According to data gathered by Robert Half, new hybrid and remote job postings have increased by about 10 percent from early 2023 to the end of 2024. Not surprisingly, this was accompanied by a 10 percent decrease in fully in-office job postings over the same period.
Moreover, 37 percent of U.S. job seekers would like to work entirely remotely, while well over half prefer a hybrid role.
The data backs up what we already suspect: remote workforces will continue to grow.
Now, the question is, what is the difference in risk between hiring an on-site employee and a remote employee? While “doom and gloom” is, by no means, the intended tone of this article, it’s important to examine and consider some of these things objectively.
Remote Employee Considerations
When assessing the general risk of an on-site hire versus a remote hire, we must acknowledge that there is a difference. On-site employees can potentially cause physical damage to people and property. Additionally, due to more face-to-face interaction with other employees, on-site employees can, in many cases, have a greater influence on company culture. If this influence on culture is negative, it could cause internal harm.
That said, while on-site workers may pose a more significant physical risk than remote staff, this is largely offset by the higher offsite risks posed by remote employees. Let’s examine some risks employers must consider when opening remote or hybrid positions.
Communication and Cohesion Challenges
Reliance on digital communication alone can cause miscues and create bottlenecks. Furthermore, effective communication among a team doesn’t always indicate cohesion– a thing that has been shown to benefit morale and productivity. Even if communication is seamless between a remote team’s members, achieving cohesion could still be difficult. While cohesion is undoubtedly a challenge for many on-site teams, the challenge seems to be greater in remote environments.
Security Risks
In some instances, remote employees may pose a greater security risk than on-site employees, especially if they are allowed access to company data through unsecured, unmonitored networks.
Time Theft
Some estimates suggest that time theft costs employers up to 20 percent of every dollar earned. Due to challenges with attendance monitoring, remote employees could pose a greater risk in this area.
Double-Dipping
According to a recent survey, up to 37 percent of remote workers have a second full-time job, and up to 32 percent have a side hustle. While many organizations don’t discourage employees from accepting additional income opportunities, most don’t allow employees to do it on their company time. Double-dipping of this kind is more of a risk when dealing with a remote workforce.
Combatting Workforce Challenges
Company policies, productivity/attendance monitoring, and pre and post-hire employment screening solutions can help companies effectively face these challenges. While potential risks may differ between on-site, hybrid, and remote employees, they are not necessarily any less or greater overall.
We recommend consistency in employment screening practices. If two positions of equal responsibility and duty are opened—one on-site and one remote—we would advise the same background check for both positions. However, we sometimes recommend an additional ongoing employment monitoring solution for employers concerned about double-dipping and time theft among their remote staff (particularly when company policies against double employment are in place).
Takeaways
Risk accompanies any hire, whether the position is on-site, remote, or hybrid. Understanding and mitigating the risk is the best way forward. For some organizations, a remote workforce is the best option. When such is the case, it’s important to realize that while these employees don’t pose a sizeable physical risk to their organization, several risks still apply. Policy, monitoring, and proper screening protocols can considerably reduce these risks.
For more information about our employment screening solutions, please reach out to us.
