Who Supports the Ideal Worker Norm? Group Differences and Consequences of Remote Work

Abstract

Although the COVID-19 pandemic spurred a shift toward remote work, the ideal worker norm, centered on constant availability and physical presence, remains deeply entrenched in U.S. culture. This study examines two unresolved questions regarding the ideal worker norm in the post-pandemic context: how support for the ideal worker norm varies across groups with differing levels of decision-making authority (e.g., age, education, sex, and managerial experience), and whether stronger support for this norm is linked to greater flexibility stigma. Drawing on an original survey experiment with a national sample of 1,003 Americans conducted after the pandemic and using insights from status characteristics theory, we find that men and individuals with managerial experience were more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm, while younger workers were less likely to. Contrary to our expectations, education was unrelated to support for the ideal worker norm. Additionally, stronger endorsement of the ideal worker norm was associated with more negative evaluations of employees requesting remote work, who were perceived as less committed and likable, and deserving of less respect and support. These findings suggest that the ideal worker norm continues to fuel flexibility stigma and underscore the role of cultural schemas and status hierarchies in shaping workplace inequality.

Keywords

organizations occupations and work social psychology race gender and class

Introduction

In early 2025, several Fortune 500 companies—including Amazon, JPMorgan, Disney, IBM, and Citigroup—made headlines by requiring employees to return to a 5-day, in-person workweek (Dennison 2024). Around the same time, the U.S. federal government issued a “Return to In-Person Work” mandate. These moves by both public and private sector institutions marked a sharp departure from the widespread expectations for flexible and remote work policies that had emerged a few years earlier during the COVID-19 pandemic—a period seen as having fundamentally transformed the nature of paid work (Chung et al. 2020) and which many had declared as a “new normal” for workplace flexibility (Ng, Lit, and Cheung 2022; Vyas 2022). Such moves to return to in-person work also highlighted the enduring influence of the ideal worker norm, which defines good workers as those who are constantly available, physically present full-time, and unburdened by caregiving responsibilities (Acker 1990; Barrero, Bloom, and Davis 2023; Blair-Loy 2003; Davies and Frink 2014). This series of dramatic workplace shifts in such a short period of time underscores the importance of understanding the pervasiveness and consequences of the ideal worker norm in the post-pandemic workplace, which our study aims to do.

Notably, research conducted before the pandemic has documented the powerful influence of the “ideal worker norm” on workplace cultures in the United States and beyond (Brumley 2018; Sang et al. 2015). Workers who conformed to this ideal were perceived as more competent and committed, and were rewarded with more promotions, higher earnings, and greater access to career-advancing opportunities (Ridgeway 2011). In contrast, workers who deviated from the ideal worker norm—such as remote workers—frequently experienced career penalties, including slower promotion rates, lower earnings, and decreased access to high status assignments (Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007; Glass and Noonan 2016; Moller et al. 2024; Montanye and Livingston 2024; Ridgeway and Correll 2004; Weisshaar 2018), as well as negative interpersonal consequences. For example, deviations from the ideal worker norm have been associated with perceptions of unfairness, decreased workplace legitimacy, and reduced social support from colleagues and supervisors (Kmec, O’Connor, and Schieman 2014; Minnotte and Minnotte 2021; Trimble O’Connor and Cech 2018).

Yet in the post-pandemic context, in which rates of remote work have substantially increased (Wulff Pabilonia and Janocha Redmond 2024), research examining the ideal worker norm remains limited, though several studies indicate that the ideal worker norm was resistant to the vast changes in work and family life brought about by the pandemic (Al-Asfahani, Hebson, and Bresnen 2024; Williamson, Taylor, and Weeratunga 2024). For example, during the pandemic, working U.S. mothers reported feeling pressure to conceal their status as working mothers and continually demonstrate their commitment to their jobs (Zanhour and Sumpter 2024). Evidence from the United Kingdom—where managers remain less likely to promote or increase the wages of workers who deviate from the ideal worker norm, such as fully remote and hybrid workers (Kasperska, Matysiak, and Cukrowska-Torzewska 2024)—similarly underscores the persistence of the ideal worker norm. At the same time, studies in Germany indicate that the norms and structures previously discouraging remote work have weakened (Abendroth et al. 2022). This pandemic-era research underscores ongoing questions about the continuity of the ideal worker norm and highlights the importance of examining it in a post-pandemic context.

Two important questions that remain unresolved in the post-pandemic context are (1) which groups are more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm and (2) does the ideal worker norm explain flexibility stigma against remote workers in a context of higher rates of remote work? We answer these timely questions by conducting a survey paired with a survey experiment among a national sample of Americans, in which we assess their demographic characteristics, support for the ideal worker norm, and views on workers in contexts that may (e.g., requesting remote work) and may not (e.g., requesting benefits information) trigger negative sanctions. Drawing on status characteristics theory, we expect that groups with higher status and greater decision-making authority in the workplace (e.g., managers, highly educated workers) will be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm, and that more support for the ideal worker norm will be associated with greater sanctions toward remote workers by all workers, given such norms. Answering these questions sheds light on why the ideal worker norm endures despite the growing demand for and use of flexible work by revealing how support for the norm is unevenly distributed across groups with differing levels of workplace authority. It also provides insight into how this support fuels the persistence of workplace sanctions and inequalities by showing how the beliefs of organizational gatekeepers can result in penalties levied against key groups of workers—particularly those who use flexible arrangements.

Literature Review

While the COVID-19 pandemic was widely seen as an external shock that challenged long-standing assumptions about how work should be done (Chung et al. 2020; Ng et al. 2022; Scholz et al. 2024; Vyas 2022), the recent emergence of return-to-office mandates underscores the durability of traditional workplace expectations, particularly the ideal worker norm (Al-Asfahani et al. 2024; Scholz et al. 2024; Zanhour and Sumpter 2024). One question that remains about this phenomenon is how levels of support for the ideal worker norm vary across groups in the post-pandemic era. This question is important because norms are embedded in organizational systems and reproduce unequal access to resources and opportunities (Acker 2006), such as economic benefits, job allocation, career progression, and worker evaluations (Drago, Wooden, and Black 2009; Fernandez and Mors 2008; Neely 2020; Ridgeway, Korn, and Williams 2022; Sang et al. 2015).

Background on the Ideal Worker Norm and Flexibility Stigma

Historically, the ideal worker norm emerged from an industrial model of work characterized by full-day on-site schedules and a highly gendered division of labor, in which men were full-time workers and women were responsible for domestic life once they were married. These conditions contributed to the idealization of workers as unencumbered by caregiving responsibilities and consistently physically present (Acker 1990). Despite both the significant rise in women’s labor force participation and flexible workplace practices, the ideal worker norm has remained deeply embedded in workplace cultures (Davies and Frink 2014). These cultural beliefs about what it means to be a committed and competent worker have also served as a yardstick against which flexible workers are often evaluated. They also provide the cultural foundation for flexibility stigma, defined as the negative evaluations and workplace sanctions directed at employees who deviate from the ideal worker norm (Williams, Blair-Loy, and Berdahl 2013). While alternatives to the ideal worker norm exist—for example, the results-only work environment demonstrated how a basis for evaluation can shift toward outcomes, flexibility, and work–life integration rather than long hours or constant availability (Kelly et al. 2010)—such models have not been widely adopted across workplaces.

Thus, understanding which groups are most likely to support the ideal worker remains an important question because greater adherence to the ideal worker norm by key organizational gatekeepers—such as managers—can result in career penalties for workers perceived as violating it, including remote workers (Moller et al. 2024; Munsch, Ridgeway, and Williams 2014; Williams et al. 2013). Moreover, in the post-pandemic context, where remote work is more widely available, these dynamics may disproportionately disadvantage groups more likely to use flexible arrangements—such as women, younger workers, those with less education, or employees in subordinate roles (Correll et al. 2007)—and in turn exacerbate job insecurity and impose rigid scheduling for such groups (Williams et al. 2013). Describing group differences in support for the ideal worker norm can thus help explain why it persists despite growing demand for flexibility and point to conditions under which its influence might weaken (e.g., when a large exogenous event like a pandemic disrupts the character of work itself).

Status Characteristics Theory and Support for the Ideal Worker Norm

Status characteristics theory offers a valuable framework for understanding group-based differences in support for the ideal worker norm. Status characteristics theory proposes that social categories such as gender, education, and age carry widely-shared, culturally embedded beliefs that associate higher competence and status-worthiness with some groups over others (Berger and Webster 2006).¹ These beliefs shape implicit expectations that individuals form about both themselves and others, which in turn legitimate status hierarchies based on these characteristics (Ridgeway and Correll 2004).

In workplace contexts, higher-status individuals, such as men, managers, or those with more education and experience, are expected to perform more competently than their lower-status counterparts—women, non-managers, less educated, and younger workers.² Although these status expectations are widely shared, those who benefit from existing status arrangements may be especially likely to perceive them as legitimate (Lynn, Shi, and Kiley 2025; Zelditch and Walker 1984). As noted above, historically, the ideal worker norm privileged certain workers; namely, male, professional workers unencumbered by other responsibilities like childcare (Acker 1990). As such, higher status groups may be more likely to view the ideal worker norm as legitimate or desirable because it affirms and reinforces their advantaged position within workplace hierarchies. Prior scholarship has demonstrated how the ideal worker norm advantages certain high-status groups (e.g., men and managers) but provides more limited and indirect evidence regarding how status characteristics are associated with individuals’ support for the ideal worker norm. The first aim of this study, therefore, is to examine whether groups with more status (i.e., gender, management experience, education, and age) are more likely to support the ideal worker norm.

Gender and the Ideal Worker Norm

Expectations surrounding the ideal worker reflect a conception of full-time availability and uninterrupted productivity that disproportionately disadvantages women (Gatrell, Cooper, and Kossek 2017; Kelly et al. 2010), who are more likely to have care demands and prefer flexible work arrangements (Craig and Churchill 2021; Kurowska 2020). As such, the concept of the “ideal worker” reinforces existing gender hierarchies and inequality regimes in the workplace (Acker 1990). While many women, particularly those in high-status professions, may internalize ideal worker expectations, viewing long hours and constant availability as indicators of ambition and competence (Stone and Hernandez 2013), prior research suggests that men more consistently conform to these norms. For example, Kelly et al. (2010) found that women, particularly mothers, were more enthusiastic about a workplace initiative that restructured work to better align with personal needs, whereas male employees were more cautious and less engaged with this nontraditional model. In an Australian study, Williamson et al. (2024) found that women believed they were more productive than men while working from home during the pandemic, suggesting that women may rely less on on-site visibility to evaluate performance. For men, adherence to the ideal worker norm can serve as a way to express masculinity and maintain advantage in professional as well as domestic spheres. As such, we expect the following:

H1: Men will be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than women.

Management Experience and the Ideal Worker Norm

As with men, managers and those in supervisory roles may be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than lower status workers. Success in managerial roles requires long hours and constant availability (similar to other professionals), but also devotion to the firm and following a linear career progression (Blair-Loy 2003), all of which align closely with the traits valorized by the ideal worker norm. In contrast, many workers in lower status positions are less likely to be rewarded for these same behaviors (Kalleberg 2011). A small body of studies suggests managers have high levels of support for the ideal worker norm. For example, a qualitative study of a manufacturing firm in Mexico found that restructuring gave managers an opportunity to reify and refine their vision of the ideal worker as responsible and permanently committed to the job. This redefinition served to justify the exclusion of certain workers—particularly women (Brumley 2018). Additionally, Blair-Loy and Wharton (2004) showed that senior managers and professionals in a multinational firm—who were highly dedicated to their jobs, took pride in working long hours, and demonstrated the strongest commitment to the organization—expressed little interest in flexible work policies. As such, we hypothesize the following:

H2a: People with more management experience will be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than people with limited or no management experience.

Of course, managers also tend to have greater access to flexible work benefits than their non-manager counterparts (Gerstel and Clawson 2015; Thébaud and Halcomb 2019), and many managers experienced remote work during the pandemic (Chung et al. 2022; Forbes et al. 2020). As a result, perceptions of working from home became more favorable, contributing to a notable shift in managerial attitudes (Chung et al. 2020), in which fewer managers now view long hours in the office as essential for career success and more managers believe remote work can enhance productivity (Forbes et al. 2020). Thus, we also consider the following counter-hypothesis.

H2b: People with more management experience will be less likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than people with limited or no management experience.

Education and the Ideal Worker Norm

Like managers, highly educated workers may be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm, as long work hours and face time symbolize professional dedication and social status among upper-middle-class professionals (Williams et al. 2013). Higher levels of education may also signal higher job status and a greater willingness to endorse the ideal worker norm. Indeed, upper middle-class professionals report that long work hours and face time symbolize professional dedication and social status in the workplace (Williams et al. 2013). For example, Nikunen (2012) found that Finnish academics believed success and recognition were strongly linked to time spent at work. Additionally, in elite professional circles, chronic busyness and the sacrifice of leisure time are often perceived as indicators of success and prestige (Bellezza, Paharia, and Keinan 2017). Such findings reflect the idea that highly educated professionals are often socialized to cultural expectations that equate professional identity with allegiance to work (Cech and Blair-Loy 2014), and that those who do not meet these standards can experience feelings of inadequacy or failure (Sang et al. 2015). Thus, because people with higher education tend to link not just their identity but also their moral worth with their commitment to work (Blair-Loy 2003; Williams et al. 2013), we expect:

H3a: People with higher education will be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than people with less education.

At the same time, like managers, highly educated workers in professional positions experienced a disproportionate increase in remote work during the pandemic, and a significant share continued to work remotely in the pandemic’s aftermath. As such, we consider the possibility:

H3b: People with higher education will be less likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than people with less education.

Age and the Ideal Working Norm

Lastly, we explore differences in support for the ideal worker norm by age cohort. A recurring theme in the research on generations is the centrality of work and age-related differences in work values and cultural norms (Twenge 2010; Twenge and Campbell 2008). Specifically, younger cohorts are less likely than older cohorts to view work as a core aspect of life (Wey Smola and Sutton 2002). Alongside decreasing work centrality, younger workers show a marked increase in valuing leisure and work-life balance (Cennamo and Gardner 2008). For example, Australian younger workers were found to be less willing to engage in unpaid overtime compared to those from the older cohorts (Busch, Venkitachalam, and Richards 2008). Research has also indicated that older workers adopt compensatory behaviors to challenge age-related stereotypes. Thus, by demonstrating strong career commitment, they may contradict the common perception that aging is associated with less motivation and competence (Chiu et al. 2001; Crocker and Major 1989). Given that older cohorts are disproportionately represented in higher status positions across the workforce (Cleveland and Landy 1987; Lawrence 1988; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024), we also consider differences by age and predict the following:

H5: Older workers will be more likely to endorse the ideal worker norm than younger workers.

Consequences of the Ideal Worker Norm

The extent to which different groups endorse the ideal worker norm may have important implications for workers in today’s labor market, in which workers are increasingly seeking or accessing remote work opportunities (Parker, Menasce Horowitz, and Minkin 2022). To this end, if those with decision-making authority (who tend to be higher status) more strongly value the ideal worker norm than those seeking flexible positions, then those higher status individuals may be especially wary of allowing flexible work to the detriment of lower status workers. This is of particular importance because one notable consequence of the pandemic was the expansion of remote work into occupations traditionally considered lower status, where women and younger workers are disproportionately represented (Baumgartner and Schneider 2010; Reskin 1993; Ridgeway 2014; Topel 1991). This demographic shift in remote work raises the importance of clarifying the mechanisms through which remote workers are disadvantaged. Specifically, it underscores the salience of the question: Is greater endorsement of the ideal worker norm associated with a stronger penalty for workers who ask to work remotely?

The centrality of the ideal worker norm in shaping career penalties among remote workers is reinforced by theories of flexibility stigma, which posit that workers who deviate from ideal worker expectations by working flexibly will be penalized in terms of perceived commitment, competence, and career advancement (Munsch et al. 2014; Williams et al. 2013). Indeed, research indicates that remote workers are assumed to be less dedicated and productive (Glass 2004; Munsch 2016); they receive diminished performance evaluations; and they are excluded from important projects or networks, experience fewer promotions, and earn less than their in-office counterparts (Glass and Noonan 2016; Munsch 2016). This pattern has also been observed after the pandemic in a recent survey experiment, which found that managers perceived workers who opted for remote arrangements as less deserving of promotions and raises, and less competent, committed, and leadership-ready than their in-office peers (Moller et al. 2024). Research also finds that these fiscal and career consequences can spill over to workers’ labor force attachment or subjective well-being. For example, faculty who perceive flexibility stigma are significantly more likely to consider changing career paths (Cech and Blair-Loy 2014), and workers who perceive stronger flexibility stigmas in their workplace report less job satisfaction and work-family balance (Zanhour and Sumpter 2024).

Yet despite the obvious connections between flexibility stigma and the ideal worker norm, researchers have rarely directly measured and analyzed the extent to which different levels of support for ideal worker norm (a measure of belief) is associated with different degrees of flexibility stigma and consequences for violating it (a measure of behavior; for a notable example, see the review by Williams et al. 2013). This limitation is important, as negative evaluations of flexible workers may in fact be linked more strongly to concrete management practices and philosophies than cultural norms. For example, remote work may be viewed as a detriment to team cohesion, creative output, and organizational culture (Baruch 2000; Morgan 2004; Pearlson and Saunders 2001; Tremblay and Thomsin 2012). Moreover, literature on human resources management has suggested that remote work hinders the development of trust among team members, reduces the quality and frequency of information exchange, and weakens organizational identification and commitment (Fulton 2002; Golden 2009; Pyöriä 2011). Therefore, it is important to directly assess the connection between differential support for the ideal worker norm and evaluations of workers who have indicated the desire for flexible work arrangements. This step can also better identify a key lever by which flexibility stigma can be reduced and negative work outcomes, particularly for workers who need such arrangements, can be mitigated. Thus, for our final hypothesis, we test the following:

H6: Stronger endorsement of the ideal worker norm is associated with greater negative evaluations for remote workers.

Methods

Data and Sample

Data

Data for this study comes from an original survey administered in June 2023 via the online survey data platform, Prime Panels, which is an aggregate of online research panels. We used Prime Panels to constitute our sample because it provides for a national, diverse sample that approximates the general population more so than other popular online panels, such as MTurk or Prolific (Chandler et al. 2019). Prime Panels participants are also less familiar with survey research, and thus more “naïve” compared to MTurk and Prolific workers. Most importantly, Prime Panels participants are less likely to identify as remote workers, a key dimension of our study that could potentially bias our results. Participants are not, however, selected through probability sampling methods. Rather, participants opt in. Thus, our sample cannot be considered nationally representative, but we took steps to maximize representativeness along important demographic dimensions, including age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, gender, and political affiliation, by employing a quota system designed to match Census distributions. The resulting sample matched Census distributions along these criteria, as well as other demographic factors, including education and income, although our sample was skewed toward lower-income earners and contained comparatively few high earners. Eligibility for participation in the study required that respondents be aged 18 or older. Prior or current employment in the paid labor force was not required. The inclusion of non-employed respondents was theoretically motivated, as the ideal worker norm is a widely shared cultural framework that shapes expectations about, and behavior related to, paid work, caregiving, and labor force participation. The characteristics of our sample appear in Table 1.

Table 1.

Selected Sample Characteristics, Demographic Groups.

Characteristic	Percentages
Gender
Male	44.53
Female	54.21
Age group
18–29	23.81
30–44	26.62
45–59	29.72
60+	19.85
Race
White	71.73
Black	11.04
Other	17.23
Education
High school or less	44.43
Associate/some college	18.49
Bachelor’s degree	25.17
Graduate degree	11.91
Political views
Very liberal	9.39
Liberal	13.07
Fairly liberal	8.62
Moderate	35.72
Fairly conservative	10.26
Conservative	15.97
Very conservative	6.97
Parent status
No minor children	28
Parent to minor children	72
Management experience
No management experience	24.30
Some management experience	28.56
A lot of management experience	47.14
Income group
Low income	41.34
Medium-low	32.53
Medium-high	17.33
High income	8.81

The survey instrument included two components. The first part of the survey was a set of 10 items that tapped a respondent’s support for the ideal worker norm. These items were adopted from a prior study, in which the authors conducted an extensive review of the literature and consulted with numerous field experts to identify a valid and comprehensive set of indicators of the ideal worker norm (Munsch and O’Connor 2018). Each question asked respondents to report the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement (range 1–6). These questions were administered at the beginning of the survey. They appear in Table 2.

Table 2.

Item Level Mean Scores for Ideal Worker Norm Questions and Worker Ratings.

Item	Mean	SD
Ideal worker norm items
Q1. Good employees should limit the time they spend on non-work-related activities while at work, even if they’ve gotten all of their work done.	4.58	1.30
Q2. Good employees should give all to their company or organization.	4.60	1.22
Q3. Good employees should come in early and stay late when their job requires it.	4.05	1.35
Q4. Good employees should be willing to work long hours.	3.88	1.29
Q5. Good employees should be willing to take time away from their family or personal life to get work done.	3.04	1.43
Q6. Good employees should not leave the workforce for an extended period of time to attend to family or personal responsibilities.	2.43	1.34
Q7. Good employees should not alter their work schedules for family or personal reasons.	2.54	1.29
Q8. Good employees should not take time away from work to attend to personal matters.	2.44	1.28
Q9. Good employees should make themselves available at all times.	2.95	1.45
Q10. Good employees should prioritize the work they do for their company or organization above their own non-work responsibilities.	3.22	1.48
Overall scale	3.07	1.02
Worker ratings
Support	3.92	.95
How reasonable is Michael’s [Michelle’s] request?	3.96	0.93
How much does Michael [Michelle] deserve to have his [her] request granted?	3.92	0.98
If you were Michael’s [Michelle’s] employer, how likely would you be to grant the request	3.88	1.11
Respect	3.85	.87
How much respect do you feel toward Michael [Michelle]?	4.01	0.88
How much admiration do you feel toward Michael [Michelle]?	3.70	0.99
Likable
How likable do you consider Michael [Michelle]?	3.89	0.89
Commitment	3.85	.87
How committed is Michael [Michelle] to his [her] job?	3.94	0.78
How dependable is Michael [Michelle]?	3.91	0.80
How dedicated is Michael [Michelle]?	3.89	0.82
Promotion
How likely would you be to recommend Michael [Michelle] for a promotion?	3.60	1.00

Note. The range for all scales is 1 to 6, with six representing the highest level of support for the ideal worker norm and the most positive worker ratings (e.g., highest level of support).

The second part of the survey included a vignette-style 2 × 4 factorial experiment replicating a similar study (Munsch 2016). The author of this study provided us with a copy of their experiment so we could replicate it identically, although we did change the names of the employees from Karen and Kevin (which had taken on cultural significance) to Michael and Michelle, names common during many decades (Social Security Administration, n.d.) that rate among the least racially and ethnically identifiable (Sisense, n.d.). We also made minor formatting changes (e.g., breaking apart paragraphs) to enhance readability, and added two conditions in which workers made no reason for their request to work from home. Differences between the experimental conditions were specifically analyzed as part of a separate study.

This study used a between-subject design. Each subject received one of eight vignettes providing a hypothetical transcript between an HR representative and an employee making a request of the HR representative. After reading the vignette, respondents were asked to respond to 10 questions rating the employee along five dimensions, including support, promotion, likability, respect, and commitment (described below). A copy of the vignette can be found in Appendix B. One set of transcripts depicted a male or female employee requesting information about their benefits (Condition 1–2). Three other sets of transcripts depicted a male or female employee requesting to work from home twice a week for environmental reasons (Condition 3–4) to care for their child after school (Condition 5–6), or for no reason at all (Condition 7–8). Appendix B depicts this 2 × 4 design as well as sample sizes for each condition. For the current study, we pooled respondents from the three treatment conditions (Conditions 1–6) to explore the associations among levels of support for the ideal worker norm and ratings of workers requesting to work from home and controlled for the gender of the employee and reason for requesting to work from home. As a placebo test (we expect that the ideal worker norm will not be negatively associated with worker ratings in contexts that do violate the ideal worker norm) and check on the validity of our findings, we examined the responses of participants who evaluated Conditions 1 to 2 (i.e., HR benefits information condition).

Sample

Our final sample includes 1,033 participants aged 18 to 80 and was formed following a rigorous data screening procedure to ensure high quality data. This procedure included an initial commitment request that asked respondents to agree to providing thoughtful answers, two multiple choice attention checks, and an open-ended comprehension check. We also examined the data for straight lining, unusually short completion times, and inconsistent patterns of responses (e.g., reporting being both a Republican and extremely liberal). In total, we excluded 47% of respondents. This rejection rate is higher than desirable, but we were conservative in our inclusion criteria to ensure participants were attentive to the experimental manipulation for the experimental portion of the study (i.e., nature of remote work request). Large market research panels, while more diverse and less selective in their attitudes and approaches to work, also tend to yield lower quality data than other survey data collection platforms (Douglas, Ewell, and Brauer 2023). Given that our sample could not be considered representative, we prioritized issues of data quality over size.

Measures

Ideal Worker Norm

As noted above, the ideal worker norm was measured by 10 items adapted from Munsch and O’Connor (2018). Higher values reflected higher levels of support for each of the 10 ideal worker norm indicators. Each indicator ranged from 1 to 6. Items were averaged to form an ideal worker norm scale. A list of these 10 items, along with their sample means and standard deviations, appears in Table 2. The overall mean of the ideal worker norm scale was 3.07 (SD = 1.02). Item-level responses varied, with the highest level of support for the statement, “Good employees should limit the time they spend on non-work-related activities while at work, even if they’ve gotten all of their work done” (M = 4.58, SD = 1.30). The lowest level of support was for the statement, “Good employees should not take time away from work to attend to personal matters” (M = 2.44, SD = 1.28). Ancillary analyses based on reliability assessments (i.e., Cronbach’s alpha; examination of inter-item correlations) suggested that all 10 items formed a reliable scale. Mokken’s H, which is a statistical scale that captures the scalability of a set of probabilistically ordered items that measure an underlying latent construct (Sijtsma and Van Der Ark 2017), however, indicated that Questions 1 and 2 should be eliminated. Thus, the final ideal worker norm scale was formed by averaging Questions 3 to 10. This scale exhibited a Mokken’s H value of 0.50 (values of 0.5 or greater indicate a strong scale) and Cronbach’s alpha of .90. We further explored the potential for subscales using exploratory factor analysis but did not find strong evidence to support the use of subscales over the eight-item ideal worker scale.

Ratings

After reading their assigned vignette, participants rated employees along five dimensions: support, respect, likability, commitment, and promotion. Support was based on the average of three questions about how reasonable the request was, whether they deserve to have their request granted, and whether the participant, if they were the employer, would grant the request (α = .91). Respect was based on the mean of two questions about respect and admiration for the employee (α = .83). Likability was based on a single item asking about how likable the respondent considers the employee to be. Commitment was based on the average of three questions about commitment to the job, dependability, and dedication (α = .91). Promotion captured one’s likelihood to recommend the employee for promotion. All ratings are based on a 5-point scale. Exact item wording, along with sample means and standard deviations, appear in Table 2.

Demographic Factors

We examine variation in support for the ideal worker norm among four demographic groups, for whom there are within group differences in status and authority in the workplace, and for whom support for the ideal worker norm may be particularly consequential. These demographic factors are gender (male [ref] vs. female); age (older vs. younger), which we categorized into four age groups (18–29 [ref], 30–44, 45–59, 60 or older); education (which we assess based on four categories for high school degree or less/GED [ref], Associate’s degree or some college, Bachelor’s degree, Graduate degree), and management experience, which we assess based on prior managerial experience (a lot of managerial experience [ref] vs. some managerial experience and no managerial experience). This latter measure, which was replicated from the original survey experiment (Munsch 2016), is a simple measure of management experience, but captures the main status distinction we aim to assess.

Other Controls

In the multivariate models associating employee evaluations and support for the ideal worker norm, we controlled for the above factors, along with several additional factors, including race (White [ref], Black, Other); political ideology (categories ranging from 1 to 7, in which 1 = very liberal [ref] and 7 = very conservative); income (coded into quartiles based on the sample distribution for low income [ref], medium low, medium high, and high); work location and status (on-site work [ref], work mainly at home, work location varies, does not work); marital status (married [ref], cohabiting, unpartnered); mother’s work status when the respondent was a child (mother worked full time [ref], mother worked part-time, mother did not work), parental status (1 = parent of minor child, 0 = not parent of minor child [ref]) and whether the respondent has ever taken extended leave (took leave for 3 months or more; took leave for 3 months or fewer or did not take leave [ref]).

Analysis

The analyses proceeded in three steps. First, we examined the associations between our four focal status characteristics (gender, age, education, and management experience) and support for the ideal worker norm. For this step, we used ordinary least squares regression (OLS) to regress the ideal worker norm scale on these four factors, net of the additional controls. Each hypothesis was tested by examining the sign and statistical significance of the relevant regression coefficients, with hypotheses considered supported when estimated associations were in the theorized direction and statistically distinguishable from zero at conventional significance levels (p < .05). The results from this analysis provide descriptive knowledge of how support for the ideal worker norm varies among groups with higher versus lower levels of workplace status.

As a second step, we examined whether higher levels of support for the ideal worker norm was negatively associated with worker ratings. This step pools the responses of participants who evaluated Conditions 3 to 8 (the remote work conditions). Using OLS, we regressed the rating measures on the ideal worker norm scale, controlling for the controls and demographic factors, modeling each rating measure separately. For the final step in our analysis, we replicated the previous step among participants who evaluated the HR benefits condition (Conditions 1–2). The absence of statistically significant or negative associations would provide further support for our expectation that penalties against remote workers are due to violations of the ideal worker norm, versus a spurious factor we did not account for. All analyses were performed using Stata v.15.

Results

Demographic Differences in Support for the Ideal Worker Norm

Table 3 presents the bivariate associations between our focal groups, as well as additional key covariates, and the ideal worker norm ratings. These results provide preliminary support for our first set of hypotheses. Specifically, men reported significantly more support for the ideal worker norm (mean = 3.32) than women (mean = 2.89). Those with a lot of management experience also reported significantly more support for the ideal worker norm (mean = 3.34) than those with some management experience (mean = 3.03) or no management experience (mean = 2.95). Respondents with the highest levels of education reported the highest levels of support for the ideal worker norm (mean = 3.28), although respondents with a bachelor’s level of education reported the lowest levels of support (mean = 2.93). Lastly, respondents who were older reported more support for the ideal worker norm than the youngest respondents (age 18–29, mean = 2.78), although levels of support for the three older age groups (30–44, 45–59, 60 and older) did not significantly differ from each other.

Table 3.

Bivariate Analyses of Ideal Worker Norms among Selected Demographic Groups.

Characteristic	Mean score	Standard error
Gender
Male	3.32^a	0.050
Female	2.89^b	0.040
Age group
18–29	2.78^b	0.066
30–44	3.15^a	0.070
45–59	3.13^a	0.052
60+	3.19^a	0.062
Political party
Democrat	3.02^b	0.058
Republican	3.18^a	0.054
Independent	3.01^b	0.056
Race
White	3.10^a	0.037
Black	3.02^a	0.095
Other	2.97^a	0.075
Education
High school or less	3.09^b	0.048
Associate/some college	3.07^{b c}	0.063
Bachelor’s degree	2.93^c	0.064
Graduate degree	3.28^a	0.106
Political views
Very liberal	2.82^{b c}	0.133
Liberal	2.84^{b c}	0.086
Fairly liberal	3.02^b	0.085
Moderate	3.04^b	0.050
Fairly conservation	3.15^{a b}	0.093
Conservative	3.27^a	0.088
Very conservative	3.44^a	0.141
Parent status
Parent to minor children	3.14^a	0.064
Not parent to minor children	3.04^a	0.036
Management experience
A lot of management experience	3.34^a	0.068
Some management experience	3.03^b	0.055
No management experience	2.95^b	0.046
Income group
Low income	3.14^a	0.050
Medium	2.96^b	0.053
Medium-high	2.93^b	0.078
High income	3.36^a	0.114
Employment status
Full time work	3.10^a	0.056
Part time work	2.92^b	0.072
No work	3.10^a	0.044
Work location
Mostly work-site	3.02^a	0.060
Mostly at home	2.94^b	0.094
Other (co-op, other locations)	3.20^a	0.097

Note. Statistical significance estimates using t-tests.

Designates the highest values. Superscripts that differ indicate significant differences at a minimum probably of p < .05. Overall sample mean for ideal worker norm scale was 3.07 with a standard deviation of 1.02.

These patterns largely persisted in the multivariate models, in which we included the full set of controls and accounted for the other focal demographic factors. In support of H1, women reported significantly less support for the ideal worker norm than men (B = −.39, SE = 0.06, p < .001). In support of H2, those with some management experience (B = −.20, SE = 0.09, p < .05) and those with no management experience (B = −.21, SE = 0.09, p < .05) reported significantly less support for the ideal worker norm than those with a lot of management experience. The results did not provide support for H3. Specifically, there were no significant differences in support for the ideal worker norm among respondents with different levels of education after accounting for the full set of controls. In support of H4, adults aged 30 to 44 (B = .21, SE = 0.09, p < .05), aged 45 to 49 (B = .19, SE = 0.09, p < .05), and aged 60 or older (B = .31, SE = 0.11, p < .001) reported more support for the ideal worker norm than the youngest respondents (Table 4).

Table 4.

Multivariate Analyses of Ideal Worker Norms by Demographic Groups (N = 771).

Characteristic	B (SE)
Female (ref = male)	−.39*** (0.06)
Age group (ref = 18–29)
30–44	.19* (0.09)
45–59	.19* (0.09)
60+	.33** (0.11)
Race (ref = White)
Black	.00 (0.10)
Other	.01 (0.08)
Education (ref = HS or less)
Associate/some college	−.03 (0.09)
Bachelor’s degree	−.14 (0.08)
Graduate degree	.11 (0.11)
Political views (ref = very liberal)
Liberal	−.05 (0.13)
Fairly liberal	.19 (0.14)
Moderate	.12 (0.12)
Fairly conservation	.25 (0.14)
Conservative	.30* (0.13)
Very conservative	.43** (0.16)
Parental status (non-parent)
Parent minor child	.08 (0.08)
Management experience (ref = a lot)
Some management experience	−.20* (0.09)
No management experience	−.20* (0.09)
Income group (ref = low income)
Medium-low	−.26*** (0.08)
Medium-high	−.35*** (0.10)
High income	.02 (0.13)
Work location (ref = on site)
Work mainly at home	−.02 (0.10)
Varied work locations	.18 (0.10)
Does not work	.02 (0.08)
Constant	3.25 (0.23)

Note. Models also control for whether mother worked, marital status, employment status/location, prior leave, and condition group. R² = .13.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Although we did not formulate any hypotheses among the covariates, some notable patterns emerged. Those with conservative (B = .31, SE = 0.13, p < .05) and very conservative (B = .43, SE = 0.16, p < .01) political ideologies demonstrated higher levels of support for the ideal worker norm compared to very liberal respondents, yet we did not observe significant differences based on the respondents’ work locations. We also observed a pattern by income group, in which the lowest and highest income quartile groups demonstrated significantly higher (and statistically similar) levels of support for the ideal worker norm compared to the middle two quartiles.

Ideal Worker Norm as a Mechanism of Flexibility Stigma

The results in Table 5 present our analyses examining the associations between support for the ideal worker norm and ratings of a hypothetical worker requesting a remote work arrangement. All models include the full set of controls, as well as a control for condition group (thus accounting for the reason for the remote work request and the gender of the employee). Ratings were estimated separately, resulting in a total of five models. Overall, these models demonstrated a consistent negative association between level of support for the ideal worker norm and employee ratings. Specifically, as respondents’ level of support for the ideal worker norm increased, their rating of the employee requesting a remote work arrangement was more negative in terms of how much support they felt toward the employee (B = −.15, SE = 0.03, p < .001), how much respect they felt toward the employee (B = −.09, SE = 0.03, p < .01), how likeable they perceived the employee to be (B = −.07, SE = 0.03, p < .05), and how committed they perceived the employee to be (B = −.09, SE = 0.03, p < .001). The one rating that did not significantly vary by levels of support for the ideal worker norm was the likelihood they would recommend the employee for promotion.

Table 5.

Multivariate Analyses of Worker Ratings by Ideal Worker Norms among Participants Who Read Transcript About Worker Requesting to Work Remotely (N = 771).

Item	B (SE)
Item	Support	Respect	Likable	Committed	Promotion
Ideal worker norms	−.15*** (0.03)	−.09** (0.03)	−.07* (0.03)	−.09*** (0.03)	−.05 (0.04)
Selected covariates
Female (ref = Male)	.22*** (0.07)	.16* (0.07)	.10 (0.07)	.17** (0.06)	.24** (0.08)
Age group (ref = 18–29)
30–44	.08 (0.10)	.05 (0.09)	−.01 (0.10)	.00 (0.08)	.06 (0.11)
45–59	−.15 (0.09)	−.15 (0.09)	−.15 (0.09)	−.07 (0.08)	−.04 (0.11)
60+	−.18 (0.12)	−.19 (0.11)	−.14 (0.12)	−.14 (0.10)	−.22 (0.13)
Political views (ref = very liberal)
Liberal	−.38** (0.14)	−.39** (0.13)	−.45*** (0.14)	−.29* (0.12)	−.44** (0.16)
Moderately liberal	−.29 (0.15)	−.37** (0.15)	−.48** (0.15)	−.28* (0.13)	−.56*** (0.17)
Moderate	−.39** (0.12)	−.54*** (0.12)	−.57*** (0.12)	−.25* (0.11)	−.58*** (0.14)
Moderately conservative	−.41** (0.15)	−.49*** (0.14)	−.57*** (0.15)	−.30* (0.13)	−.60*** (0.17)
Conservative	−.49*** (0.14)	−.52*** (0.13)	−.54*** (0.14)	−.33** (0.12)	−.64*** (0.15)
Very conservative	−.39* (0.17)	−.28 (0.16)	−.32 (0.17)	−.09 (0.14)	−.49** (0.19)
Race (ref = White)
Black	−.05 (0.11)	.13 (0.11)	.09 (0.11)	−.03 (0.09)	−.03 (0.12)
Other	−.04 (0.09)	−.01 (0.08)	.05 (0.09)	−.03 (0.07)	.00 (0.10)
Education (ref = HS or less)
Associate/some college	.04 (0.09)	.05 (0.08)	.01 (0.09)	.08 (0.08)	.05 (0.10)
Bachelor’s degree	.08 (0.09)	.03 (0.08)	.03 (0.09)	.02 (0.07)	−.08 (0.10)
Graduate degree	.23 (0.12)	.06 (0.11)	−.02 (0.12)	.13 (0.10)	.07 (0.13)
Income group (ref = low-income)
Medium-low	−.03 (0.08)	−.01 (0.08)	−.03 (0.08)	.08 (0.07)	−.04 (0.09)
Medium-high	−.02 (0.10)	−.00 (0.10)	−.04 (0.11)	−.01 (0.09)	−.04 (0.12)
High income	−.06 (0.14)	.02 (0.13)	.10 (0.14)	.06 (0.12)	−.05 (0.15)
Work location (ref = on-site)
Work mainly at home	.30** (0.11)	.21* (0.10)	.32** (0.11)	.20* (0.09)	.35** (0.12)
Varied work locations	.13 (0.10)	.09 (0.10)	.03 (0.11)	.14 (0.09)	.10 (0.12)
Does not work	.02 (0.08)	.08 (0.08)	.06 (0.08)	.10 (0.07)	.07 (0.09)
Managerial experience (ref = a lot)
Some managerial experience	−.02 (0.09)	−.10 (0.09)	−.08 (0.09)	−.09 (0.08)	−.05 (0.10)
No managerial experience	.03 (0.09)	.01 (0.09)	.03 (0.09)	−.02 (0.08)	−.03 (0.10)
Constant	4.56 (0.30)	4.66 (0.29)	4.77 (0.31)	3.80 (0.36)	4.62 (0.34)
R ²	.22	.18	.14	.18	.16

Note. Models also control dummy categories for marital status, mothers’ work status, whether they ever took a period of leave, parental status, and condition group.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

To test the robustness of these patterns across conditions, in auxiliary analyses (not shown) we added interactions between the ideal worker norm measure and dummy measures for each condition. None of the interactions were statistically significant.

As a final step in the analysis, we pursued a placebo test, in which we reestimated the associations between support for the ideal worker norm and worker ratings in a context in which support for the ideal worker norm should not be negatively associated with worker ratings. Indeed, re-estimating the above models among the subsample of participants who reviewed the transcript of the employee asking for benefits information revealed either nonsignificant (for support and likable) or significantly positive (for respect, committed, and likelihood promotion) associations between support for the ideal worker norm and worker rating (see Table 6). This pattern of results indicates that the negative patterns observed in Table 5 were in fact due to the participants’ perceptions of remote workers, as opposed to a third variable that was omitted from the model. As with the models in Table 5, these results were not moderated by condition.

Table 6.

Multivariate Analyses of Worker Ratings by Ideal Worker Norms among Participants Who Read Transcript About Worker Requesting Information About Their HR Benefits (N = 262).

Item	B (SE)
Item	Support	Respect	Likable	Committed	Promotion
Ideal worker norms	−.03 (0.03)	.12* (0.05)	.05 (0.05)	.10* (0.04)	.14** (0.05)
Selected covariates
Female (ref = Male)	.05 (0.06)	.24** (0.09)	.20* (0.10)	.25** (0.08)	.25* (0.10)
Age group (ref = 18–29)
30–44	−.00 (0.09)	−.17 (0.13)	−.13 (0.14)	−.06 (0.12)	.13 (0.15)
45–59	.24** (0.09)	.08 (0.12)	.09 (0.13)	.02 (0.11)	.09 (0.14)
60+	.41*** (0.11)	.14 (0.15)	.30 (0.16)	.06 (0.14)	.03 (0.18)
Political views (ref = very liberal)
Liberal	−.23 (0.14)	.08 (0.19)	.06 (0.20)	−.21 (0.17)	−.11 (0.22)
Moderately liberal	−.17 (0.15)	.09 (0.21)	.06 (0.22)	−.23 (0.19)	−.45 (0.24)
Moderate	−.09 (0.12)	.18 (0.16)	.18 (0.17)	−.00 (0.14)	−.02 (0.18)
Moderately conservative	−.25 (0.15)	−.05 (0.21)	.08 (0.22)	−.17 (0.19)	−.10 (0.24)
Conservative	−.07 (0.14)	.00 (0.19)	.00 (0.21)	−.13 (0.18)	−.18 (0.23)
Very conservative	−.04 (0.16)	.23 (0.22)	.24 (0.24)	.13 (0.20)	−.01 (0.26)
Race (ref = White)
Black	−.01 (0.10)	.31* (0.13)	.10 (0.14)	.16 (0.12)	.24 (0.15)
Other	−.00 (0.09)	−.08 (0.12)	.06 (0.13)	−.02 (0.11)	−.00 (0.14)
Education (ref = HS or less)
Associate/some college	−.01 (0.09)	−.10 (0.13)	−.03 (0.14)	−.11 (0.12)	−.11 (0.15)
Bachelor’s degree	.05 (0.08)	.05 (0.11)	−.04 (0.12)	−.04 (0.10)	−.08 (0.13)
Graduate degree	−.06 (0.11)	−.08 (0.15)	−.04 (0.16)	−.05 (0.14)	−.08 (0.18)
Income group
Medium-low	−.03 (0.08)	−.16 (0.11)	−.21 (0.12)	−.16 (0.10)	−.12 (0.13)
Medium-high	.14 (0.10)	.26 (0.14)	.03 (0.16)	−.04 (0.13)	.06 (0.17)
High income	−.04 (0.14)	.15 (0.20)	.11 (0.21)	−.27 (0.18)	−.19 (0.23)
Work location (ref = on-site)
Work mainly at home	−.00 (0.10)	−.20 (0.14)	.06 (0.15)	.07 (0.13)	.06 (0.16)
Varied work locations	.00 (0.11)	−.20 (0.15)	.01 (0.17)	.10 (0.14)	.00 (0.18)
Does not work	−.08 (0.08)	−.17 (0.11)	−.13 (0.11)	−.15 (0.10)	−.10 (0.12)
Managerial experience (ref = a lot)
Some managerial experience	−.02 (0.09)	−.25* (0.13)	−.26 (0.14)	−.21 (0.12)	−.23 (0.15)
No managerial experience	−.08 (0.08)	−.25* (0.12)	−.14 (0.13)	−.10 (0.11)	−.23 (0.14)
Constant	4.53 (0.28)	3.74 (0.39)	4.13 (0.42)	4.77 (0.31)	3.31 (0.45)
R ²	.20	.21	.18	.14	.23

Note. Models also control for dummy categories for marital status, mothers’ work status, whether they ever took a period of leave, parental status, and condition group.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The overall pattern of results observed in Tables 5 and 6 were also observed in auxiliary models, in which we pooled all respondents, created a binary marker for whether they read the remote work transcript or HR benefits transcript, and added an interaction between this binary marker and the ideal worker norm scale.

Discussion

This study examines the prevalence and consequences of the ideal worker norm in the post-pandemic era, a time when remote work has become more common and desired but workplace support for it is contested. Undoubtedly, the pandemic was a potential turning point for workplace norms (Chung et al. 2020; Ng et al. 2022). Yet emerging research suggests that expectations around constant availability and physical presence, central to the ideal worker norm, have persisted (Al-Asfahani et al. 2024; Williamson et al. 2024). One limitation of the existing research is that we do not know which different groups continue to endorse this norm compared to others. A second limitation is that we do not have clear evidence that differential levels of such support shapes unequal responses to workers seeking flexibility. To address these limitations, we used a survey paired with a survey experiment to measure respondents’ status/demographic characteristics, level of support for the ideal worker norm, and evaluations of workers making various workplace requests. Our study offers a clearer understanding of how status beliefs, normative expectations, and cultural schemas contribute to workplace inequality in the post-pandemic era.

Summary of Findings

Consistent with prior research on gendered expectations at work (Acker 1990; Gatrell et al. 2017) and in line with our hypothesis, we find that men are significantly more likely than women to endorse the ideal worker norm. This finding reinforces the idea that workplace expectations around dedication and presentism remain closely tied to masculinity and traditional breadwinner identities—in spite of men’s greater pursuit of flexible work in the post-pandemic era—serving many men by allowing them to continue to experience greater workplace advantages (Munsch, O’Connor, and Fisk 2024; Thébaud and Halcomb 2019; Williams et al. 2013). Similarly, our results show that individuals with extensive management experience are more likely to uphold ideal worker expectations, in spite of significant structural changes in the workplace. These latter findings align with previous research that highlights how managerial roles often demand constant availability and devotion, as well as long hours and loyalty to organizational goals (Blair-Loy 2003; Brumley 2018). Taken together, these patterns highlight the ways in which support for the ideal worker norm is shaped by the positionality of key groups within the workplace and gender and formal hierarchies.

At the same time, consistent with broader age-related shifts in the centrality of work and rising preferences for work-life balance (Cennamo and Gardner 2008; Twenge 2010), we also observe that younger workers expressed significantly less support for the ideal worker norm than their older counterparts. This pattern of results suggests the potential for the ideal worker norm to fade out due to shifts in the cultural beliefs of age cohorts more so than due to structural change (Kiley and Vaisey 2020). Alternatively, it may be that values associated with being young (e.g., freedom) are driving youths’ weaker adherence to the ideal worker norm, rather than actual cohort differences (Cennamo and Gardner 2008), and these values will change with age. Only a longitudinal study could sort out these possibilities.

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find significant differences in endorsement of the ideal worker norm based on educational level. This pattern suggests that while ideal worker expectations are prevalent among professionals (Cech and Blair-Loy 2014; Williams et al. 2013), they may not be uniquely concentrated among the highly educated. One possible explanation for this disjuncture could be related to political ideology and economic status, as our results suggest. Specifically, participants who identified as conservative or very conservative reported higher levels of support for the ideal worker norm, as did those in the highest (although also the lowest income groups) compared to middle-income participants. Because college educated Americans skew toward being more liberal compared to those with the very highest levels of schooling or income (Campbell and Horowitz 2016), education may be an indicator of workplace ideologies that are correlated with, but not perfectly indicated by, political ideology and economic position. The higher levels of support observed among participants in the lowest income groups may be understood in light of previous research documenting how working class families are more likely to foster values of conformity and obedience to institutions in their children (Kohn and Schooler 1969; Lareau and Calarco 2012). Structural conditions of low wage work often also demand greater physical presence in the workplace, potentially further reinforcing ideal worker norm expectations among this group (Kalleberg 2011).

In addition to identifying which groups are most likely to support the ideal worker norm, we also provide evidence that support for the ideal worker norm continues to be a mechanism of flexibility stigma. Prior research has documented the penalties associated with flexible work (Glass 2004; Munsch 2016). Few studies, however, have directly examined whether support for the ideal worker norm predicts these penalties. Such an analysis is especially salient in the post-pandemic context. We found that stronger endorsement of the ideal worker norm is significantly associated with more negative evaluations of a hypothetical employee requesting remote work. Participants expressed lower levels of support, respect, and likability and perceived the worker as less committed, and this association persisted across our experimental conditions in which the reason for working remotely and the gender of the employee varied. This pattern was not observed in the placebo test where the hypothetical employee did not have a flexibility-related request. This latter finding reinforces the notion that the ideal worker norm functions as a key mechanism driving flexibility stigma.

These findings have several theoretical, empirical, and practical implications. Theoretically, our findings advance scholarship on workplace inequality by directly linking cultural schemas about work to sanctions directed at workers who seek flexible arrangements (Williams et al. 2013), even amid shifting workplace structures and the normalization of remote work. Empirically, our study identifies key status groups most likely to support the ideal worker norm and demonstrates how status hierarchies are maintained through these beliefs. Practically, our findings underscore how promoting greater diversity in workplace leadership may help dismantle entrenched inequality structures in the workplace. At the same time, the results suggest that interventions aimed at reducing flexibility stigma must address both cultural beliefs and organizational structures. In other words, policies alone, such as remote work or flexible scheduling, may be insufficient if the underlying ideal worker expectations remain unchallenged.

Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusion

While our models account for several important demographic and ideological factors, there may be unmeasured variables such as personal workplace experiences, geographic variation (e.g., large metro vs. smaller town), and caregiving responsibilities (although we did account for parental status) that shape both support for the ideal worker norm and flexibility stigma. Additionally, our approach cannot shed light on why different groups demonstrate different levels of support for the ideal worker norm. Qualitative approaches could provide deeper insight into the underlying motivations and contextual influences shaping these dynamics. For example, both mothers and fathers should be interviewed to examine whether their parental status informs their perceptions of norms around workplace flexibility and work–life balance.

We also did not examine parental status or caregiving responsibilities as focal predictors of support for the ideal worker norm. Because the meaning of parental status varies by gender and labor force participation—signaling different levels of competence across contexts—future research should investigate how the intersection of these factors shapes support for the ideal worker norm and flexibility stigma. Future research could also refine many of the measures we used in our study; for example, our measure of managerial experience could capture more detailed information about industry, managerial responsibilities, and years of managerial experience. We also did not examine industry, occupation, sector, firm size, or employer type as predictors of support for the ideal worker norm—key organizational and occupational contexts that may reflect different workplace norms and systems of evaluation, which should be examined more explicitly in future research as well. Additionally, analysis of longitudinal data could offer further insight into whether and how adherence to the ideal worker norm changes over time and the causal mechanisms driving this change. Next, we cannot exclude the possibility that there are other pathways linking remote work and flexibility stigma, such as concerns about creative output and organizational culture (Baruch 2000; Fulton 2002; Golden 2009). Thus, we do not know the relative salience of the ideal worker norm vis-à-vis other pathways in explaining flexibility stigma. Furthermore, our results are descriptive. Thus, we cannot make causal attributions; for example, by asserting that the experience of being a manager increases one’s support for the ideal worker’s norm. Lastly, although our sample was national and diverse across key demographic characteristics, it was not nationally representative. Thus, the generalizability of our findings to the U.S. population is uncertain, however methodological research indicates strong correspondence between findings obtained from online convenience samples and those from nationally representative samples in experimental studies (Coppock, Leeper, and Mullinix 2018).

Despite these factors, the findings from our study demonstrate that support for the ideal worker norm is unevenly distributed across status groups and that this support contributes to sanctions of workers seeking flexibility. These findings are particularly significant in a moment where remote work is increasingly normalized and desired—especially among workers with less status in the workplace, like women, younger workers with caregiving responsibilities, and workers with lower levels of education—yet remote work is also still contested in the workplace (Barrero et al. 2023; Chung et al. 2020). Indeed, many employers are requiring their employees to come back to the workplace and ending pandemic-era remote work policies. Thus, by identifying both group-level endorsement and the consequences of this normative belief, our study contributes to ongoing efforts to understand how cultural schemas and status hierarchies are linked to workplace inequality in the post-pandemic era. As such, efforts to reduce flexibility stigma and promote equitable access to remote work must engage with both the persistence of the ideal worker norm and the hierarchal positions that support it.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix A.

Experimental Design.

Item	Human resources transcript condition
Item	Control (Condition 1–2)	Treatment (Condition 3–4)	Treatment (Condition 5–6)	Treatment (Condition 7–8)
Employee: male	1. Male employee request benefits information	3. Male employee request to work from home for environmental reasons	5. Male employee request to work from home to care for child	7. Male employee request to work from home, reason not given
Subsample size	130	129	123	132
Employee: Female	2. Female employee request benefits information	4. Female employee request to work from home for environmental reasons	6. Female employee request to work from home to care for child	8. Female employee request to work from home, reason not given
Subsample size	132	122	131	134

Note. This study used a between-subject design where each respondent only received one vignette.

ORCID iDs

J. Paola M. Tamayo

Jennifer Augustine

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abendroth

Anja-Kristin

Lott

Yvonne

Hipp

Lena

Müller

Dana

Sauermann

Armin

Carstensen

Tanja

. 2022. “Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed Gender- and Parental-status-specific Differences in Working from Home? Panel Evidence from Germany.” Gender, Work & Organization 29(6):1991–2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12836.

Acker

Joan

. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002.

Acker

Joan

. 2006. “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations.” Gender & Society 20(4):441–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499.

Al-Asfahani

Lilas

Hebson

Gail

Bresnen

Mike

. 2024. “Reinforced or Disrupted Ideal Worker Norms in the Pandemic? Analyzing the Gendered Impact of the Pandemic on Professional Specialisms in a Professional Services Firm in Kuwait.” Gender, Work & Organization 31(2):644–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12932.

Barrero

José María

Bloom

Nicholas

Davis

Steven J.

2023. “The Evolution of Work from Home.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 37(4):23–49. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.37.4.23.

Baruch

Yehuda

. 2000. “Teleworking: Benefits and Pitfalls as Perceived by Professionals and Managers.” New Technology, Work and Employment 15(1):34–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005x.00063.

Baumgartner

Mindy S.

Schneider

David E.

2010. “Perceptions of Women in Management: A Thematic Analysis of Razing the Glass Ceiling.” Journal of Career Development 37(2):559–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845309352242.

Bellezza

Silvia

Paharia

Neeru

Keinan

Anat

. 2017. “Conspicuous Consumption of Time.” Journal of Consumer Research 44(1):118–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw076.

Berger

Joseph

Webster

Murray

Jr.

2006. “Expectations, Status and Behavior.” Pp. 268–300 in Contemporary Social Psychological Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.

10.

Blair-Loy

Mary

. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family Among Women Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Blair-Loy

Mary

Wharton

Amy S.

2004. “Organizational Commitment and Constraints on Work-Family Policy Use: Corporate Flexibility Policies in a Global Firm.” Sociological Perspectives 47(3):243–67. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2004.47.3.243.

12.

Brumley

Krista M.

2018. “‘It’s More Appropriate for Men’: Management and Worker Perceptions of the Gendered Ideal Worker.” Sociological Spectrum 38(6):406–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2018.1564096.

13.

Busch

Peter

Venkitachalam

Krishna

Richards

Debbie

. 2008. “Generational Differences in Soft Knowledge Situations: Status, Need for Recognition, Workplace Commitment and Idealism.” Knowledge and Process Management 15(1):45–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.298.

14.

Campbell

Colin

Horowitz

Jonathan

. 2016. “Does College Influence Sociopolitical Attitudes?” Sociology of Education 89(1):40–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715617224.

15.

Cech

Erin A.

Blair-Loy

Mary

. 2014. “Consequences of Flexibility Stigma Among Academic Scientists and Engineers.” Work and Occupations 41(1):86–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515497.

16.

Cennamo

Lucy

Gardner

Dianne

. 2008. “Generational Differences in Work Values, Outcomes and Person-organisation Values Fit” edited by Macky

Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8):891–906. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904385.

17.

Chandler

Jesse

Rosenzweig

Cheskie

Moss

Aaron J.

Robinson

Jonathan

Litman

Leib

. 2019. “Online Panels in Social Science Research: Expanding Sampling Methods beyond Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods 51(5):2022–2038. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01273-7.

18.

Chiu

Warren

Chan

Andy W.

Snape

Redman

Tom

. 2001. “Age Stereotypes and Discriminatory Attitudes towards Older Workers: An East-West Comparison.” Human Relations 54(5):629–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701545004.

19.

Chung

Heejung

Seo

Hyojin

Birkett

Holly

Forbes

Sarah

. 2022. “Working from Home and the Division of Childcare and Housework among Dual-Earner Parents during the Pandemic in the UK.” Merits 2(4):270–92. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits2040019.

20.

Chung

Heejung

Seo

Hyojin

Forbes

Sarah

Birkett

Holly

. 2020. “Working from Home during the COVID Lockdown: Changing Preferences and the Future of Work.” University of Kent. Retrieved July 25, 2025 (https://kar.kent.ac.uk/83896/1/Working_from_home_COVID-19_lockdown.pdf).

21.

Cleveland

Jeanette N.

Landy

Frank J.

1987. “Age Perceptions of Jobs: Convergence of Two Questionnaires.” Psychological Reports 60(3):1075–81. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987.60.3c.1075.

22.

Cohen

Elizabeth G

. 1994. “Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.” Review of Educational Research 64(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170744

23.

Coppock

Alexander

Leeper

Thomas J.

Mullinix

Kevin J.

2018. “Generalizability of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimates across Samples.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(49):12441–46. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115.

24.

Correll

Shelley J.

Benard

Stephen

Paik

. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1297–1339. https://doi.org/10.1086/511799.

25.

Craig

Lyn

Churchill

Brendan

. 2021. “Dual-earner Parent Couples’ Work and Care during COVID-19.” Gender, Work & Organization 28(S1):66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12497.

26.

Crocker

Jennifer

Major

Brenda

. 1989. “Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma.” Psychological Review 96(4):608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608.

27.

Davies

Andrea Rees

Frink

Brenda D.

2014. “The Origins of the Ideal Worker: The Separation of Work and Home in the United States from the Market Revolution to 1950.” Work and Occupations 41(1):18–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515893.

28.

Dennison

Kara

. 2024. “An Update on Return to Office Policies As We Enter 2025.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/karadennison/2024/12/12/an-update-on-return-to-office-policies-as-we-enter-2025/.

29.

Douglas

Benjamin D.

Ewell

Patrick J.

Brauer

Markus

. 2023. “Data Quality in Online Human-Subjects Research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.” PLOS ONE 18(3):e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720.

30.

Drago

Robert

Wooden

Mark

Black

David

. 2009. “Long Work Hours: Volunteers and Conscripts.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 47(3):571–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00717.x.

31.

Fernandez

Roberto M.

Mors

Marie Louise

. 2008. “Competing for Jobs: Labor Queues and Gender Sorting in the Hiring Process.” Social Science Research 37(4):1061–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.10.003.

32.

Forbes

Sarah

Birkett

Holly

Evans

Lowri

Chung

Heejung

Whiteman

Julie

. 2020. “Managing Employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Flexible Working and the Future of Work.” United Kingdom: Equal Parenting Project. Retrieved June 13, 2025 (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/business/research/research-projects/equal-parenting/research.aspx).

33.

Fulton

Crystal

. 2002. “Information Control in the Virtual Office: Preparing Intermediaries to Facilitate Information Exchange in the Home Work Environment.” New Library World 103(6):209–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800210729665.

34.

Gatrell

Caroline

Cooper

Cary L.

Kossek

Ellen Ernst

. 2017. “Maternal Bodies as Taboo at Work: New Perspectives on the Marginalizing of Senior-Level Women in Organizations.” Academy of Management Perspectives 31(3):239–52. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2014.0034.

35.

Gerstel

Naomi

Clawson

Dan

. 2015. “Inequality in Work Time: Gender and Class Stratify Hours and Schedules, Flexibility, and Unpredictability in Jobs and Families.” Sociology Compass 9(12):1094–1105. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12332.

36.

Glass

Jennifer

. 2004. “Blessing or Curse?: Work-Family Policies and Mother’s Wage Growth Over Time.” Work and Occupations 31(3):367–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888404266364.

37.

Glass

Jennifer L.

Noonan

Mary C.

2016. “Telecommuting and Earnings Trajectories Among American Women and Men 1989–2008.” Social Forces 95(1):217–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow034.

38.

Golden

Timothy D.

2009. “Applying Technology to Work: Toward a Better Understanding of Telework.” Organization Management Journal 6(4):241–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2009.33.

39.

Kalleberg

Arne L.

2011. Good Jobs, Bad Jobs : The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

40.

Kasperska

Agnieszka

Matysiak

Anna

Cukrowska-Torzewska

Ewa

. 2024. “Managerial (Dis)Preferences towards Employees Working from Home: Post-Pandemic Experimental Evidence.” PLOS ONE 19(5):e0303307. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303307.

41.

Kelly

Erin L.

Ammons

Samantha K.

Chermack

Kelly

Moen

Phyllis

. 2010. “Gendered Challenge, Gendered Response: Confronting the Ideal Worker Norm in a White-Collar Organization.” Gender & Society 24(3):281–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210372073.

42.

Kiley

Kevin

Vaisey

Stephen

. 2020. “Measuring Stability and Change in Personal Culture Using Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 85(3):477–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420921538.

43.

Kmec

Julie A.

O’Connor

Lindsey Trimble

Schieman

Scott

. 2014. “Not Ideal: The Association Between Working Anything but Full Time and Perceived Unfair Treatment.” Work and Occupations 41(1):63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515691.

44.

Kohn

Melvin L.

Schooler

Carmi

. 1969. “Class, Occupation, and Orientation.” American Sociological Review 34(5):659–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092303.

45.

Kurowska

Anna

. 2020. “Gendered Effects of Home-Based Work on Parents’ Capability to Balance Work with Non-Work: Two Countries with Different Models of Division of Labour Compared.” Social Indicators Research 151(2):405–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-2034-9.

46.

Lareau

Annette

Calarco

Jessica M.

2012. “Class, Cultural Capital, and Institutions: The Case of Families and Schools.” Pp. 61–86 in Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

47.

Lawrence

Barbara S.

1988. “New Wrinkles in the Theory of Age: Demography, Norms, and Performance Ratings.” Academy of Management Journal 31(2):309–337. https://doi.org/10.2307/256550.

48.

Lynn

Freda B.

Shi

Yongren

Kiley

Kevin

. 2025. “Intersectional Group Agreement on the Occupational Order.” Social Psychology Quarterly 88(1):135–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725241256378.

49.

Minnotte

Krista Lynn

Minnotte

Michael C.

2021. “The Ideal Worker Norm and Workplace Social Support among U.S. Workers.” Sociological Focus 54(2):120–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2021.1894622.

50.

Moller

Stephanie

Yavorsky

Jill E.

Ruppanner

Leah

Dippong

Joseph

. 2024. “Remote Work Penalties: Work Location and Career Rewards.” Social Currents 11(6):493–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965241240784.

51.

Montanye

Michael R.

Livingston

Beth A.

2024. “What’s in a Norm? Deviation from the Ideal Worker Norm as an Explanation for Backlash against Leave-takers.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 97(4):1681–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12535.

52.

Morgan

Robert E.

2004. “Teleworking: An Assessment of the Benefits and Challenges.” European Business Review 16(4):344–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340410699613.

53.

Munsch

Christin L.

2016. “Flexible Work, Flexible Penalties: The Effect of Gender, Childcare, and Type of Request on the Flexibility Bias.” Social Forces 94(4):1567–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov122.

54.

Munsch

Christin L.

O’Connor

Lindsey Trimble

. 2018. “What I Think You Think about Family and Work: Pluralistic Ignorance and the Ideal Worker Norm.” Pp. 365–81 in The Work-Family Interface: Spillover, Complications, and Challenges (Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, Vol. 13), edited by Blair

S. L.

Obradović

Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

55.

Munsch

Christin L.

O’Connor

Lindsey T.

Fisk

Susan R.

2024. “Gender and the Disparate Payoffs of Overwork.” Social Psychology Quarterly 87(1):22–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725221141059.

56.

Munsch

Christin L.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

Williams

Joan C.

2014. “Pluralistic Ignorance and the Flexibility Bias: Understanding and Mitigating Flextime and Flexplace Bias at Work.” Work and Occupations 41(1):40–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413515894.

57.

Neely

Megan Tobias

. 2020. “The Portfolio Ideal Worker: Insecurity and Inequality in the New Economy.” Qualitative Sociology 43(2):271–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09444-1.

58.

Peggy M. L.

Lit

Kam Kong

Cheung

Cherry T. Y.

2022. “Remote Work as a New Normal? The Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) Context.” Technology in Society 70:102022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102022.

59.

Nikunen

Minna

. 2012. “Changing University Work, Freedom, Flexibility and Family.” Studies in Higher Education 37(6):713–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.542453.

60.

Parker

Kim

Menasce Horowitz

Juliana

Minkin

Rachel

. 2022. “COVID-19 Pandemic Continues to Reshape Work in America.” Retrieved January 22, 2025 (https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/02/16/covid-19-pandemic-continues-to-reshape-work-in-america/).

61.

Pearlson

Keri E.

Saunders

Carol S.

2001. “There’s No Place like Home: Managing Telecommuting Paradoxes.” Academy of Management Perspectives 15(2):117–28. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.4615008.

62.

Pyöriä

Pasi

. 2011. “Managing Telework: Risks, Fears and Rules.” Management Research Review 34(4):386–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111117843.

63.

Reskin

Barbara

. 1993. “Sex Segregation in the Workplace.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:241–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.19.080193.001325.

64.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.

65.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

2014. “Why Status Matters for Inequality.” American Sociological Review 79(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413515997.

66.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

Correll

Shelley J.

2004. “Motherhood as a Status Characteristic.” Journal of Social Issues 60(4):683–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00380.x.

67.

Ridgeway

Cecilia L.

Korn

Rachel M.

Williams

Joan C.

2022. “Documenting the Routine Burden of Devalued Difference in the Professional Workplace.” Gender & Society 36(5):627–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432221111168.

68.

Sang

Katherine

Powell

Abigail

Finkel

Rebecca

Richards

James

. 2015. “‘Being an Academic Is Not a 9–5 Job’: Long Working Hours and the ‘Ideal Worker’ in UK Academia.” Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 25(3):235–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2015.1081723.

69.

Scholz

Frederike

Oliver

Liz

Tomlinson

Jennifer

MacKenzie

Robert

Ingold

. 2024. “Old Norms in the New Normal: Exploring and Resisting the Rise of the Ideal Pandemic Worker.” Gender, Work & Organization 31(2):594–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13071.

70.

Sijtsma

Klaas

Van Der Ark

L. Andries

. 2017. “A Tutorial on How to Do a Mokken Scale Analysis on Your Test and Questionnaire Data.” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 70(1):137–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12078.

71.

Stone

Pamela

Hernandez

Lisa Ackerly

. 2013. “The All-or-Nothing Workplace: Flexibility Stigma and ‘Opting Out’ Among Professional-Managerial Women.” Journal of Social Issues 69(2):235–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12013.

72.

Sisense. n.d. “What Baby Names Tell Us About Ethnic and Gender Trends.” Retrieved September 23, 2024 (https://cdn.sisense.com/wp-content/uploads/What-Baby-Names-Tell-Us-About-Ethnic-and-Gender-Trends.pdf).

73.

Social Security Administration. n.d. “Top Names Over the Last 100 Years.” Retrieved May 4, 2025. (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/century.html).

74.

Thébaud

Sarah

Halcomb

Laura

. 2019. “One Step Forward? Advances and Setbacks on the Path toward Gender Equality in Families and Work.” Sociology Compass 13(6):e12700. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12700.

75.

Topel

Robert

. 1991. “Specific Capital, Mobility, and Wages: Wages Rise with Job Seniority.” Journal of Political Economy 99(1):145–76. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2937716.

76.

Tremblay

Diane Gabrielle

Thomsin

Laurence

. 2012. “Telework and Mobile Working: Analysis of Its Benefits and Drawbacks.” International Journal of Work Innovation 1(1):100. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwi.2012.047995.

77.

Trimble O’Connor

Lindsey

Cech

Erin A.

2018. “Not Just a Mothers’ Problem.” Sociological Perspectives 61(5):808–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121418768235.

78.

Twenge

Jean M.

2010. “A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences in Work Attitudes.” Journal of Business and Psychology 25(2):201–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6.

79.

Twenge

Jean M.

Campbell

Stacy M.

2008. “Generational Differences in Psychological Traits and Their Impact on the Workplace.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8):862–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904367.

80.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation and Age. (https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.htm).

81.

Vyas

Lina

. 2022. “‘New Normal’ at Work in a Post-COVID World: Work–Life Balance and Labor Markets.” Policy and Society 41(1):155–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puab011.

82.

Weisshaar

Katherine

. 2018. “From Opt Out to Blocked Out: The Challenges for Labor Market Re-Entry after Family-Related Employment Lapses.” American Sociological Review 83(1):34–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417752355.

83.

Wey Smola

Karen

Sutton

Charlotte D.

2002. “Generational Differences: Revisiting Generational Work Values for the New Millennium.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4):363–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.147.

84.

Williams

Joan C.

Blair-Loy

Mary

Berdahl

Jennifer L.

2013. “Cultural Schemas, Social Class, and the Flexibility Stigma.” Journal of Social Issues 69(2):209–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12012.

85.

Williamson

Sue

Taylor

Helen

Weeratunga

Vindhya

. 2024. “Working from Home during COVID-19: What Does This Mean for the Ideal Worker Norm?” Gender, Work & Organization 31(2):456–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13081.

86.

Wulff Pabilonia

Sabrina

Janocha Redmond

Jill

. 2024. “The Rise in Remote Work since the Pandemic and Its Impact on Productivity.” https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-13/remote-work-productivity.htm.

87.

Zanhour

Mona

Sumpter

Dana McDaniel

. 2024. “The Entrenchment of the Ideal Worker Norm during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Working Mothers in the United States.” Gender, Work & Organization 31(2):625–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12885.

88.

Zelditch

Morris

Walker

Henry A.

1984. “Legitimacy and the Stability of Authority.” Pp. 1–25 in Advances in Group Processes. Google Scholar.