The Pernicious Myth of Working Two Remote Jobs

Despite screaming headlines, very few remote workers hold two jobs

Published: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 - 13:03

‘I would bet 10 percent or more of our remote staff, especially programmers, are working two remote jobs! We need to stop this before it escalates and get everyone back to the office.”

Thus spoke the chair of the board of a Fortune 1000 tech company when I met with the board to help them figure out the company’s plans for permanent post-pandemic work arrangements. Having helped 19 organizations determine their hybrid and remote work plans, I have heard such sentiments all too often.

So I asked him where he got his information. He told me he sits on other company boards, and that’s what he heard from other board members, so he guesses the same thing goes on at this tech company.

Salacious headlines fuel leadership mistrust of remote work

“These People Who Work From Home Have a Secret: They Have Two Jobs,” screams a headline from The Wall Street Journal. The Guardian writes “‘It’s the Biggest Open Secret Out There’: The Double Lives of White-Collar Workers With Two Jobs.” And according to Bloomberg, “Many Remote Workers Secretly Juggle Two Full-Time Jobs—or More.”

These articles, and many similar ones, mostly have a similar structure. The journalist interviews an anonymous remote employee, usually in a tech-related field, about how they managed to secure a second job working remotely. The employee speaks of the additional money they’re able to secure, which is worth the burdens of working many more hours. There are often exciting and dramatic escapades of how they just managed to avoid getting caught. At times, there are cautionary tales of workers who were found out—and fired.

These types of articles play on our narrative fallacy, a dangerous mental blind spot that causes us to understand the world through stories rather than facts. Sure, stories can be useful illustrations of broader data points. But the danger stems from stories that speak to our feelings and intuitions without regard for the actual evidence.

Such stories also feed into our mind’s availability bias, which refers to the fact that we tend to pay attention to the information that’s most available in our memory. Such salience occurs because these story-based articles arouse our emotions, which are especially stimulated by the crime-like elements in these tales.

It’s no surprise that the more traditionalist executives and board members who read these narratives integrate these stories into their vision of reality. After all, one of our most fundamental cognitive biases is the confirmation bias, our mind’s predisposition to look for information that confirms our beliefs, regardless of whether the information matches the facts. We latch onto such stories, and then repeat them in C-suite and board meetings, as did the chair of the board of the Fortune 1000 tech company.

The facts about working two remote jobs

To be clear, I’ve no personal stake in any specific outcome; my priority is getting the right information to serve my clients. That’s why my first source of information for external benchmarks on employment and similar economic data is FRED—Federal Reserve Economic Data.

FRED gathers a variety of economic data, mainly from U.S. government agencies as well as other high-quality sources, to provide long-term trends on the U.S. economy. FRED’s goals are to provide the most accurate information possible, so that everyone, from the Federal Reserve to the executives at Fortune 1000 companies to the founders of startups, can make the best business decisions, thus maximizing government tax revenue. FRED has no interest or stake in promoting in-office, hybrid, or remote work.

So what does FRED tell us? Let’s consider the data on multiple jobholders as a percentage of all employed members of the U.S. workforce from 2000 onward.

As the graph below makes clear, we’re at a historically low point of employees holding multiple jobs. The high point was around the turn of the century, when 5.8 percent of all workers held multiple jobs. Currently, about 4.8 percent do so. Just before the pandemic, 5.2 percent had more than one job.

Source: FRED, Multiple Jobholders as a Percent of Employed, 2000 onward

Those data encompass both full-time and part-time jobs. But is the story perhaps different for those holding down full-time jobs? Let’s see what FRED has to say.

Source: FRED: Multiple Jobholders, Primary and Secondary Jobs Both Full Time, 2000 onward

Not really. Some 438,000 workers had two full-time jobs in July 2022, or 0.27 percent of the total working population of 163,500,000 this year. That compares to 418,000 in July 2000, or 0.3 percent of the total workforce of 138,800,000 that year. So, while we’re not at a particularly historically low point of workers holding down two full-time jobs, we’re just about average, and the 10 percent theorized by the chair of the board is much more than an order of magnitude too high.

But what about all the anecdotes?

What about all these anecdotes reflected in the headlines? “Isn’t the plural of anecdote said to be data?” the chair of the board asked me.

Well, the reality is that it’s true that many more remote workers are holding down two full-time jobs than in the past. Yet it’s not because the proportion increased; that’s still under 0.3 percent. No, it’s because many more people are working remotely.

Thus, before the pandemic, Stanford University research shows that 5 percent of all workdays were worked remotely. Two years into the pandemic, the comparable number is more than 40 percent of all workdays.

That’s more than eight times more. Thus, of the tiny fraction of all employees who hold down two full-time jobs, a much larger proportion will be remote. So we’ll certainly hear more stories about it.

But the fact that more of such incidents will occur won’t change the fact that the total is under 0.3 percent of all workers. All those headlines about two-timing remote workers—and the traditionalist executives who buy into them—ignore the underlying probabilistic base rate, meaning the actual likelihood of this scenario.

That’s a cognitive bias known as the base rate neglect, where we focus on individual anecdotes and fail to assess the statistical likelihood of events. Similarly, even though traveling by plane is about 100 times safer than driving, the dramatic headlines surrounding plane crashes cause people to neglect statistics and travel by car, leading to many more fatalities.

Indeed, what executives often miss is that many of the employees who held down two full-time jobs before the pandemic did so from the office. Do you think people work a full eight-hour day when they come in? Far from it. Research finds that, on average, employees work from 36 percent to 39 percent of the time they’re in the office. The rest is spent on things like making nonwork calls, reading social media and news websites, and even looking for—or working—other jobs.

Trust your staff

If you can’t trust a worker to work well remotely, you can’t trust them to work well in the office. Recent research by Citrix on knowledge workers—employees whose job can be done full-time remotely—shows that knowledge workers forced to come to the office full-time show the least amount of trust to their employers, compared to hybrid or full-time remote workers. And no wonder: Their bosses are showing deep-rooted mistrust of their employees by forcing them to come to the office full-time when their job can be done mostly or even fully remotely.

If that mutual trust between employer and employee is absent, employees will disengage. A Gallup survey on hybrid and remote work reveals that when employees are required to work onsite, but they both can and would prefer to do their job in a remote or mostly remote manner, the result is significantly lower engagement and well-being, and significantly higher levels of burnout and intent to leave. In fact, if the employer took away the option of remote work, 54 percent of those working remotely would likely look for another job. Altogether, more than three-fourths of all respondents want to work fewer than three days per week in the office.

Internal surveys from my clients align with these external surveys. For example, the University of Southern California’s Information Sciences Institute (ISI), a research institution with more than 400 staff, originally decided in the summer of 2021 on a policy of three days in the office. Once the ISI leadership learned about my work and hired me as a consultant, they shifted in the fall of 2021 to a trust-based, flexible, team-led model, with individual team leaders deciding together with their team members what worked best for each team.

A survey we conducted in August 2022 showed that, compared to the three days in the office policy, 73 percent of the employees at ISI believed that the team-led model is “much better,” and 15 percent felt it’s “better.” These responses show a much higher degree of employee satisfaction and engagement through flexibility and trust. The same goes for retention and recruitment. This is implied in a survey question of whether respondents would recommend working at ISI to their peers: 56 percent said the team-led model makes it “much more likely” that they would make this recommendation, and 18 percent said it would make them “more likely.”

Overall, the chair of the board of the Fortune 1000 tech company agreed that the best practice for the future of work is a collaborative, trust-based approach. Show trust to your employees, and they will trust you in turn. Accommodate their working styles and preferences, and they will repay you with higher engagement, productivity, and loyalty. 

About The Author

Gleb Tsipursky

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky helps quality professionals make the wisest decisions on the future of work as the CEO of the boutique future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. A proud Ukrainian American, he is the best-selling author of seven books, including Never Go With Your Gut: How Pioneering Leaders Make the Best Decisions and Avoid Business Disasters and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams: A Manual on Benchmarking to Best Practices for Competitive Advantage. His cutting-edge thought leadership has been featured in more than 650 articles in prominent publications such as Harvard Business Review, Fortune, and USA Today. His expertise comes from more than 20 years of consulting for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox and more than 15 years in academia as a cognitive scientist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Ohio State. Contact him at Gleb[at]DisasterAvoidanceExperts[dot]com, Twitter@gleb_tsipursky, Instagram@dr_gleb_tsipursky, LinkedIn, and register for his Wise Decision Maker Course.