The commute was punishing. The office was rigid. But embedded in all of it was a mercy that nobody noticed until it was gone.
There was a time when work in India was exhausting but containable. The suburban train was punishing. The traffic was relentless. The office hierarchy was rigid. But embedded in all of it was a psychological mercy: work had a geography. You left home. You travelled. You arrived. You returned. The commute, whether on Mumbai’s crush-loaded locals, Bengaluru’s Outer Ring Road crawl, or Delhi’s Metro, was not merely transport. It was a boundary ritual. It separated the professional self from the personal one. It told your nervous system when the day had begun and, crucially, when it was permitted to end. Work from home dissolved that ritual. And in India, where professional culture was already operating at the edge of the tolerable, this dissolution did not merely blur boundaries. It abolished them.
The system was already stretched
Before the pandemic accelerated the remote work shift, India’s white-collar workforce was functioning in conditions that most Western management literature would classify as unsustainable. Long hours were not an exception; they were the atmosphere. In IT, consulting, media, finance and start-ups, the working day routinely extended into evenings not because the work demanded it but because visibility demanded it. Replying at 11 pm signalled commitment. Leaving at 6 pm required justification. Performance evaluation was inconsistently applied, data-driven in some organisations, largely impressionistic in most, and almost everywhere contaminated by the question of who seemed dedicated rather than who delivered results. A structural inequity ran quietly beneath all of this.
- A minority of high performers carried a disproportionate share of actual workloads
- The majority maintained sufficient visibility to be evaluated as adequate
- This imbalance was tolerated because the office and its physical rhythms contained it
- Tasks had timings. Demands were bounded by the working day.
Work from home removed the container and poured everything in.
The Indian variant of boundary collapse
In Western contexts, the literature on remote work boundary collapse focuses primarily on flexibility curdling into overreach, the always-on culture creeping beyond its mandate. In India, the collapse was architecturally different. It had at least five distinct dimensions.
The cultural dimension
Indian corporate culture has long conflated responsiveness with professionalism. A quick reply signals seriousness; a delayed one implies unreliability. When work moved home, this expectation did not relax, it intensified, because the implicit logic became inescapable: if you are at home, you are available. The physical alibi of the commute disappeared. Evenings softened. Weekends became negotiable. The laptop remained open in the way that earlier generations might have left a file on the dining table, always in peripheral vision, always carrying the mild anxiety of incompletion.
The structural dimension
Digital platforms lowered the cost of assembling people to near zero. Convening twelve managers earlier required calendar choreography, room bookings and physical presence. Now it required a link. The result was a meeting explosion that hollowed out the working day: consecutive video calls without the buffer of moving between rooms, continuous context switching, and the particular fatigue of communicating at a camera rather than a person.
In India, where hierarchical culture already favoured consensus building and supervisory oversight, digital meetings quietly became something else, a form of surveillance lite. Corridor observation was replaced by screen presence. Attendance became a proxy for productivity. The manager who once watched whether you were at your desk now watched whether your camera was on.
The distributional dimension
In remote environments, reliability becomes visibility. When communication fragments and oversight loosens, managers instinctively route tasks toward the people they trust to deliver.
- High performers, already overloaded, became more so
- Work flowed to the efficient and compressed around the competent
- Underperformers found that digital opacity offered considerable camouflage
- In the absence of robust evaluation frameworks, this imbalance not only persisted but worsened
The pandemic did not create this inequity. It removed the modest social pressures that had previously kept it partially in check.
The spatial dimension
In countries with larger average living spaces, remote work offered ergonomic relief. In India, many employees were working from shared apartments, joint family homes and multigenerational environments with no dedicated workspace. A dining table became a workstation. A bedroom became a meeting room. The professional voice entered domestic space and never fully left. The psychological cost of this is difficult to quantify but straightforward to understand: human beings require environmental cues to regulate their mental states. When the space associated with rest becomes the space associated with performance, the nervous system loses the signal for recovery. It remains, in a low-grade way, permanently activated.
For women, this spatial collapse carried an additional weight. In the West, studies found that domestic labour reduced somewhat when both partners worked from home. In India, given structural inequities in the division of household responsibility, many women experienced the opposite: full office hours without office infrastructure, alongside domestic obligations that did not diminish proportionally. The double shift did not arrive with the pandemic; it simply became impossible to deny.
The commute paradox
Eliminating the daily commute genuinely restored hours for millions of workers. In Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, where the daily commute often consumed two to three hours, this was not trivial. But those hours did not reliably convert into rest or personal time. They were, in a large proportion of cases, absorbed back into work, extended availability windows, earlier start times, later final responses. Time saved from trains became time consumed by tasks. The body rested more. The mind rested less. The exhaustion changed its character without changing its intensity.
The psychology of permanent availability
Earlier, workplace exhaustion in India was predominantly physical: the commute, the heat, the hours standing. Now it is cognitive. Continuous digital engagement produces a specific constellation of symptoms, including decision fatigue, attention fragmentation, and a persistent low-grade anxiety that researchers have begun to characterise as cognitive residue: the mental tail that every unread message, every unanswered notification, leaves behind even when you are not actively working. In India’s competitive job market, where replacement anxiety is real and institutional job security is thin, employees respond to this anxiety by overcompensating.
- They stay online beyond requirement
- They reply faster than necessary
- They volunteer visibility, appearing in optional meetings, responding to after-hours messages, as a hedge against the fear of seeming peripheral
The result is a self-reinforcing loop. The more employees perform availability, the more availability becomes the expected norm, and the more those who maintain actual boundaries appear to be less committed. The reasonable become disadvantaged. The boundary becomes professionally dangerous.
The measurement failure at the centre of it
Underlying all of these dynamics is a structural failure that the pandemic exposed but did not create: India’s corporate world, with notable exceptions, has not built the evaluation infrastructure required for outcome-based management. In mature remote work cultures, the shift from office to home is accompanied by a corresponding shift from presence-based to output-based assessment. You are evaluated on what you deliver, not on when your status indicator is green. This requires investment, in clear key performance frameworks, in managerial training, in a cultural willingness to trust employees with autonomy.
Many Indian organisations made the technological transition to remote work without making this cultural one. They brought the office home, its hours, its hierarchies, its surveillance instincts, without examining whether those things had been producing results in the first place. The consequence was that working from home became, for many employees, the worst of both worlds: the spatial constraints of home combined with the temporal demands of the office, monitored by managers who had replaced physical oversight with digital watching and called it flexibility.
The central paradox
Here is the central irony of India’s remote work era: work became less visible and more continuous simultaneously. In the office, exploitation, when it occurred, was at least bounded. The working day ended when you left the building. The door closed at some point. Now it closes when you decide to shut the laptop, and the psychological pressure of Indian professional culture means that many employees do not feel entitled to decide. The finality that the physical office imposed by its architecture is something that digital work can only replace with institutional policy and individual boundary-setting, neither of which India’s corporate culture has meaningfully developed. Employees gained flexibility. They lost finality. And finality, it turns out, was doing a great deal of work.
What must actually change
Three reforms are necessary. None of them are complicated. All of them require organisational will that is currently scarce.
Outcome-based evaluation must replace presence theatre: This means defining what each role is expected to produce, measuring against those expectations, and disconnecting performance judgement from hours online, meeting attendance and response speed. It means training managers to supervise work rather than monitor workers.
Digital discipline must become institutional policy rather than individual responsibility: This includes defined no-meeting windows, explicit after-hours communication norms, and leadership that models, not merely endorses, the boundary. When the senior leader sends emails at midnight, the subordinate has no real permission not to respond. Cultural norms are set at the top.
The spatial infrastructure of remote work must be addressed directly: This means acknowledging that not all employees have equivalent home environments, supporting access to coworking alternatives, and building flexibility that accounts for varied domestic realities rather than assuming a standard of private, quiet, dedicated workspace that a majority of Indian employees do not possess.
Without these changes, the hybrid model, which most Indian organisations have now settled into as the default, will continue to deliver the costs of both remote and office work while capturing the full benefits of neither.
The honest reckoning
Work from home did not deteriorate Indian professional life overnight. It revealed what was already fragile. The long hours were always there. The performance inequities were always there. The hierarchical pressure, the availability expectations, the gap between stated and actual culture, all already there. Digital work simply removed the architectural walls that had previously given these pressures their shape and their limit.
The question now is not whether we return to offices. That debate has largely resolved itself into a hybrid consensus. The question is whether Indian organisations are prepared to redesign work substantively, to examine what the office was actually producing, what remote work has actually cost, and what a genuinely sustainable model of professional life might look like for a workforce that is ambitious, skilled, underprotected, and tired in ways that annual appraisals cannot capture. Because once work enters the bedroom, the recovery is not just organisational. It is intimate. It is slow. And it begins with organisations acknowledging that the boundary they dissolved was not a luxury. It was a lifeline.
Subscribe Deshwale on YouTube
