.6% 25.0% 32.4%
of the person
Total Count 63 66 106 28 12 275
% within the gender
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.% 100.0% 100.0%
of the person
Table 12. Chi-square tests: remote work and age.
Asymptotic
Significance
In the same way, the association between the service time of workers and remote work
was verified; in this sense, the following hypotheses were established:
H0 . There is an association between remote work and the worker’s service time.
vs
H3 . There is no association between remote work and the worker’s service time.
In this regard, the null hypothesis (H0 ) is rejected, since p-value = 0.703 > 0.05; therefore,
it is confirmed that there is no association between remote work and workers’ service time,
as shown in Tables 13 and 14.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 15 of 25
Table 13. Cross table of remote work level and service time.
Time Service
More Than
1 to 5 Years 6 to 11 Years Total
12 Years
Low Count 32 21 21 74
% within the
gender of the 28.6% 25.6% 25.9% 26.9%
person
Medium Count 47 36 29 112
Remote Work % within the
gender of the 42.0% 43.9% 35.8% 40.7%
person
High Count 33 25 31 89
% within the
gender of the 29.5% 30.5% 38.3% 32.4%
person
Total Count 112 82 81 275
% within the
gender of the 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
person
Table 14. Chi-square tests: remote work and time of service.
Asymptotic
Significance
Parson chi-square 2.177 a 4 0.703
Finally, the association between the workers’ working hours and remote work was
verified, and in this sense, the following hypotheses were established:
H0 . There is an association between remote work and the worker’s workday.
vs
H4 . There is no association between remote work and the worker’s workday.

In this sense, the null hypothesis (H0 ) is rejected, since p-value = 0.337 > 0.05; in other
words, it is verified that there is no association between remote work and workers’ working
hours, as presented in Tables 15 and 16.
4.2. Descriptive Study of the Remote Work Variable and Its Dimensions, According to the
Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion
Table 17 presents the results of the measures of central tendency and dispersion of
the variable and its dimensions. Remote work presented an average of 2.05, standard
deviation of 0.77 and covariance of 0.59. For the flexibility dimension, the mean was 2.03,
the deviation was 0.76 and the variance was 0.58. The autonomy dimension presented a
mean of 2.13, deviation of 0.82 and variance of 0.68.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 16 of 25
Table 15. Cross table of the level of remote work and working hours.
Workday
Total
Full Time Part Time
Low Count 43 31 74
% within the
gender of the 24.0% 32.3% 26.9%
person
Medium Count 76 36 112
Remote Work % within the
gender of the 42.5% 37.5% 40.7%
person
High Count 60 29 89
% within the
gender of the 33.5% 30.2% 32.4%
person
Total Count 179 96 275
% within the
gender of the 100% 100% 100%
person
Table 16. Chi-square tests: remote work and working hours.
Asymptotic
Significance
Table 17. Measures of central tendency and dispersion of the variable and its dimensions.
Standard
Variable/Dimension Mean Median Mode Variance
Deviation
Remote work 2.0545 2 2 0.7694 0.5919
Flexibility 2.0291 2 2 0.7588 0.5758
Autonomy 2.1309 2 3 0.8223 0.6762
Productivity 2.0400 2 2 0.7511 0.5641
Technology 1.9636 2 1 0.8319 0.6921
Psychosocial Risks 2.0364 2 2 0.7868 0.6191
Regarding the productivity dimension, the average was 2.04, the deviation was 0.75
and the variance was 0.56. Regarding the technology dimension, the average was 1.96, the
deviation was 0.83 and the variance was 0.69. Finally, in the psychosocial risks dimension,
the mean was 2.04, the was deviation 0.79 and the variance was 0.62.
These findings indicate that, in general, remote work among Peruvian workers during
the COVID-19 pandemic was at a regular level, given the unforeseen conditions of its
implementation and the legal regulations issued by the Peruvian government, with the aim
of protecting workers’ rights.
4.3. Descriptive Study of the Remote Work Variable and Its Dimensions, According to Absolute
and Relative Frequencies
In reference to the descriptive findings of the remote work variable in Peruvian
workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, as shown in Table 18, 40.73% of the respondents
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 17 of 25
indicate that this variable is located at a medium level, 32.36% place it at a high level and
26.91% place it at a low level. Indeed, these results reflect that remote work during the
health crisis has a medium level for the majority of workers surveyed. As a consequence of
the unexpected and unplanned implementation of this form of work, the workers found
themselves in a position of change forced by sanitary conditions.
Table 18. Level of the remote work variable in Peruvian workers during COVID-19.
Variable Level Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

High 89 32.36
Remote work Medium 112 40.73
Low 74 26.91
Total 275 100.00
Regarding the descriptive analysis of the flexibility dimension of remote work, 42.55%
of the respondents report a medium level, 30.18% indicate that there is a high level and
27.27% affirm that there is a low level. These findings show that the majority of respondents
think that the flexibility provided by remote work during the health crisis is medium,
where the freedom and ability to adapt to alternate one’s personal life with one’s work life
in an adequate way stand out, allowing one to be able to share more time with one’s family
and at the same time accomplish one’s work activities.
In the case of the autonomy dimension of remote work, 41.09% of those surveyed
indicate that they perceive a high level, 30.91% that there is a medium level and 28.00%
that they perceive a low level. In other words, the majority of workers indicate that
the autonomy of remote work during the health crisis is at a high level, considering the
possibilities of carrying out other tasks during confinement and the freedom to make
decisions related especially to the planning of a working day.
In relation to the productivity dimension of remote work, 43.64% of those surveyed
perceive a medium level, 30.18% a medium level and 26.18% a low level. This evidence
shows that the majority of workers surveyed affirm that there is a medium level of produc-
tivity in remote work, considering that there are various factors that improve productivity,
such as flexibility itself, as well as fluid communication with the work team through
electronic means.
For their part, in the technology dimension of remote work, 36.36% of those surveyed
indicated that there is a low level, 32.73% that there is a high level and 30.91% that there
is a medium level. The results show that the majority of workers perceive a low level of
technology as a tool for remote work during the pandemic; this indicates low knowledge
of ICT, as well as the absence of digital skills. In addition, the impact of the management of
technological platforms for the development and reporting of work activities is presented,
due to the change in the way of working, a situation for which they were not prepared.
Finally, in the psychosocial risks dimension of remote work, 38.18% of those surveyed
affirm that there is a medium level, 32.73% affirm that there is a high level and 29.09% affirm
that there is a low level, as shown in Table 19. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that
the implementation of remote work was carried out unexpectedly and without planning,
the majority of workers believe that it has a medium level. The main causes indicate that
the impact on people’s way of life and work, confinement and subsequent adoption of
remote work moderately affected the mental health and interpersonal relationships of
workers.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 18 of 25
Table 19. Level of remote work dimensions in Peruvian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dimensions Level Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

High 83 30.18
Flexibility Medium 117 42.55
Low 75 27.27
Total 275 100.00
High 113 41.09
Autonomy Medium 85 30.91
Low 77 28.00
Total 275 100.00
High 83 30.18
Productivity Medium 120 43.64
Low 72 26.18
Total 275 100.00
High 90 32.73
Technology Medium 85 30.91
Low 100 36.36
Total 275 100.00
High 90 32.73
Psychosocial Risks Medium 105 38.18
Low 80 29.09
Total 275 100.00
5. Discussion
This study seeks to provide knowledge for the understanding of remote work in
Peruvian workers, as an alternative to the declaration of the COVID-19 virus as a pandemic
and the consequent restrictions. In the same way, it seeks to analyze the degree to which
the ways of working have changed since this event.
In order to have an adequate context of the characteristics of the sample, a descriptive
analysis of the sociodemographic data was carried out, showing that the majority of the
surveyed workers are men. In the same way, the majority of those surveyed are between
41 and 50 years old. Regarding the service time, most of the respondents have between 1
and 5 years of service. Finally, regarding the working hours they complete, the majority of
those surveyed work full-time.
The inferential analysis of the association between remote work and sociodemographic
variables such as gender, age, length of service and working hours, using the chi-square test,
showed that there is no association between these variables and remote work, with p-value
> 0.05. These findings differ from those of Izdebski and Mazur (2021), who determined that
the mental health symptom level index was 40.91 and the mental health symptom change
index was 60.51. In both cases, a worse assessment was obtained in women than in men.
On the other hand, the linear regression results suggest that the increased rate of change
in mental health symptoms is impacted by female gender, college education and remote
work.
For the variable remote work in Peruvian workers during the COVID-19 pandemic,
the descriptive results reflect that the majority (40.73%) of the respondents indicated that
there is a medium level. Considering that the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic was
something unexpected for companies, the Peruvian government implemented emergency
measures, including mandatory confinement and the closure of workplaces. This led
companies to adopt remote work as an alternative to continue with their economic activities.
Consequently, the lack of planning and the need to continue working forced people to
adapt quickly, the effects of which had a medium impact on their lives.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 19 of 25
Similarly, Uribe Kajat et al. (2021) conclude in their study about the opinion of workers
on the implementation of remote work as a result of the pandemic; 47% expressed that they
are indifferent, 33% agreed with this form of work, 18% said they disagreed, 2% strongly
agreed and 1% strongly disagreed.
In addition, the results of the present study are similar to those of Błaszczyk et al.
(2022), who determined that one in three respondents prefers to work entirely remotely.
Likewise, workers reported their preference for a hybrid work model with a predominance
of remote work, while one in five respondents opted for the hybrid model with a preference
for stationary work.
According to Popovici and Popovici and Popovici (2020), the official data of people
who worked in the European Union under the remote work modality in 2019 indicate that
5.4% of people worked remotely. The Netherlands and Finland had the highest rates of
remote work, at 14.1%; the lowest rates were in Bulgaria and Romania with 0.5% and 0.8%,
respectively. These data changed drastically as a result of the pandemic; more and more
companies have adopted this way of working, and it will continue to increase due to the
context of uncertainty introduced by the global health crisis.
Likewise, de Araújo and Lua (2021), who developed a study in Brazil on remote work,
concluded that not all professions or trades allow remote work to be adopted. Examples
include informal activities that have low use of technology, among them agriculture,
domestic work and informal commerce. This allows us to understand the differences in
remote work in various Brazilian regions, because the lower the required qualification, the
lower the adoption and the lower the use of remote work. In addition, remote work is
more used in trades traditionally performed by women, such as education, science and
administrative support.
On the other hand, the results are different from those of Donati et al. (2021), who
evaluated remote work from the level of employees and the factors related to the imple-
mentation of this modality. That domain consisted of company size, previous remote work
experience, teamwork, workload, and number of children. Consequently, they identified
five different groups of workers: face-to-face workers, lone workers, SMB remote workers,
early-stage remote workers from large companies and experienced remote workers from
large companies.
Regarding the flexibility dimension of remote work, the majority (42.55%) of the
workers reported a medium level. This shows that flexibility as a characteristic of remote
work had a positive impact on freedom and adaptability, as well as on the possibility
of balancing private and work life, considering that aspects such as company support,
adequate communication with the work team, achievement of goals and execution time of
activities had a positive development.
These results are similar to those of Ferreira et al. (2021), who specified that flexibility
positively influences the balance of work and personal life of workers, making them manage
the most efficient way of working, which also influences their job satisfaction.
In relation to the autonomy dimension of remote work, the majority (41.09%) of the
workers perceived a high level. This evidence reflects that workers perceive the autonomy
provided by remote work as something positive, which allowed them to have freedom in
planning tasks and their execution, as well as in decision making.
These results are in line with those of Wang et al. (2021), who in their study on effective
remote work and its design during the COVID-19 pandemic specified that autonomy is a
fundamental aspect for workers. Labor autonomy is favorable for the performance and
well-being of workers since people with greater autonomy can balance work and rest, as
well as choose the most productive ways to carry out their tasks. Similarly, they identified
that labor autonomy is beneficial for a healthy work–family relationship.
Likewise, van Zoonen et al. (2021), in their study on the factors that influence the adap-
tation to remote work during the start of the pandemic in Finland, determined that work
independence (autonomy) and the clarity of work criteria help to improve the adaptation
of workers in remote work environments.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 20 of 25
Regarding the productivity dimension of remote work, the majority (43.64%) of the
workers indicated that there is a medium level. Among the aspects that they considered
important and positive to improve their productivity are working conditions, teamwork,
working from home and improving relationships with the family.
In a similar study, Galanti et al. (2021) determined that autonomy and self-leadership
have a positive relationship with productivity and work commitment. In general terms,
promoting autonomy and self-leadership can be an alternative that increases the effective-
ness of the company’s objectives and planning. In this sense, training can be carried out
and schedules of activities and times can be established, based on work goals to be met, to
improve productivity.
Additionally, Galanti et al. (2021) identified that remote work can be a valid and
applicable alternative, especially for people worried about contracting COVID-19, consid-
ering that the fear of this virus is positively associated with high levels of productivity
and commitment. That is, people emotionally affected by the virus reported being more
productive and motivated working remotely.
According to Ferreira et al. (2021), promoting the benefits of remote work and estab-
lishing an appropriate organizational culture minimize resistance to change and improve
productivity, as well as morale.
Within this framework, the study by Toscano and Zappalà (2020b), referring to social
isolation and stress as predictors of perceived productivity and job satisfaction during
the pandemic, determined that the positive relationship between perceived remote work
productivity and satisfaction increased in workers less concerned about the virus, while it
decreased in those who were more concerned. This means that remote job satisfaction was
higher for workers with higher perceived productivity and less fear of the virus.
On the other hand, in the technology dimension of remote work, the majority (36.36%)
of the workers indicated that there is a low level. These results allow us to interpret that the
adaptation to the technological platforms, the ICT and the digital competences necessary for
the execution of tasks was slow and difficult, considering that the change was unexpected
and without planning.
According to Sengupta and Al-Khalifa (2022), in their study on the remote work
arrangements imposed by the pandemic, workers found it difficult to maintain fluid
communication and collaboration with their collaborators, since they were not used to
working with virtual tools and digital platforms.
In contrast, the results of Uribe Kajat et al. (2021), who in their study determined the
technological support received by workers during the pandemic, reflect that the majority
of those surveyed reported feeling indifferent or in agreement regarding the support they
received from the company. In other words, the organizations did everything possible so
that the tasks were not affected by the level of use of technological tools.
Finally, in the psychosocial risks dimension of remote work, the majority (38.18%) of
the workers stated that there is a medium level. The risks to health, specifically to mental
health, are one of the most critical aspects of the implementation of remote work. The
workers had a double fear: the fear of themselves or their relatives contracting COVID-19
and the fear of not being able to meet work objectives by working from home.
In the same way, Sengupta and Al-Khalifa (2022) point out that the degree of un-
certainty faced during the pandemic produced feelings of discomfort and established
venturing to work outside the home as a health risk, generating an environment of uncer-
tainty and anxiety. Consequently, the workers saw their nerves affected, causing them to
lose concentration and affecting their mental health.
Consistently, Izdebski and Mazur (2021), in their study on changes in the mental
well-being of adults at the beginning of the pandemic in relation to their occupation and
remote work, verified that the associated restrictions had a negative impact on the mental
health of workers. Aspects related to the decline of mental health were associated with the
female gender and the vision of the deterioration of the professional situation.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 21 of 25
Likewise, these findings coincide with those of Kondratowicz et al. (2022), who
determined the existence of a relationship between remote work during the pandemic
and job and personal satisfaction, with the degree of stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem
playing a mediating role in this relationship. In other words, remote work is associated
with personal and job satisfaction in a positive way.
6. Conclusions
The present investigation allowed us to characterize remote work in Peru during the
COVID-19 pandemic and also helped to establish the most important aspects that affected
workers who switched to this modality due to the health crisis. These aspects were as
follows: flexibility, autonomy, productivity, technology and psychosocial risks.
Before the appearance of the COVID-19 pandemic, remote work was already im-
plemented, conservatively and for specific occupations. As a result of the health crisis,
mandatory confinement was something that impacted companies and organizations, lead-
ing to the need for them to consider alternatives to not completely close their operations.
Consequently, remote work constituted a valid alternative, which indisputably had effects
on the lives of workers.
The findings of this study reflect that Peruvian companies implemented remote work
in an improvised manner and without planning, despite the fact that the government
developed laws to establish standards and conditions for the benefit of workers.
Therefore, Peruvian workers felt the effects of the flexibility of remote work moderately,
since they received support from the organization and had adequate adaptation and
appropriate communication with their collaborators. In contrast, the workers perceived
a high level of autonomy, which gave them the freedom to carry out the tasks at their
convenience, plan their activities and make decisions in this regard.
Regarding the level of productivity of the workers in the remote modality, they re-
ported a medium level, considering that the company carried out the control and follow-up
of the tasks, the analysis of the goals achieved and the performance evaluation. In addition,
they stated that they worked as a team adequately and were overloaded with work at the
beginning of the pandemic.
Regarding technology as a component of remote work during the COVID-19 pan-
demic, workers reported a low level, considering that they did not have the required
technological infrastructure or knowledge about communication platforms and in general
had deficiencies in the necessary digital skills.
On the other hand, the psychosocial risks of workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
reached a medium level, since the impact on their way of life was very great. The subse-
quent transfer from work to home caused those moments of stress, and anxiety and in some
cases increased motivation and creativity, considering that they had to deal with social
isolation.
In conclusion, it can be said that there is a before and after for remote work and that
this form of work is here to stay. Therefore, companies must evaluate the advantages,
disadvantages, effects and consequences of remote work in their human talent and in their
organization, before adopting it.
One way to promote the implementation of remote work is through the promulgation
of laws and regulations by the competent authorities. This suggests that companies adopt
this way of working, as long as their economic support allows them. In turn, this, carried
out properly, will benefit the workers and their family–work relationships and reduce
expenses and pollution.
In the Peruvian context, companies have been increasingly implementing remote work;
however, working conditions, salaries and incentives, among others, must be improved.
Likewise, the stability of the work and the productivity of the employer must be ensured,
minimizing the risks of contagion in the workplace or during the transfer, as well as
preserving the health of workers and their families in response to COVID-19.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 22 of 25
This research contributes to understanding and analyzing how the pandemic deter-
mined the adoption of remote work in Peru as a solution to the contingency, and it will also
provide a starting point to continue delving into this topic in case of future events.
The limitations of this study include the fact that it was developed based on the
workers of two companies with economic activity that allowed them to adopt this modality
during the crisis; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to workers of all the companies.
In addition, it was developed in Peruvian companies; therefore, it cannot be generalized to
other countries or regions. On the other hand, the study was developed with a descriptive
level, which only allows the observation, organization, simplification and description of
the relevant information of a sample, in relation to the study variable.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.C.D.M. and A.F.P.C.; methodology, A.F.P.C.; soft-

ware, A.F.P.C.; validation, V.T.C.B., V.T.C.B. and R.C.D.M.; formal analysis, R.C.D.M.; investigation,
R.C.D.M.; resources, V.T.C.B.; data curation, A.F.P.C.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.D.M.;
writing—review and editing, A.F.P.C.; visualization, V.T.C.B.; supervision, A.F.P.C.; project adminis-
tration, R.C.D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Ahlers, Elke. 2016. Flexible and remote work in the context of digitization and occupational health. International Journal of Labour
Research 8: 85–99.
Althoff Lukas, Fabian Eckert, Sharat Ganapati, and Conor Walsh. 2022. The Geography of Remote Work. Regional Science and Urban
Economics 93: 103770. [CrossRef]
Arias, Fidias Gerardo. 2016. El Proyecto de Investigación. Introducción a la Metodología Científica, 7th ed. Caracas: Episteme.
Baburajan, Panthayil. 2021. Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic among expatriate residents in the UAE. Avicenna 2021: 1–10.
[CrossRef]
Bamieh, Omar, and Lennart Ziegler. 2022. Are remote work options the new standard? Evidence from vacancy postings during the
COVID-19 crisis. Labour Economics 76: 102179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bashshur, Rashid, Charles Doarn, Julio Frenk, Joseph Kvedar, and James Woolliscroft. 2020. Telemedicine and the COVID-19 Pandemic,
Lessons for the Future. Telemedicine and E-Health 26: 571–73. [CrossRef]
Beckmann, Michael. 2016. Working-Time Autonomy as a Management Practice. Bonn: IZA World of Labor. [CrossRef]
Błaszczyk, Michał, Milan Popović, Karolina Zajdel, and Radosław Zajdel. 2022. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the
Organisation of Remote Work in IT Companies. Sustainability 14: 13373. [CrossRef]
Cardozo, Nelson Dionel, and Pablo Alberto Bulcourf. 2020. El trabajo remoto en Iberoamérica: Un análisis comparado de los avances
en las administraciones públicas. Cuadernos del INAP (CUINAP) 32: 32. Available online: https://publicaciones.inap.gob.ar/
index.php/CUINAP/article/view/203 (accessed on 21 September 2022).
Carvajal Villamizar, Henny Patricia, Mónica Liliana Jáuregui Ortega, and Mónica Michell Ayala Torres. 2021. Prevalencia de
desórdenes musculoesquelético asociados al trabajo remoto en docentes de la Facultad de Salud de la Universidad Francisco de
Paula Santander en tiempos de COVID-19. Gestión de la seguridad y la salud en el trabajo 2: 5–8. [CrossRef]
Chuco Aguilar, Victoria Judith, José Antonio Álvarez Pejerrey, Manuel Greck Anderson Chávez Ramírez, and Luis Alexis Fernando
Cuba Rosales. 2020. El trabajo remoto y el desempeño laboral en el marco del COVID-19. Review of Global Management 6: 1.
[CrossRef]
Congress of the Republic. 2013. Ley N.◦ 30036. May 15. Available online: https://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/2016_202
1/Proyectos_de_Ley_y_de_Resoluciones_Legislativas/Proyectos_Firmas_digitales/PL05408.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
de Araújo, Tânia Maria, and Iracema Lua. 2021. O trabalho mudou-se para casa: Trabalho remoto no contexto da pandemia de
COVID-19. Revista Brasileira de Saúde Ocupacional 46: e27. [CrossRef]
Delgado Zamalloa, Branco Altair, Daniela Devi Mosquera Vivanco, Ámbar Julieth Mendoza Barros, and Gonzalo Rodolfo Peña
Zamalloa. 2022. Cambios en la satisfacción laboral y su relación con la adopción del trabajo remoto después de la pandemia del
COVID19. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia 27: 886–903. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 23 of 25
Donati, Simone, Gianluca Viola, Ferdinando Toscano, and Salvatore Zappalà. 2021. Not All Remote Workers Are Similar: Technology
Acceptance, Remote Work Beliefs, and Wellbeing of Remote Workers during the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 12095. [CrossRef]
ECLAC. 2021. Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2021: Labor Dynamics and Employment Policies for a Sustainable and
Inclusive Recovery beyond the COVID-19 Crisis. Santiago: ECLAC. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/
47192 (accessed on 2 September 2022).
Ferreira, Rafael, Ruben Pereira, Isaías Scalabrin Bianchi, and Miguel Mira da Silva. 2021. Decision Factors for Remote Work Adoption:
Advantages, Disadvantages, Driving Forces and Challenges. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7: 70.
[CrossRef]
Flores Polanco, Marta Irene. 2021. ¿Aumentaron los factores psicosociales nocivos a consecuencia de la pandemia COVID-19? Realidad
Empresarial 11: 62–64. [CrossRef]
Galanti, Teresa, Gloria Guidetti, Elisabetta Mazzei, Salvatore Zappalà, and Ferdinando Toscano. 2021. Work from Home during the
COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on Employees’ Remote Work Productivity, Engagement and Stress. Journal of Occupational &
Environmental Medicine, Publish Ahead of Print. [CrossRef]
Ganga Contreras, Francisco, and Horacio Villacís Moyano. 2018. Factores individuales y grupales que influyen en la productividad de
los trabajadores de las grandes y medianas empresas de Guayaquil. Revista Perspectivas 42: 97–122.
Giorgi, Gabriele, Luigi Isaia Lecca, Federico Alessio, Georgia Libera Finstad, Giorgia Bondanini, Lucrezia Ginevra Lulli, Giulio
Arcangeli, and Nicola Mucci. 2020. COVID-19-Related Mental Health Effects in the Workplace: A Narrative Review. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 7857. [CrossRef]
Global Workplace Analytics. 2022. Leading Authority on the Future of Work. Carlsbad: Global Workplace Analytics. Available online:
https://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/ (accessed on 14 September 2022).
Hegde, Nagaratna Parameshwar, Sireesha Vikkurty, Gnyanee Kandukuri, Sriya Musunuru, and Ganapatikrishna Parameshwar
Hegde. 2022. Employee Sentiment Analysis Towards Remote Work during COVID-19 Using Twitter Data. International Journal of
Intelligent Engineering and Systems 15: 75–84. [CrossRef]
Hernández-Sampieri, Roberto, and Christian Paulina Mendoza Torres. 2018. Metodología de la investigación: Las rutas cuantitativa,
cualitativa y mixta, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Available online: http://repositoriobibliotecas.uv.cl/handle/
uvscl/1385 (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Herrera, Luis Carlos, Virginia Torres-Lista, and Markelda Montenegro. 2021. Teletrabajo y pandemia. Análisis de las condiciones
laborales en tiempos de COVID-19. Encuentros. Revista de Ciencias Humanas, Teoría Social y Pensamiento Crítico 14: 14. [CrossRef]
Howe, Lauren Christine, and Jochen Menges. 2022. Remote work mindsets predict emotions and productivity in home office: A
longitudinal study of knowledge workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human–Computer Interaction 37: 481–507. [CrossRef]
ILO. 2020. ILO Observatory: COVID-19 and the World of Work, 3rd ed. Ginebra: World|ReliefWeb. Available online: https://reliefweb.
int/report/world/observatorio-de-la-oit-el-covid-19-y-el-mundo-del-trabajo-3a-edici-n (accessed on 10 September 2022).
ILO. 2021. ILO: At Least 23 Million People Have Used Teleworking in Latin America and the Caribbean [News]. July 6. Available
online: http://www.ilo.org/americas/sala-de-prensa/WCMS_811302/lang--es/index.htm (accessed on 16 August 2022).
Interfell Corp. 2016. La Flexibilidad Laboral: Beneficio Clave en el Trabajo a Distancia. Available online: https://blog.interfell.com/
flexibilidad-laboral (accessed on 15 August 2022).
International Labor Organization (ILO). 1984. Psychosocial Factors at Work: Nature, Incidence and Prevention. Available online:
http://www.factorespsicosociales.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FPS-OIT-OMS.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2022).
Ipsen, Christine, Marc van Veldhoven, Kathrin Kirchner, and John Paulin Hansen. 2021. Six Key Advantages and Disadvantages
of Working from Home in Europe during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 1826.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Iwashita, Hitoshi. 2021. The future of remote work in Japan: COVID-19’s implications for international human resource management.
Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 9: 7–18. [CrossRef]
Izdebski, Zbigniew, and Joanna Mazur. 2021. Changes in mental well-being of adult Poles in the early period of the COVID-19
pandemic with reference to their occupational activity and remote work. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health 34: 251–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jacks, Tim. 2021. Research on Remote Work in the Era of COVID-19. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 24: 93–97.
[CrossRef]
Juez, Julio. 2020. Productividad Extrema: Como Ser Más Eficiente, Producir Más, y Mejor. Lima: Julio Juez.
Kimberlin, Carole, and Almut Winterstein. 2008. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal
of Health-System Pharmacy 65: 2276–84. [CrossRef]
Kondratowicz, Blanka, Dorota Godlewska-Werner, Piotr Połomski, and Meetu Khosla. 2022. Satisfaction with job and life and remote
workin the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of perceivedstress, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Current Issues in Personality Psychology
10: 49–60. [CrossRef]
Kooli, Chokri. 2022. Challenges of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic for women in the UAE. Journal of Public Affairs
e2829. [CrossRef]
Kothari, Cartik. 2004. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age International.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 24 of 25
López Ahumada, José Eduardo. 2021. Trabajo remoto y derecho a la desconexión digital ante el riesgo de la flexibilidad horaria.
Estudios Latinoamericanos de Relaciones Laborales y Protección Social 11: 77–88.
MacRae, Ian, and Roberta Sawatzky. 2020. Trabajo remoto: Personalidad y rendimiento Resultados de la investigacion. Artículo
Científico, 1–31.
Matli, Walter. 2020. The changing work landscape as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from remote workers life situations
in South Africa. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 40: 1237–56. [CrossRef]
McHugh, Mary. 2013. The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica 23: 143–49. [CrossRef]
Messabia, Nabil, Paul-Rodrigue Fomi, and Chokri Kooli. 2022. Managing restaurants during the COVID-19 crisis: Innovating to
survive and prosper. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 7: 100234. [CrossRef]
Ministry of Labor and Employment Promotion. 2020. Guide for the Application of Remote Work. Available online: https://www.gob.
pe/institucion/mtpe/informes-publicaciones/541100-guia-para-la-aplicacion-del-trabajo-remoto (accessed on 9 October 2022).
Mostafa, Bassant Adel. 2021. The Effect of Remote Working on Employees Wellbeing and Work-Life Integration during Pandemic in
Egypt. International Business Research 14: 41. [CrossRef]
Ñaupas Paitán, Humberto, Elías Mejía Mejía, Eliana Novoa Ramírez, and Alberto Villagómez Paucar. 2014. Metodología de la investigación
cuantitativa—Cualitativa y redacción de la tesis, 4th. ed. Bogotá: Ediciones de la U.
Nilles, Jack. 1997. Telework: Enabling Distributed Organizations: Implications for IT Managers. Information Systems Management 14:
7–14. [CrossRef]
Nilles, Jack, Roy Carlson, Paul Gray, and Gerhard Hanneman. 1974. Telecommunications-transportation tradeoffs. En Final Report.
Available online: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974usc..rept.....N (accessed on 10 October 2022).
NISI. 2022. Employed Population Of Metropolitan Lima Reached 4 million 909 Thousand People in the Fourth Quarter of 2021.
Available online: https://m.inei.gob.pe/prensa/noticias/poblacion-ocupada-de-lima-metropolitana-alcanzo-los-4-millones-
909-mil-personas-en-el-cuarto-trimestre-del-ano-2021-13295/ (accessed on 15 October 2022).
Oszlak, Oscar. 2020. Trabajo remoto: Hacer de necesidad virtud. Available online: http://repositorio.cedes.org/handle/123456789/45
66 (accessed on 19 October 2022).
Paladines Morán, Julio Pedro, Grace Liliana Figueroa Morán, and José Nevardo Paladines Morán. 2021. El teletrabajo y trabajo remoto
en tiempos de Covid. Serie Científica de la Universidad de las Ciencias Informáticas 14: 172–86.
Palella Stracuzzi, Santa, and Feliberto Martins Pestana. 2012. Metodología De La Investigación Cuantitativa, 3rd ed. Caracas: Fondo
Editorial de la Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador. Available online: https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=a5
NHAgAACAAJ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
Popovici, Veronica, and Alina-Lavinia Popovici. 2020. Remote work revolution: Current opportunities and challenges for organizations.
Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series 20: 468–72.
Presidency of the Republic of Peru. 2020. Decreto de Urgencia N.◦ 026-2020. Available online: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/
presidencia/normas-legales/460471-026-2020 (accessed on 24 August 2022).
Quevedo Ricardi, Fernando. 2011. Medidas de tendencia central y dispersión. Medwave 11: 1–6. [CrossRef]
Reyes Caorsi, Walter. 2020. Efectos colaterales positivos de la pandemia. Revista Uruguaya de cardiología 35: 33–52. [CrossRef]
Rothman, Kenneth, Sander Greenland, and Timothy Lash. 2008. Modern Epidemiology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Sánchez Antícona, Álvaro Rodrigo. 2021. Trascendencia de las estrategias metodológicas y el desempeño docente en el trabajo remoto.
Journal of Latin American Science 5: 274–95. [CrossRef]
Sandoval-Reyes, Juan, Sandra Idrovo-Carlier, and Edison Jair Duque-Oliva. 2021. Remote Work, Work Stress, and Work–Life during
Pandemic Times: A Latin America Situation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 7069. [CrossRef]
Sengupta, Debashish, and Dwa Al-Khalifa. 2022. Pandemic Imposed Remote Work Arrangements and Resultant Work-Life Integration,
Future of Work and Role of Leaders—A Qualitative Study of Indian Millennial Workers. Administrative Sciences 12: 162. [CrossRef]
Sidhom, Oussama. 2021. Physical and mental health aspects in COVID-19: Two sides of a coin. Avicenna 2021: 1–2. [CrossRef]
Toscano, Ferdinando, and Salvatore Zappalà. 2020a. Smart working in Italia: Origine, diffusione e possibili esiti. Psicologia Sociale 2:
203–23. [CrossRef]
Toscano, Ferdinando, and Salvatore Zappalà. 2020b. Social Isolation and Stress as Predictors of Productivity Perception and Remote
Work Satisfaction during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Concern about the Virus in a Moderated Double Mediation.
Sustainability 12: 9804. [CrossRef]
Universidad IEU. 2018. Autonomía Laboral—Universidad IEU. Available online: https://ieu.edu.mx/blog/tendencias/autonomia-
laboral/ (accessed on 29 August 2022).
Uribe Kajat, Justina, Kelly Myriam Jiménez de Aliaga, José Gerardo Vargas Dávila, Daniel Enrique Rey de Castro Hidalgo, Miguel
Ángel Bashualdo Pérez, and Luis Alberto Geraldo Campos. 2021. El trabajo remoto y la gestión de las emociones en tiempos de
la COVID-19: Una mirada de estudiantes de maestría desde el rol de trabajadores, Lima-Perú 2020. Industrial Data 24: 179–99.
[CrossRef]
van Zoonen, Ward, Anu Sivunen, Kirsimarja Blomqvist, Thomas Olsson, Annina Ropponen, Kaisa Henttonen, and Matti Vartiainen.
2021. Factors Influencing Adjustment to Remote Work: Employees’ Initial Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18: 6966. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58 25 of 25
Vander Elst, Tinne, Ronny Verhoogen, and Lode Godderis. 2020. Teleworking and Employee Well-Being in Corona Times: The
Importance of Optimal Psychosocial Work Conditions. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 62: e776–e777. [CrossRef]
Vargas Espín, Juan Carlos. 2020. El teletrabajo: Nueva modalidad laboral y una opción digital para las empresas y la sociedad. Revista
Odigos 1: 21–34. [CrossRef]
Varner, Katrin, and Klaus Schmidt. 2022. Employment-at-Will in the United States and the Challenges of Remote Work in the Time of
COVID-19. Laws 11: 29. [CrossRef]
Wang, Bin, Yukun Liu, Jing Qian, and Sharon Parker. 2021. Achieving Effective Remote Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A
Work Design Perspective. Applied Psychology 70: 16–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wong, Kee-Luen, Seng-Fook Ong, and Thiam-Yong Kuek. 2012. Constructing a Survey Questionnaire to Collect Data on Service
Quality of Business Academics. European Journal of Social Sciences 29: 209–21.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2020. La OMS caracteriza a COVID-19 como una pandemia—OPS/OMS | Organización
Panamericana de la Salud. March 11. Available online: https://www.paho.org/es/noticias/11-3-2020-oms-caracteriza-covid-19
-como-pandemia (accessed on 22 August 2022).
Zhang, Charlene, Martin Yu, and Sebastian Marin. 2021. Exploring public sentiment on enforced remote work during COVID-19.
Journal of Applied Psychology 106: 797–810. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Articulo Cientifico

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articulo Cientifico

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articulo Cientifico

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

administrative

1 Escuela de Posgrado, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán, Huánuco 10003, Peru

Keywords: remote work; flexibility; autonomy; productivity; technology; psychosocial risks

Citation: Pasquel Cajas, Alexander 1. Introduction

Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13020058 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

2.2. Remote Work Concept

2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Remote Work

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of remote work.

Entity Advantages Disadvantages

2.4. Dimensions of the Remote Work Variable

According to Jacks (2021), the implementation of remote work in organizations gen-

3. Materials and Methods

Table 3. Detail of the questionnaire: dimensions, items and response options.

Dimension Item Options

The validity of the instrument (questionnaire), defined as the measure in which

the questions according to construct parameters, pertinence, relevance, coherence and

Table 4. Sociodemographic data of the sample.

Sociodemographic Data Characteristic Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Table 9. Cross table of remote work level and gender.

Table 10. Chi-square tests: remote work and gender.

Table 11. Cross table of remote work level and age.

Table 12. Chi-square tests: remote work and age.

Table 14. Chi-square tests: remote work and time of service.

H4 . There is no association between remote work and the worker’s workday.

Table 16. Chi-square tests: remote work and working hours.

Variable Level Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Dimensions Level Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.C.D.M. and A.F.P.C.; methodology, A.F.P.C.; soft-

You might also like