# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Blacksmith at work | Courtesy of : pexels.com

# data[].attributes.body
To concede what 'work from home' really means, we must first understand the human being. Through major archeological advancements, we can conclude that the human beings means of survival has always been based on hunting and gathering. Gathering goods such as berries, grubs, and plants -- and hunting large and small animals; sometimes even reptiles. These skills, as easy as they may seem, demanded tools, tools that were nowhere to be found in the natural world. Humans have worked in close conjunction with tools, evolving with them. Tools that started as stones were developed into spears, knives, bows and arrows, and even tools with a musical apparatus.

Therefore, arguably the first authentic work from home, if you can call it that, was hunting, gathering, the creation of coverage and protection, and the creation of tools -- which people were deemed their position based on their proficiency.

For hundreds of thousands of years people did this work for survival, and eventually domesticated into communities, working solely with their skills and intelligence to cooperatively work together for the good of all.

# data[].attributes.body
Introducing the time period where the working class set up shop and worked out of their homes. A time period of great change, as the old ways were tossed aside for the new.  During the middle ages people would often offer their good or services from their homes in order to support their families.

Some of the popular early work from home included; blacksmithing, sewing, cooking, carpentry, shoe-making, candle-making, being a potter, an armorers, or a barber. Also, the "gender gap" was not much of a controversy in the work life, as women could easily be home-based workers and accomplish the same work load. In fact, even more depending on the skill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Want to know what kind of jobs there were in the Middle Ages? A unique source from the 15th century gives us some beautiful images of medieval people at work.
Known as the House Books of the Nuremberg Twelve Brothers Foundation, these were records of a charitable foundation started in the German city of Nuremberg in 1388. The foundation would assist poor and needy people by providing them with training to work in a trade.

Starting around 1425 their books would contain one-page illustrations of the people they had helped, usually giving their names and a short description of when they lived and what they were doing. Here are forty examples of medieval jobs from the 15th and early 16th centuries.
1. Butcher
Hans Lengenfelder is cutting meat on a thick table, while other products, including sausages, are for sale. Butchers would be needed to prepare meat for many customers, but their profession was one that created a lot of smell and waste, leading towns to regulate where they could practice this trade.
2. Baker
Zenner is placing bread to be baked in an oven. Bakers were often heavily regulated in the Middle Ages, with authorities making sure their products could even be bought by the poorest people. Click here to learn more about bread in the Middle Ages.
3. Stonemason
Konrad is using a pickaxe and other tools to work over the stone blocks. Stonemasons would prepare the materials for construction, whether it be houses, walls or churches.
4. Weaver
Hans is working on a loom. The making of clothing required several professions during the Middle Ages, such as the weaving of thread into cloth.
5. Winemaker
Hans is using a sickle to cut the grapes from the vine. This specialized type of farming was needed to produce wine.
6. Fisherman
Fritz Richtel is pulling up a net with three fish, while two more traps hang from a pole. Fishermen in the Middle Ages often used traps and nets that were placed in rivers or lakes, while others used boats to sail out into the ocean. See also: Sustainable and Innovative: The Medieval Art of Fishing
7. Farmer
Reinhold is using a two-handed plough in his fields. Most medieval people would be employed on farms. They could also do farming in cities - see Were medieval cities greener? Urban agriculture in the Middle Ages
8. Trumpet Player
Peter is standing in a bell tower and blows the hourly chime. Employed by city officials, trumpet players would be used to help deliver messages and signal the time.
9. Shoemaker / Cobbler
Peter Velner sits in his workshop, working on a shoe with a curved knife. Other leather shoes are on display. Sometimes also known as cordwainers, they would make much-needed footwear for people.
10. Wheelwright
Thomas Wagner is using a hatchet to work a spoked wheel lying on a wooden frame. Wagons and carts would often see their wheels get damaged and need replacing.
11. Roofer
Fritz is standing on a ladder and placing tiles on the roof with the use of a bucket of mortar and a trowel. This would be one of the trades involved in building a house or other structure.
12. Locksmith
Albrecht is sitting by his iron anvil with a hammer and a padlock. Doors and chests would often be protected by locks in the Middle Ages.
13. Tanner
Peter is stepping into a tub to work on an animal's skin. The process of turning an animal hide into leather involved having the skin dehaired, degreased, desalted and soaked in water. It was an occupation that would be regulated by towns because of the smell and waste it created.
14. Tax Collector
This unnamed man is at a gatehouse and taking payment from a merchant. Governments needed to collect money and employed people to do so. As one might expect, this profession was not looked upon kindly by the people who had to pay taxes.
15. Belt maker
Herman Paumgartdener is using a hacksaw and anvil to punch holes in the belts. This was another type of specialized clothing maker.
16. Grocer / Merchant
Berthold Uslaunb is selling spices from a table he set up on a barrel. He holds a pair of scales in his hands to weigh the product. In the Middle Ages, merchants often focused on selling a particular range of products, like spices, foods, or second-hand goods.
17. Armourer
Hans Pernecker is polishing various pieces of armour, while other tools of his trade are spread around his workshop. This profession would need to have specialized knowledge to make the equipment used by knights and soldiers.
18. Carpenter
Rudolf Meier has finished the framework for a house. You can see some of his tools. Carpenters would work with wood to create a range of items, from the small to the large.
19. Cook
Wilhelm is standing in a kitchen, cooking food on a fire. There are spoons and jars around him, and a pot hanging from the ceiling. Cooks could find employment with wealthier households.
20. Blacksmith
Fritz Hufschmied is hammering a red-hot horseshoe on the anvil. Blacksmiths would commonly be found in smaller villages, where they made nails, horseshoes, and other everyday metal goods. See also: Medieval Blacksmiths: More than just a weapons' maker
21. Servant
Cuntzlin has four keys, wear wooden shoes known as clogs, and sweeps the floor with a broom. Servants could often be found in wealthy and even middle-class households, with young people often getting the work in exchange for room and board. To learn more, please see Who worked as servants in the Middle Ages?
22. Dyer
Hans Verber works over a long blue cloth with his instruments to rough up the garment. Another part of the clothing-making process, the dyer would be responsible for adding colour to the textiles.
23. Goldsmith
Staffelstein the Goldsmith is using a hammer to work a conical cup on the anvil. Goldsmiths would create higher-end products like jewellery, usually for the wealthy.
24. Hatmaker
Ulrich Goczseygert with his selection of hats. Like today, in the Middle Ages one could find a wide range of headwear.
26. Tailor
Ulrich the Tailor works at a table, cutting a piece of green fabric with a pair of scissors. The tailor would be the final stage in preparing clothing for people, often creating outfits that were customized for the buyer. See also: Working in the Middle Ages: The Medieval Clothier
27. Soldier
Konrad Kelner rides a bridled white horse with a lance on his shoulder, an iron helmet and spurred boots. It was not difficult for men to find employment serving in an army, and many made their careers as mercenaries.
28. Tinsmith
Konrad Eschenloer is using a hammer and anvil to make a bottle. Four finished bottles hang above the rail in the display window, on the shelf below there is a jug with a handle, a bottle without a holder and another jug ​​with a curved bottom. One can also see large sheets of sheet metal. Tinsmiths differed from blacksmiths in that they worked with tin or other light metals that did not need to be heated to be worked on.
29. Carter / Coachman
Hans Preunlein has his two horses pulling a single-axle cart, which is carrying a large block of stone. There was always a need in the Middle Ages for people to transport goods or people from place to place.
30. Spurrier
Andreas Sporer is creating a spur while several others are on display. This would be a very specialized profession, creating spurs that people would use while riding horses.
31. Birdcatcher
Paul is wearing camouflage and wields a long clamp trap to catch birds. Hunting wild animals for food would be another common practice in the medieval world.
32. Woodcutter
Ulrich Holtzhacker is using an axe to break apart wood, while a neat pile can be seen in the background. Since there would be many uses for wood in medieval communities, it would be common to employ people in cutting down trees and preparing the logs for trade.
33. Painter
Nicholas Kerner is sitting on a stool with a palette in his hand and is painting a picture of Mary with the Baby Jesus. While one might think that paintings were made just for upper-class people, there were also painters who could produce affordable pieces of work.
34. Tavern keeper
Nussel Weinschenck fills a jug with wine from a cask. The hanging sign above the cask might be there to indicate the origins of the wine. Every medieval town or city would have inns and taverns to accommodate visitors or be a place for local people to find food and entertainment.
35. Sacristan
Genskrag stands in the doorway of a church, pulling the rope attached to the bell. Each church would need several people to maintain and run the building, including the sacristan.
36. Sadler
Ulrich Schwab sits behind his workbench, working with an awl on a collar to be used on a draft animal. Some of his other products can also be seen. A sadler would prepare items to be worn by horses and oxen as they worked in the fields or were ridden by people.
37. Messenger
Kuncz Stirener is dressed in a cloak and hat, and carries a lance on his shoulder and a small shield bearing the coat of arms for Nuremberg. The sending of information, whether it be between government or city officials, merchants, or churchmen, helped to employ many people who would travel and deliver messages. See also: Messengers in Later Medieval England
38. Ropemaker
Otto Schnüer Macher operates the two wheels with the hooks, where he can twist individual threads into a cord. A finished ball of yarn hangs in the display window. The making of rope was another specialized craft, creating something that people needed at least occasionally.
39. Farrier
Hans Pfaffenhofer uses pliers to pull a nail out of the horse's hoof. A farrier would be someone who took care of horses' hooves, in particular the putting on of horseshoes for the animals.
40. Miller
Erhard Melreder is sifting flour while bags of flour are ready for use. To turn grain into flour for baking, one would need a miller's assistance. A water or windmill could make this process easier, but a miller could also do this work by hand.

The Nuremberg Twelve Brothers Foundation continued this practice into the nineteenth century, giving us almost 1,200 illustrations of people in their various crafts and jobs. You can see the entire manuscript at this German website or on Wikimedia Commons.

See also: The 5 Most Common Jobs in a Medieval City

See also: 10 Medieval Jobs That No Longer Exist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
40 Jobs in the Middle Ages - Medievalists.net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Want to know what kind of jobs there were in the Middle Ages? A unique source from the 15th century gives us some beautiful images of medieval people at work.

# data[].attributes.body
Starting as far back as 12,000 years ago. The first Agricultural Revolution was the transition from hunting and gathering to a more agricultural based life style. The work for human beings during this time period was still primarily focused on hunting and gathering, but people were now feeding communities. Foods such as; wild grains, rye, peanuts, beans, peas, potatoes and maize were detrimental to feeding everyone, bringing in the natural progression of an agricultural era.

The second Agricultural Revolution, also known as The British Agricultural Revolution, began in the the 17th century and continued throughout history, alongside the Industrial Revolution -- "many historians consider the Agricultural Revolution to be a major cause of the Industrial Revolution, especially in terms of when and how it began in Britain. For example, the Industrial Revolution began in Britain in the 18th century due in part to an increase in food production." (Beck, pg 1) 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first way humans obtained food was through hunting and gathering. Nomadic groups across the globe depended on animals, fruits, berries, and edible roots for sustenance. Afterwards, the agricultural revolution changed the course of history. The gradual transition from hunter and gatherer societies to more agriculturally based ones is called the Agricultural Revolution. It started around 12,000 years ago. The agricultural revolution's beginning also coincided with the end of the last ice age and the starting of the current geological span.

What are the three agricultural revolutions?

The three agricultural revolutions that changed history are as follows:

1. The First Agricultural Revolution - a transition from hunting and gathering to sustenance.

2. The Second Agricultural Revolution - increase in farming productivity because of mechanization, ease of access to market areas due to better transportation.

3. The Third Agricultural Revolution - the hybridization and genetic engineering of products to produce better and unique quality. Consequently, this also meant increased use of pesticides and fertilizers.

In this article, we will be addressing the first two agricultural revolutions in detail. Their definition, cause, effects, time period and differences will be explained.

The Neolithic Revolution is also known as the Agricultural Revolution. It marked the remarkable gradual change in human history from nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers to agricultural settlements. This is also meant that groups grew in size thus, is a marker of early civilization.

The first agricultural revolution's time period is at the start of around 10,000 B.C. It is said that early humans first took up farming in the Fertile Crescent. It can be identified as a boomerang-shaped region in the Middle East. This soon impacted the rest of the world. Larger cities and civilizations grew out of innovations of the first agricultural revolution. People started living together in communities which lead to important developments in history.

The causes of the first agricultural revolution vary from region to region. These have been briefly elaborated upon:

The end of the last Ice Age was around 14,000 years ago. This is when the Earth started to warm up. It is plausible that this triggered the Agricultural Revolution. Many scientists state climate change as the reason.

Developments in the cognitive structure of the brain may have also caused people to act more rationally. Some scientists suggest that this is why people would have been encouraged to settle down and start farming. Cave paintings and artefacts support this theory.

Crops like wild wheat and barley began to grow in the Fertile Crescent. Temperatures rose in this region which lies between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. Consequently, humans started settling down in this area.

The first agricultural revolution truly had a vast impact. Huge groups of people settled down. Hence, permanent settlements began to emerge as they sustained on farming and agriculture. The inception of the Bronze Age and Iron Age was due to the agricultural revolution. This led to an advanced stage of human learning.

The new agricultural revolution began in the modern world. It was a shift from the traditional agricultural system. It began in Britain in the 18th century. This is because Britain saw an unprecedented increase in agricultural production. The vast increase in labour and land productivity was a major contributing factor. The output of agriculture was more than the population. Its productivity ranked the highest in the world. This rise therefore also lead to an increase in the urban workforce. Industrialization depended on them. Accordingly, the Agricultural Revolution is justifiably considered one of the causes of the Industrial Revolution.

The development of the Norfolk four-course rotation was indeed the most important innovation of the Agricultural Revolution. It greatly increased crop and livestock output through improvement in the fertility of the soil. Crop rotation is the system or pattern of growing different types of crops at a particular place. This is done during sequential seasons because the plant's nutrients can be restored. It also helps to reduce soil erosion and increase the quality of the crop. The Norfolk System is an example that uses this method. It involved rotation of crops so that different crops are planted which absorb different kinds of nutrients from the soil.

The Green Revolution is considered the first Agricultural revolution in India. It was a period of conversion of the agrarian economy into an industrial system with the adoption of modern methods and technology. India's freedom came at the cost of a poor economy that was vulnerable to frequent famines and food shortages. This is why the government introduced the Green Revolution in India. It was introduced first in the affluent parts of Punjab in the late 1960s where it yielded great economic prosperity. Adoption and the usage of methods such as high yielding variety (HYV) seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers were met with criticism later. It also did not benefit the country evenly.

This shift from hunting and gathering to food production in the Neolithic age was not as advantageous as one would think. In spite of many benefits, there were serious drawbacks too:

Food production increased and was widespread. Plant domestication and harbouring livestock was slowly becoming a part of everyday life. Many settlements became grew richer because of trade. New professions such as artisans and religious heads found a home here. It is also interesting how metallurgy made an appearance for the first time in Europe during the Neolithic revolution. This meant that the supply of sturdy materials led to an improvement in the quality of residences. For instance, villages in Southwest Asia were surrounded by impressive stone walls for protection against enemies.

The skeletons found of hunter-gatherers were larger compared to the ones in this revolution. This is because they had a more varied and nutritious diet. Living in communities also encouraged people and animals to live closer increasing the risk of contracting infectious diseases. There was an inequality in the distribution of food. Therefore, power structures and social hierarchies began to emerge. Women in this age suffered a lot as they began to give birth to more babies. There was no need to carry their young in groups like before and an increasing need to produce more help for the farm. Skeletons found from the agricultural revolution point towards this gender equality.

The British Agricultural Revolution is known as the Second Agricultural Revolution. This is also how agricultural customs took a dramatic change in the world. It was a never seen before increase in agricultural production in Britain. It arose from the fact that there was tremendous growth in labour and productivity of the land in the mid-17th and late 19th centuries. The farmers started buying fertilizers for their land and artificial fodder for their livestock for the first time. Coupled with mechanization, new methods of drainage and better access to transportation. The agricultural revolution accompanied the Industrial Revolution that began in Great Britain.

Mechanization during the agricultural revolution means a development in transportation and the building of irrigation on a large scale. It also involved changes in consumption patterns of agricultural goods and using more machines to increase agricultural output. Inventions such as the steel plough and harvesting relied on machines greatly impacted food production.

Britain was a forerunner in this revolution. It later spread to the rest of Europe, North America, and around the world. The reasons why it began in Britain was:

availability of farmland

suitable climate

abundance of livestock

Improved crop yield

The Second Agricultural Revolution subsequently contributed to:

Consolidated but larger farms. They were far more productive. Hence, this led to better diets, longer life spans, and an increase in population.

The demand for agricultural labourers and farm owners dropped.

More people started living in the urban areas. This process is called urbanisation. It continues till today.

Food experts are calling for a Second Green Revolution because of India's declining economy and growing food security. The solution would be better research and investments in the agricultural sector to increase the production and yields of small farmers. The main aim of the first Green Revolution was to produce sufficient food for the rising population. In this process, it favoured big corporations and businesses. Small and rural farmers did not benefit as much. Security of food is a necessity. The advances made in the first agricultural revolution were not enough and more action should be taken. India's thousands of small farmers need the help.

The invention of new tools took place. Old tools were perfected to improve the efficiency of various agricultural operations.

In 1789, Robert Ransome, an iron caster in Ipswich, began casting ploughshares in a disused malt house in St. Margaret's ditches. In an accident in his foundry, the molten metal came into contact with the cold metal through a broken mould. In 1789, Ransomes, Sims, and Jefferies made 86 model ploughs for various soils.

A planter was described in detail in 1602 by Tadeo Cavalina in England, Jethro Tull continued to perfect it in 1701. Prior to the introduction of the seeder, it was common practice to sow seeds by hand spreading. It involved evenly spreading them through the soil over the prepared soil, and then lightly raking the soil to cover the seed. Implementation of his system for cultivating seed drills started around 1733. His first invention was the plough to sow wheat and beet seeds in planters in three rows at the same time.

A thresher, or threshing machine, is an agricultural device used to thresh grain. It removes the seeds from the stems and husks by hitting the plant to cause the seeds to fall off. Manually it was very laborious and time-consuming. It also needed about a quarter of the agricultural work in the 18th century. By mechanizing this process, a significant amount of heavy lifting has been removed from farm work.

The process that ended traditional rights on common land formerly held by the elite is called enclosure. It restricted the use of land to the owner. Consequently, it plays a significant role in labour migration from rural areas to gradually industrializing cities. The closure was achieved through the purchase of property rights and all common rights. This was to obtain exclusive rights of use, which increased the

value of the property. The other method was to pass laws that caused or forced closure, such as parliamentary fences. Accompanied by strength, endurance and bloodshed, it remains one of the most controversial areas in England's agricultural and economic history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Agricultural Revolution: Definition, Causes, Time Period & More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Agricultural Revolution Definition The first way humans obtained food was through hunting and gathering. Nomadic groups across the globe depended on animals, fruits, berries, and edible roots for sustenance. Afterwards, the agricultural revolution changed the course of history. The gradual transitio

# data[].attributes.body
Farming is a considerable part of every culture across the world -- each country has adapted to farming different grains, fruits, vegetables, meats, plants, and much more throughout history.

Farming changed history and the lives of the early people with excess food supply. Extra food caused the population to expand, which then allowed people to trade in goods and services. The increase in goods then allowed there to be better technology.

People built villages and small towns around farms. The birth rate raised and allowed more help with the farming as well. Because of excess food, food was being stored. People were no longer just nomads, hunting and gathering -- they now worked together for the greater of the community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Farming Revolution

After 9,000 BC a great change came over the world. Previously humans lived by hunting animals and gathering plants. Then about 8,500 BC people began to grow wheat, barley, peas, and lentils instead of gathering them wild. By 7,000 BC they domesticated sheep, pigs, and goats. By 6,000 BC they also domesticated cattle.

Farming first began in the Fertile Crescent, which stretches from Israel north to southeast Turkey then curves southeast to the Persian Gulf. However, agriculture was also invented independently in other parts of the world as well.

Meanwhile, farming spread from the Middle East to Europe. By about 4,000 BC people in central Europe were using oxen to pull plows and wagons. About the same time, people in the Middle East began using donkeys as beasts of burden. Also, about 4,000 BC horses were domesticated on the steppes of Eurasia.

Farming in the Ancient World

Egypt was said to be the gift of the Nile. Each summer the Nile flooded and provided water to grow crops. For irrigation Egyptians used a device called shaduf. It was a 'see-saw' with a leather container at one end, which was filled with water and a counterweight at the other. When the Nile flooded it also deposited silt over the land near the banks, which made the land very fertile once the water had subsided.

In contrast farmers in Greece were hampered by rocky soil. Nevertheless, they grew barley and wheat. Greek farmers also grew olives (which were part of their staple diet) and they grew vines. Greek farmers also raised goats and sheep.

In France and England, the Celts grew crops in rectangular fields. They raised pigs, sheep, and cattle. They stored grain in pits lined with stone or wicker and sealed with clay. The Celts also brewed beer from barley.

In Israel farmers grew olives. They also grew crops of flax (for linen), wheat, and barley. The people planted vegetables. Grapes were also an important crop. So were pomegranates and figs. Meanwhile, shepherds looked after sheep and goats. Farmers also kept oxen and asses. Both were used for pulling plows. Oxen also threshed grain by walking on it.

The Chinese began farming about 5,000 BC. From about 5,000 BC rice was cultivated in southern China and millet was grown in the north. By 5,000 BC dogs and pigs were domesticated. By 3,000 BC sheep and (in the south) cattle were domesticated. Finally, horses were introduced into China between 3,000 and 2,300 BC.

Under the Han Dynasty agriculture improved partly due to an increasing number of irrigation schemes, partly due to the increasing use of buffaloes to pull plows, and partly due to crop rotation which was introduced into China about 100 BC.

Meanwhile, in the Roman Empire, most people continued to use the same methods of farming they had employed for centuries. The Romans grew, among other things, wheat, barley, grapes, and olives. There were some large estates worked by slaves. However, there were also many small farms worked by families.

In Roman France, a harvesting machine called a gallus was invented. It was a box on wheels with horizontal blades at the front. The box was pushed by an ox. As it moved forward through the wheat the blades cut the heads of the crop and they fell into the box.

Farming in the Middle Ages

Farming improved in the Middle Ages. One big improvement was the heavy plow. Sometime before 900 a new kind of plow was invented which plowed the heavy, clay soil of northern Europe much more efficiently.

Another important development was the 3-field system. The land was divided into 3 huge fields. Each year 2 were sown with crops while one was left fallow (unused) to allow it to recover. Each peasant had some strips of land in each field. Most peasants owned only one ox so they had to join with other families to obtain the team of oxen needed to pull a plow. After plowing the land was sown. Men sowed grain and women planted peas and beans.

Most Medieval peasants also owned cows, goats, and sheep. Cows and goats gave milk and cheese. Most peasants also kept chickens for eggs. They also kept pigs. Peasants were allowed to graze their livestock on common land. In the autumn they let their pigs roam in the woods to eat acorns and beechnuts. However, they did not have enough food to keep many animals throughout the winter. Most of the livestock was slaughtered in autumn and the meat was salted to preserve it.

There were no fundamental changes to farming in England in the 16th century. Nor were there any in the 17th century although new crops such as tomatoes and potatoes were introduced. (Both took a long time to be accepted). In England, much of the Fens were drained for farming.

Farming in the Americas

Maize was the staple crop of the Aztecs. The Aztecs also grew tomatoes, avocados, beans, and peppers, as well as pumpkins, squashes, peanuts, and amaranth seeds. They also ate fruit such as limes and cactus fruits. Aztec food also included rabbits, turkeys, and armadillos. They also ate dogs. To grow food

Aztec farmers did not have plows. However, they did use tools like a digging stick, clod breaker, and hoe. The Aztecs created small islands on marshy lakes. These were called chinampas. First plots of land were staked out with canals between them so they could be reached by canoe. The chinampa was built up in layers made of plants from the lake and mud from its bottom. The Aztecs planted willows around the edges of chinampas to make them more secure.

In the Inca Empire in the lowlands the staple food was maize. In the highlands it was potatoes. Incas also ate peppers, tomatoes, and avocados. They also ate peanuts and a grain called quinoa.

Llamas and alpacas were kept for wool and for carrying loads but they were sometimes provided meat. Incas also ate guinea pigs. Inca farmers did not have plows pulled by animals. Instead, their main tools were digging sticks, clod breakers, and hoes. In hilly regions, Inca farmers terraced the land. They also irrigated crops. Inca farmers also used bird droppings called guano as fertilizer.

The Maya practiced 'slash and burn' agriculture. They cut down an area of forest and burned the trees. The Maya sowed crops in May and harvested them in November. However, after a few years, the soil would lose its fertility. The farmers would then 'slash and burn' another part of the forest. Meanwhile, the abandoned area would become overgrown again.

Mayan farmers also drained swampy areas for farming. They dug canals for irrigation. Mayan farmers did not have plows but they did use digging sticks. Maize was the staple food of the Maya but they also grew beans, chilies, sweet potatoes and squashes. The Maya also ate fruit like papaya, watermelon and avocados. The Maya also kept bees for honey.

18th Century Farming

During the 18th century, farming was gradually transformed by an agricultural revolution. Until 1701 seed was sown by hand. In that year Jethro Tull invented a seed drill, which sowed seed in straight lines. He also invented a horse-drawn hoe which hoed the land and destroyed weed between rows of crops.

Furthermore, until the 18th century, most livestock was slaughtered at the beginning of winter because farmers could not grow enough food to feed their animals through the winter months.

Until the 18th century, most land was divided into 3 fields. Each year 2 fields were sown with crops while the third was left fallow (unused). The Dutch began to grow swedes or turnips on land instead of leaving it fallow. (The turnips restored the soil's fertility). When they were harvested the turnips could be stored to provide food for livestock over the winter. The new methods were popularized in England by a man named Robert 'Turnip' Townshend (1674-1741).

Under the 3 field system, which still covered much of England, all the land around a village or small town, was divided into 3 huge fields. Each farmer owned some strips of land in each field. During the 18th century land was enclosed. That means it was divided up so each farmer had all his land in one place instead of scattered across 3 fields. Enclosure allowed farmers to use their land more efficiently.

Also in the 18th century farmers like Robert Bakewell began scientific stock breeding (selective breeding). Farm animals grew much larger and they gave more meat, wool, and milk. However despite the improvements in farming food for ordinary people remained plain and monotonous. For them, meat was a luxury. They lived mainly on bread, butter, potatoes, and tea.

19th Century Farming

In the early and mid-19th century farming in Britain prospered. In the mid-19th century, it was helped by the rapid growth of towns (providing a huge market) and by railways. (The railways made it easier to transport produce).

Farming was also helped by new technology. Justus von Liebig (1803-1873) and John Lawes (1814-1900) introduced new fertilizers. Farmers also began using clay pipes to drain their fields. Meanwhile, Cyrus McCormick (1809-1884) invented the reaping machine in 1834 and in 1837 John Deere (1804-1886) invented the steel plow. In 1856 John Fowler invented the steam plow.

However, the good times for British farmers ended in the 1870s. In the USA a network of railways had been built and steamships were sailing across the Atlantic. The result was that American farmers could now move their grain to ports and it could be shipped to Britain. Cheap American grain helped ordinary people in the towns but it meant a depression in British farming. Furthermore, at the end of the 19th century, the invention of refrigeration meant meat could be imported from Australia and New Zealand.

20th Century Farming

In the 20th century British farms greatly increased production. There were a number of reasons why. New varieties of cereal were introduced and from the 1940s new pesticides were developed. Also in the 1940s farmers began using artificial insemination. Farmers also used far more artificial fertilizers.

Farming also became mechanized. In the earlier 20th century tractors gradually replaced horses. Milking machines were rare in the early 20th century but they became common from the 1940s to the 1960s. From the 1950s combine harvesters became common.

21st Century Farming

The latest development in farming is genetically engineered crops. GM crops are now being grown in many countries.

Last Revised 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Tim Lambert The Farming Revolution After 9,000 BC a great change came over the world. Previously humans lived by hunting animals and gathering plants. Then about 8,500 BC people began to grow wheat, barley, peas, and lentils instead of gathering them wild. By 7,000 BC they domesticated sheep, pigs, and goats.

# data[].attributes.body
In the early 1600's a majority of the farm work was done by hand or by using oxen and horses. Farmers would attach large, boorish wooden plows to the animals while riding on back with a sickle cutting down plants and excess growth.

In the 1700's inventions such as the scythe, the cotton gin and the metal plow made farm work, and work from home, much easier. However, it was the 1800's when the agricultural era produced many of the technologically advanced machines that inspire what we manage today.

Notable companies we all know today, such as the John Deere company, was developed in the early 1800's. " John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel plows—the plow was made of wrought iron and had a steel share that could cut through sticky soil without clogging." (Bellis 3) 2

By the mid to late 1800's the advancements of farming machinery peaked. Making farming and other related work from home more accessible and simple. Some of the inventions developed by this time were; steam tractors, grain drills and elevators, windmills, barbed wire fencing, and large batch fertilizers and pesticides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only a couple of centuries ago, farming was very different and used very little technology. See how the agricultural revolution and inventions changed farming so that far less manual labor is needed to feed the world today than in previous eras.

16th-18th Century: Oxen and Horses

This period featured the use and emergence of such farm equipment as oxen and horses for power, crude wooden plows, hay and grain cutting with a sickle, and threshing with a flail. All sowing was done by hand and cultivating by hoe.

1776-1799: The Cradle and Scythe

The farm technology revolution began in this period. Notable agricultural inventions and new farm technology included:

1790s: The introduction of the cradle and scythe;

1793: Invention of the cotton gin;

1794: Testing of Thomas Jefferson's moldboard of least resistance;

1797: Patenting of the cast-iron plow by Charles Newbold.

Early 1800s: The Iron Plow

The agricultural revolution picked up steam during these years, with notable agricultural developments including:

1819: Jethro Wood's patenting of the iron plow with interchangeable parts;

1819-25: The establishment of the U.S. food canning industry.

1860s-mid-1870s: Steam Tractors

The period from1862 to 1875 signaled a change from hand power to horses, characterizing the first American agricultural revolution. Farm inventions included:

1865-75: Gang plows and sulky plows came into use.

1868: Steam tractors were tried out.

1869: The spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared.

1870s: The Age of Barbed Wire

Silos came into use throughout the 1870s, and other developments included:

1870s: The deep-well drilling was first widely used.

1874: Glidden barbed wire was patented.

1874: The availability of barbed wire allowed fencing of rangeland, ending the era of unrestricted, open-range grazing.

1880s-1890s: Mechanization

In 1890, 35-40 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (2 1/2 acres) of corn with a 2-bottom gang plow, disk and peg-tooth harrow, and 2-row planter.​ Also in 1890, 40-50 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with a gang plow, seeder, harrow, binder, thresher, wagons, and horses. Other developments included:

1880: William Deering put 3,000 twine binders on the market.

1884-90: The horse-drawn combine was used in Pacific Coast wheat areas.

1890-95: Cream separators came into wide use

1890-99: The average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer was 1,845,900 tons.

1890s: Agriculture became increasingly mechanized and commercialized

1890: Most basic potentialities of agricultural machinery that were dependent on horsepower had been discovered.

1900-1910: Diversification of Crops

Throughout the decade, George Washington Carver, director of agricultural research at Tuskegee Institute, pioneered in finding new uses for peanuts, sweet potatoes, and soybeans, thus helping to diversify Southern agriculture. Additionally, the average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer was 3,738,300 tons.

1910s: Gas Tractors

Big open-geared gas tractors came into use in areas of extensive farming during the first half of the decade. Additionally:

1970s: Increased Production

By 1970,one farmer could supply nearly 76 people in the United States and abroad with food. And throughout the decade, no-tillage agriculture was popularized. Additionally:

1980s-90s: Sustainable Agriculture

By the 1980s, many farmers began using no-till or low-till methods to curb erosion. Additionally, by the late 1980s, just one-and-one-half to two labor-hours were required to produce 100 pounds (1/5 acre) of lint cotton with ​a tractor, 4-row stalk cutter, 20-foot disk, 6-row bedder and planter, a 6-row cultivator with herbicide applicator, and 4-row harvester. Other developments from this period included:

1987: Only three labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (3 acres) of wheat with a tractor, 35-foot sweep disk, 30-foot drill, 25-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks

1987: About three labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (1 1/8 acres) of corn with a tractor, 5-bottom plow, 25-foot tandem disk, planter, 25-foot herbicide applicator, 15-foot self-propelled combine, and trucks

1989: After several slow years, the sale of farm equipment rebounded

1989: More farmers began to use low-input sustainable agriculture techniques to decrease chemical applications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Locomotive Train Factory | Courtesy of : pexels.com - Frans Van Heerden

# data[].attributes.body
Stemming from the mid 1700's to the mid 1800's, this time period brought a complex of profound socioeconomic change - when people shifted their principles and beliefs because of technology. The Industrial Revolution actually did quite the opposite in terms of our "remote work" topic. The Industrial Revolution pulled people from there homes, farms, states, and lands to work in large, excessive, mines and factories. It shifted people from home-based hand manufacturing to large-scale factory production. The influence? Mass production and money.

A controversial time period, the Industrial Revolution is. The living conditions were atrocious, the housing was built fast to accommodate the amount of people centering on working at the factories and it overcrowded cities. Women and children as young as nine years old were being put to work in unsanitary, dangerous, and belittling environments working 12-16 hours a day. Workers had no rights, unions were not yet a concept, the workers had to work extended hours in unsafe work conditions. And the products that were being mass produced caused lifesytle diseases such as diabetes, and cancer.

Truth is, everyone will argue the pros and cons of the Industrial Revolution. Things such as; transportation, quality products increasing in number, increased wealth, new jobs, and cheaper housing proved there was a lot to be gained from the era. Either way, the effects of the Industrial Revolution altered the course of the entire world. It adjusted the life of everyone but it comes with two sides; moral and immoral.

# data[].attributes.body
The Modern Era is an era of time that overlaps the Industrial Revolution, an era that continued into the mid 1900's, sparking the popular 1950's "Housewives" era of work. A time of heavy pollution, industrialization, broadcast media, revolution, war, communism, middle class, automobiles, consumerism, and competition - telecommunications and marketing were also being tested more than ever before.

"At the end of the 19th century, most people lived within walking distance of their job, whether that was on a farm, at a factory, or a shop in a city. The rise of mass transit, and later automobiles, meant that people were no longer geographically bound to a certain area based on their place of employment. “That allowed people to live much farther away from where they work — that's one reason why the home office has taken off,” says Richard Guy Wilson" (Yuko 3)

"Technology has driven most of the major recent shifts regarding the home office. Between the 1970s and 1990s, equipment like typewriters, fax machines, boxy personal computers, multi-line telephones, copy machines and scanners were the space-hungry and expensive gear that defined a proper home office." (Yuko 5)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Code Projected Over Woman | Courtesy of : pexels.com - ThisIsEngineering 

# data[].attributes.headline
The Information Age / Technological Advancements Pt. 2

# data[].attributes.subject
The Information Age / Technological Advancements Pt. 2

# data[].attributes.body
The capability to transfer information hastily, precisely, and efficiently has regularly been one of the main focuses compelling human vicissitude. From primitive man with their signal fires to the smartphone-handling leaders of today, communication still remains crucial for survival and progress.

Telecommunication and technological advancement illustrates this never-ending shift for progress as it regularly parallels human growth, becoming more boundless, capable, and effective as the evolution of modern civilization unravels.

Telecommunication involves work outside of a traditional brick office, it allows the person to use technology to do their job. Some people refer to this type of work as e-commuting or working remotely. Today, a lot of companies are allow telecommuting as it benefits both parties in flexibility among many other things.

The Information age (also known as the Digital Age) developed the most prominent innovation yet -- the internet. The internet has altered the way that humans do everything. It has made the general population smarter, businesses more successful, it reshaped governments (for better and worse) and allowed online businesses to thrive. This allowed for a general flexibility and understanding for many businesses regarding remote work and how to manage employees. Later, the internet also gave people the opportunity to start small businesses from home to sell products or services, or start a YouTube channel for promotion, or even start a podcast to freely speak your mind -- all in hopes that millions of people will listen, buy or follow.

# data[].attributes.body
There is no doubt that the Covid Era made working from home the new way of working for many people. The change to remote work was sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen. For a percentage of people the change was welcome and easy to maneuver -- for others, work from home amidst families, chores, meals to prep, and children that had also made the switch to remote learning, was very difficult and distracting. " As a result, employees have to work with greater family-work conflict, which we believe negatively affects their job productivity and work engagement while impacting on stress related to the remote work pending completion." (Galanti 2)

Many people were not prepared for the remote work change, and work for many others could not be translated to work from home, such as myself, being apart of the hospitality industry. There were other factors that made the change increasingly burdensome, such as stress and anxieties, social isolation, distracting environments, and family-work conflicts - these factors led to a decrease in production of remote workers around the world.

The Covid-19 pandemic compelled business practices to update with the current technological contemporaries, which provoked years worth of organizational adjustment basically overnight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Impact on Employees' Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress

Objective:

The COVID-19 pandemic made working from home (WFH) the new way of working. This study investigates the impact that family-work conflict, social isolation, distracting environment, job autonomy, and self-leadership have on employees' productivity, work engagement, and stress experienced when WFH during the pandemic.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study analyzed data collected through an online questionnaire completed by 209 employees WFH during the pandemic. The assumptions were tested using hierarchical linear regression.

Results:

Employees' family-work conflict and social isolation were negatively related, while self-leadership and autonomy were positively related, to WFH productivity and WFH engagement. Family-work conflict and social isolation were negatively related to WFH stress, which was not affected by autonomy and self-leadership.

Conclusion:

Individual- and work-related aspects both hinder and facilitate WFH during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Keywords: COVID-19, family-work conflict, job productivity, remote working, stress, work engagement, working from home

The COVID-19 outbreak has made working from home (WFH) the new way of working for millions of employees in the EU and around the world. Due to the pandemic, many workers and employers had to switch, quite suddenly, to remote work for the first time and without any preparation. Early estimates from Eurofound1 suggested that due to the pandemic, approximately 50% of Europeans worked from home (at least partially) as compared with 12% prior to the emergency. Currently, these numbers are approximately the same, with many employees and organizations possibly opting for WFH even after the pandemic.2

To contain the spread of the virus, Italy quickly adopted home confinement measures which, since the Spring of 2020, were renewed for several months and are still, as in some other European countries, ongoing also during Spring 2021.

As all organizational changes, WFH too has some advantages and disadvantages.3 Usually, adopting this flexible way of working has been presented as a planned choice that requires a period of design, preparation, and adaptation to allow organizations to effectively support employees' productivity and ensure them better work-life balance.4-6 However, the COVID-19 outbreak has substantially forced most organizations to adopt this way of working, often without providing employees with the necessary skills required for remote work.7-9 As previously mentioned, studies have reported both advantages and disadvantages related to remote work.10 Its effects, therefore, have been quite explored.6 On the other side, the need to examine how WFH, as a "new way of working,"11,12 has affected the well-being and productivity of employees with no prior remote work experience and to identify specific work conditions affecting remote work during the COVID-19 crisis9 is imperative.

To achieve these goals, the present study considered the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model13,14 as a theoretical framework. The JD-R model is a well-established theoretical model in the field of occupational health psychology, which suggests that work conditions, categorized into job demands and job resources, affect employees' wellbeing and performance. Job demands refer to the physical, psychological, or socio-organizational aspects of the work whose energy-depleting process induces people to experience energy loss and fatigue, leading to stress, burnout, and health impairment. On the contrary, job resources refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that reduce job demands while stimulating work motivation, personal growth, and development.15 In addition, personal resources have been introduced in the JD-R model defining them as "aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience and refer to individuals' sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environment successfully,"16 thus stimulating optimal functioning and lessening stress.

According to the JD-R model, every occupation and work has its own specific job demands and job resources; hence, the present study considered some job demands, one job resource, and one personal resource to investigate how much they affect employees' work engagement, job-related stress, and job performance.

The model we developed for this study considered some characteristics of remote work as job demands: the difficulty of adequately reconciling private and work commitments,17 the decrease or lack of the social context that employees normally experience in the workplace and that is related to the perception of being more socially isolated,18 and the difficulty of arranging a suitable workstation at home for carrying out their work activities.19 One of the most prominent job resources when WFH is job autonomy.5,20-22 Finally, we considered self-leadership, defined as a self-influence process to behave and perform by setting one's own goals and monitoring their fulfilment,23 as a personal resource that may potentially contribute to efficient remote work.

The present study integrates research on remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic8 highlighting some job demands and resources that may affect negative (work stress) and positive (work engagement and job productivity) outcomes of employees' remote work. Furthermore, since the trend toward remote work is expected to increase even after the pandemic, this study may provide useful information on the individual- and work-related consequences of remote work during and after the pandemic.

Analyzing more in detail the above-mentioned variables, the difficulty of reconciling private and work commitments is often described in the literature as family-work conflict, which is a condition when employees' participation in work duties is complicated by the involvement of family-related activities.24 Family-work conflict is usually considered a sex-dependent phenomenon25 because, in most cultures, the primary responsibility for caregiving and housework tasks26 lies with women, who are more penalized than men in times of crisis.27 However, COVID-19 has forced millions of people to stay home, breaking down the distinction between private and work life regardless of age or sex. Therefore, we argue that family-work conflict can be an issue that may potentially affect not only women but men alike when WFH. On the contrary, previous studies hypothesized that remote work can simultaneously reduce family-work conflict as well as amplify it,4,6 nullifying the benefits of WFH.28 Besides, the confinement that was imposed in the early period of the pandemic may also accentuate this conflict, with family commitments interfering with work commitments.

At home, the presence of partners and children (especially if still in their childhood) engaged in work and school activities, the disruption of child-care and education services observed during the pandemic, and having to contribute towards household chores greatly affected remote workers.19 For example, employees have to regularly prepare meals three times a day (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) for the whole family, assisting children to connect with their online distance teaching in the morning, assisting with their homework in the afternoon, and spending some quality time with them when their homework is completed. As a result, employees have to work with greater family-work conflict, which we believe negatively affects their job productivity and work engagement while impacting on stress related to the remote work pending completion, in line with the previous literature.4,5

Workplace isolation is another important key feature of WFH during the pandemic.18 Although previous research highlighted that social isolation is one of the main drawbacks of remote work,29-32 its incidence has inevitably increased during this period. The pandemic has exposed people to social confinement and thus higher levels of loneliness,8,33 which may correlate with declining work satisfaction and performance as well as stress enhancement.4,18

Prior to COVID-19, studies found a negative correlation between time spent telecommuting and individual and team performance.9 Furthermore, the amount of time spent teleworking and the extent of face-to-face interaction were found to moderate, respectively negatively and positively, the relationship between professional isolation and job performance.34 In line with previous research,35 the use of digital technologies to communicate may only partially mitigate the isolation experienced by workers in comparison to the social contacts that are usually experienced by individuals in their workplaces as well as in social life, such as attending the gym or meeting friends. Therefore, as the social confinement observed in this study was extended for many weeks, with no in-presence contact with colleagues, we believe that social isolation is a relevant job demand related to WFH in times of COVID-19. Drawing on this statement, we argue that social isolation is significantly and negatively associated with WFH outcomes concerning job productivity and engagement and positively associated with WFH stress-related levels.

Another peculiarity of WFH during the pandemic is that employees have to share their workspace with family members, such as the partner and/or school-age children engaged in distance-learning primarily. Therefore, it should be noted that WFH during the pandemic has brought about many difficulties in the Italian population as well as in other European countries where social confinement has been adopted for several weeks. The houses were often unsuitable to host more people engaged in study and work activities,19 thus generating a distracting environment. A previous study conducted on teleworkers36 highlighted that control on the work environment is positively related to job satisfaction, whereas distractions while working generates work environment dissatisfaction. Studies suggested that a positive full-time WFH experience is associated with the quality of the workspace, such as control on light and acoustic isolation37 and a workspace that is sufficiently separated from the living space.38 When this separation is not possible, working in a space with environmental distractions may represent an additional and relevant job demand. Specifically, we hypothesized that environmental distractions are negatively associated with productivity and engagement in remote work and positively with stress.

According to the JD-R model,13,14 job and personal resources affect employees' well-being and productivity. One of the most prominent job resources of remote work is job autonomy,13,14 which is the extent of independence and discretion permitted while performing professional tasks.39 Job autonomy positively associates with the number of hours performed remotely. Furthermore, it positively influences remote workers' engagement, satisfaction, and performance but negatively affects their stress.5,20-22 Job autonomy is a major job resource for employees and, in the right doses, it encourages profitable innovations at work.40 We argue that the positive effects of job autonomy can be observed or even accentuated during the enforced WFH due to the pandemic. WFH was an unforeseen phenomenon necessitated by the outbreak of the pandemic, and many employees had to cope with this new situation and coordinate with colleagues and supervisors to manage the unprecedented autonomy associated with the remote work. For this reason and in line with the literature,5,10 we posit that autonomy positively associates with productivity and engagement but negatively with stress experienced when WFH during the pandemic.

Finally, in our model, we included one personal resource that is particularly helpful in times of change as it enables employees to actively shape their own job practices and work environment.41 Unfortunately, there is limited evidence on the effects of personal resources when WFH. Nonetheless, especially in unprecedented times such as this, it is important to investigate the role of work-related personal resources because, differently from personal traits (eg, personality), they can be trained.11 In the present study, we considered self-leadership, measured in its facets of goal setting and self-observation because among the most salient aspects of WFH, as well as one the mutual consequence of the other (the observation of one's work helps to establish goals, and their achievement must in turn be monitored), as an important resource when WFH. Through self-leadership, individuals regulate and control their behavior, influencing and leading themselves using specific sets of behavioral and cognitive strategies.42 Self-leading individuals efficaciously monitor their actual performance and the standard they set for themselves thus regulating their own motivation. In this vein, it has been evidenced how self-leadership behaviors facilitate higher psychological functioning, which in turn influences work engagement.43,44 A recent study yielded promising results showing that goal-setting behaviors, a component of self-leadership behaviors, may sustain job satisfaction especially when WFH.21 In light of this, the present study aims to extend the literature by considering self-leadership and evaluating its relationship with WFH engagement and productivity, as well as with stress levels. According to the JD-R model,13,14 we assumed self-leadership as a personal resource for WFH that positively affects employees' productivity and work engagement, and negatively affects stress.

METHODS

Participants and Procedure

A study on the work-life quality of remote workers during COVID-19 was conducted using a self-report questionnaire administered online from May to July 2020, using the Qualtrics platform. At the time of data collection, all the participants were WFH full-time in Italian public and private organizations. Participation in the research was voluntary, anonymous, and without any reward. Prior to filling the questionnaire, the respondents signed informed consent. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all ethical guidelines on social research were followed. The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Bologna.

The study included 209 employees (71.3% women and 28.7% men). The average age of the participants was 49.81 years (standard deviation 9.4, minimum 25, maximum 65). Approximately 70% of the respondents reported having at least one child, and 32% of them reported having children younger than 14 years old. Only 9.1% of the employees in the sample reported being involved in WFH prior to the COVID-19 emergency, suggesting that 91.9% of them were WFH for the first time.

Measures

The job demands related to WFH were measured using three different scales. The first scale was measuring family-work conflict, which consists of three items from the scale developed by Netemeyer et al,45 describing the interference that family life has on work when WFH (eg, "Family stress interferes with my ability to perform work-related tasks"). Perceived social isolation was assessed using four items of the scale by Golden et al,34 which measures a sense of isolation and lack of support experienced by workers (eg, "I miss face-to-face contact with colleagues"). Finally, the scale of the distracting working environment consists of three items developed by Lee and Brand,36 which measures the level of distraction experienced during WFH (eg, "In my working area, I experience acoustic distractions").

Job autonomy was assessed using four items developed by Morgeson and Humphrey.39 These items measured both the possibilities of autonomy in scheduling work activities and taking work-related autonomous decisions (eg, "My job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work").

Self-leadership was assessed using four items of the Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire23 measuring both the employees' behaviors of setting job-related goals and self-observation of their work (eg, "When I work, I always keep my tasks in mind").

Perceived WFH productivity was measured in a section of the questionnaire requiring to compare the current situation of WFH with that one of the traditional office, experienced in the past, through a single item, already used in a remote work context,18 whose formulation is "When I work remotely, I am more productive."

WFH engagement was measured using the three-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale46 adapted to the WFH context (eg, "When I work from home, I feel full of energy").

Finally, stress experienced during WFH was measured through the four items previously adopted by Weinert et al47 aimed to measure workers' perception of exhaustion and fatigue due to WFH (eg, "I feel exhausted from working from home").

All the above measures were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Socio-demographic variables, such as age, sex, caring responsibility, and remote work experience were considered as control variables, as literature recognizes them as possible confounders in the relationships under study.5,8,48 Specifically, sex (0 = M; 1 = F), caring responsibility (0 = not having children younger than 14 years old; 1 = having children older than 14 years old), and WFH experience (0 = no; 1 = yes) were coded as dummy variables. Furthermore, since this research was conducted during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, subjective perceptions and concerns regarding the COVID-19 may also have an impact on the experiences and well-being of the participants.18 Therefore, fear of COVID-19 was used as a control variable and assessed using the seven items of the Italian version of the Fear of Covid-19 Scale.49 For example, "I am very afraid of COVID-19."

Data Analysis

Prior to data analysis, the validity and reliability of the scales were evaluated. In particular, the technique of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the dimensionality of the scales. The reliability and convergent validity of the measures were then evaluated by computing composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) values, while the discriminant validity was assessed by calculating maximum shared variance (MSV) values.

Once established that all the measures in this study had reliability and validity values following the cut-offs usually adopted in research,50 descriptive statistics and correlations among the major study variables were calculated. Finally, hierarchical multiple regressions evaluated which job demands and job resources influenced the three dependent variables of our study. In the three separated hierarchical regressions performed, one for each dependent variable, the stepwise method was used. In the first step, we included the control variables of sex, age, presence of children younger than 14 years old, WFH condition, and fear of COVID-19. In the second step, we added job demands, namely family-work conflict, social isolation, and distracting work environment. Finally, in the third step, we included the resources of job autonomy and self-leadership behaviors. All the data were analyzed using IBM AMOS and SPSS statistics version 26 (Armonk, NJ).

RESULTS

Test of Measurement Model

First, two CFAs were conducted to compare an eight-factor model, one for each construct of this study, with a model in which all the items were grouped into a single dimension. The eight-factor model showed a greater fit to data ( χ ² = 503.54; df = 272; χ ²/df = 1.85; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.93; incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.93; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06; and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.06) compared with the model with a single factor grouping all the items ( χ ² = 2147.77; df = 299; χ ²/df = 7.18; CFI = 0.46; IFI = 0.46; RMSEA = 0.17; and SRMR = 0.16). The fit values of the eight-factor model were good, and each item loaded into its factor with saturation values greater than 0.40. With the only exception of job productivity, measured through a single item, we then calculated the values of composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and maximum shared variance (MSV) for each scale. CR values for each dimension were greater than 0.70, giving evidence of the reliability of the scales. All the AVE values were above the cut-off of 0.50, while each MSV was lower than AVEs, indicating that the study measures had both convergent and discriminant validity. Table ​Table1 1 reports the results of these analyses.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive statistics, Cronbach α, and correlations among variables are shown in Table ​Table2. 2 . All the variables correlated in the expected direction. Job demands were found to be negatively associated with WFH job productivity and work engagement and positively related to WFH stress. The resources of job autonomy and self-leadership were positively related to work productivity and work engagement, but their relationships with stress, although negative, were not significant. Moreover, the two resources were not related to the three job demands.

TABLE 2

1. F-W conflict

(0.89)

0.43 ∗∗

0.46 ∗∗

-0.05

-0.12

-0.40 ∗∗

-0.39 ∗∗

0.50 ∗∗

2. Social isolation

(0.88)

0.37 ∗∗

-0.09

-0.08

-0.42 ∗∗

-0.51 ∗∗

0.62 ∗∗

3. Distr W Envir

(0.77)

-0.13

-0.14

-0.27 ∗∗

-0.38 ∗∗

0.36 ∗∗

4. Job autonomy

(0.89)

0.17 ∗∗

0.18 ∗∗

0.27 ∗∗

-0.03

5. Self leadership

(0.79)

0.26 ∗∗

0.34 ∗∗

-0.10

6. Productivity

0.70 ∗∗

-0.39 ∗∗

7. W Engagement

(0.80)

-0.47 ∗∗

Regression Analysis for WFH Employees' Productivity, Work Engagement, and Stress

Table ​Table3 3 shows the results of the multiple regression analyses. Following the steps described in the Method paragraph, the first regression tested WFH productivity as dependent variable. For what concerns control variables, although in step 2 the experience with WFH resulted to be significant, its influence in step 3 revealed to be no more significant while, at step 3, age ( β = -0.14; P < 0.05) and fear of COVID-19 ( β = 0.25; P < 0.01) resulted, respectively, to affect negatively and positively WFH productivity. In step 2, when job demands were entered, a significant increase in explained variance (ADjR ² = 0.27; ΔR ² = 0.24; P < 0.01), over and above the variance explained by control variables, was observed. At this step, both family-work conflict ( β = -0.29; P < 0.01) and social isolation ( β = -0.29; P < 0.01), were significantly and negatively associated to WFH productivity, whereas distracting work environment was not significantly associated to it ( β = -0.05; P > 0.05). In step 3, job autonomy and self-leadership showed a significant improvement in explained variance (ADjR ² = 0.32; Δ R ² = 0.05; P < 0.01). At this step, both the job demands of family-work conflict ( β = -0.29; P < 0.01) and social isolation ( β = -0.29; P < 0.01), were negatively related to WFH productivity, whereas both job autonomy ( β = 0.14; P < 0.05) and self-leadership ( β = 0.17; P < 0.01) were positively related to WFH productivity. Distracting work environment was not significantly associated with it ( β = -0.02; P  > 0.05).

TABLE 3

1

3. WFH experience

0.12 (0.26)

0.15 (0.20) ∗

-0.03 (0.29)

4. Children < 14

-0.07 (0.16) ∗

0.03 (0.13)

-0.06 (0.18)

2

8. Distractive W. Env.

-0.05 (0.07)

-0.18 (0.05) ∗∗

0.05 (0.06)

ΔR ²

0.24 ∗∗

0.31 ∗∗

0.42 ∗∗

3

2. Age

-0.14 (0.01) ∗∗

-0.01 (0.00)

0.02 (0.01)

8. Distractive W. Env.

-0.02 (0.07)

-0.14 (0.05) ∗

0.05 (0.06)

ΔR ²

0.05 ∗∗

0.10 ∗∗

0.00

The second regression tested remote work engagement as a dependent variable. About the control variables, also in this case, in step 2, the experience with WFH resulted to be significant, while in step 3 its impact was no longer significant. Furthermore, in this case, fear of COVID-19 ( β = 0.19; P  < 0.01) positively and significantly affected remote work engagement even after inserting variables at steps 2 and 3.

In step 2, when entering job demands, a significant increase in variance was observed (ADjR ² = 0.37; ΔR ² = 0.31; P < 0.01), over and above the variance explained by control variables in the first step. Specifically, step 2 of this regression shows that all the three job demands of family-work conflict ( β = -0.19; P < 0.01), social isolation ( β = -0.36; P < 0.01) and distracting work environment ( β = -0.18; P < 0.05) negatively affected work engagement. At step 3, both the resources of autonomy ( β = 0.19; P < 0.01) and self-leadership ( β = 0.23; P < 0.01) positively affected work engagement. All the three job demands of family-work conflict ( β = -0.19; P < 0.01), social isolation ( β = -0.36; P < 0.01) and distracting work environment ( β = -0.14; P < 0.05) were still negatively associated to work engagement, and an increase in the explained variance (ADjR ² = 0.44; ΔR ² = 0.10; P  < 0.01) was observed.

Finally, our focus shifted to the impact of WFH on workers' well-being. Using WFH stress as a dependent variable, the third hierarchical regression did not show any effect of the control variables on this outcome. At step 2, both family-work conflict ( β = 0.31; P < 0.01) and social isolation ( β = 0.48; P < 0.01), but not distracting work environment ( β = 0.05; P > 0.05), were positively related to stress showing a significant increase in explained variance (ADjR ² = 0.44; ΔR ² = 0.42; P < 0.01). At step 3, both family-work conflict ( β = 0.31; P < 0.01) and social isolation ( β = 0.48; P < 0.01), but not distracting work environment ( β = 0.05; P > 0.05), were positively associated with stress. On the contrary, neither autonomy nor self-leadership had a significant impact on WFH stress. Therefore, no significant increase in explained variance was observed (ADjR ² = 0.44; ΔR ² = 0.00; P  > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The present study examined employees' well-being and productivity when WFH during the pandemic. We addressed this issue by using the JD-R model13,14 as a framework and by investigating the effect that specific WFH job demands and resources have on WFH outcomes. Among the job demands, we examined the effects of family-work conflict, social isolation, and distracting environment. Job autonomy was evaluated as a job resource, and self-leadership as a personal resource. The JD-R model13,14 has also practical implications since it not only allows to focus on job-related risk prevention strategies (by decreasing job demands) but also on benefit promotion (by increasing job resources and, when possible, personal resources) to sustain employees' productivity and work engagement and decrease the stress experienced when WFH for the long periods required from the pandemic. In a time in which employees had to adapt quickly to WFH, the identification of obstacles, as well as of enablers, to well-being and job performance is a priority for many organizations, and this study contributes to this purpose. Overall, findings observed in the present study are in line with the assumptions developed following the theoretical framework of the JD-R model13,14 and also consistent with the literature related to remote work.

Social isolation and family-work conflict were associated with all the three tested outcomes, in the direction we envisioned, thus proving to be important job demands of remote work that can significantly decrease productivity and work engagement on the one hand and increase job stress on the other. These results are in line with previous studies4,8,18 and also improve extant knowledge concerning the relationship with productivity, engagement, and stress experienced during WFH. Findings suggest that organizations and employees should consider these factors and develop guidelines on how to better manage them to observe the positive outcomes typically expected from remote work. In particular, increasing opportunities to communicate with colleagues and superiors represents the first strategy for organizations, HR officers, and employees, because communications can decrease social isolation perceptions. The available technological resources can do a lot in this direction: although lean communications, such as e-mails, allow an exchange of information often functional for work, the social exchange between human beings takes place through "richer" forms of interactions, among which the face-to-face interaction represents the "gold standard."51 Many companies accelerated the acquisition and use of technologies and software that offer interactive experiences that imitate the face-to-face or group interactions among people. The other side of the coin, however, concerns the issue of the digital privacy defense and the fear of digital surveillance52,53 that the massive use of technologies may increase. At the same time, managers and HR officers should also effectively reflect on the frequency, timing, and structure of such communicative exchanges to avoid the risk of excessive interruptions and distractions of workers.

The theme of distractions is, in fact, another major issue related to WFH. The results of this study capture the deleterious role that family-work conflict and a chaotic environment, characterized by visual and acoustic distractions and lack of privacy, play on WFH outcomes. Distracting environments, while fortunately proving not to be predictors of reduced productivity and increased stress, seem to exert a negative influence on the motivational drivers of people. Employees may decrease their engagement, with weakened work motivation when their work setting becomes more distracting. The family-work conflict, instead, has shown significant and unfavorable effects on every dependent variable of this study. Probably, its centrality-already known in research on telework4-is also increased by the contingent situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic: in this period, workers' homes are often "crowded" by cohabitants grappling with their work and educational commitments. A crowded home further complicates the family and work-life balance, a learning process that previous studies suggested to require 1 year of WFH experience.5

Learning how to manage remote work can decrease the perception of family-work conflict. In addition, organizations should support employees' time management skills, enabling them to divide the two spheres and give each of them the right attention at the right time, with a view to the right to disconnection and physical and mental recovery of each worker.

The importance of personal work management skills is also underlined by the resources tested in this study. Our findings show that autonomy and self-leadership have a positive relationship with productivity and work engagement. So, they may represent two relevant resources, able to sustain WFH productivity and engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to potentially bring favorable outcomes for both organizations and employees. In practical terms, promoting autonomy and self-leadership may be a solution to improve the efficacy of remote work programs and related implications in terms of WFH engagement. In light of this, training interventions may be supplied to WFH employees to develop self-observation strategies and to promote the schedule of work-related goal-based deadlines and priorities. Furthermore, these findings call attention to new work processes supporting the work autonomy of individuals, leveraging the specific skills of individuals, and providing functional tools for job management in the new context of remote work. Advancements in this sense seem fully compatible with work visions that are increasingly geared to working towards objectives and less based on directive leadership processes, and instead more participatory.54 Consequently, organizations should empower workers through training courses aimed at developing self-leadership behaviors.

No significant relationship has been observed between resources and stress levels. In the JD-R model, job and personal resources are expected to directly impact well-being and motivational processes or to moderate the impact of job demands on stress and ill-health.16 These results suggest that future studies should investigate the buffering role of specific WFH jobs and personal resources on the relationship between WFH demands and stress.

Other notable findings should be outlined. Our results suggest that remote work can be a useful solution especially for people concerned about COVID-19. In line with the previous literature,18 the perceptions of people about the COVID-19 virus seem to play an important role in work during the pandemic. Our findings show that the fear for this pathogen is positively associated with higher levels of productivity and engagement. In other words, people emotionally affected by COVID-19 also reported being more productive and motivated when WFH. This suggests that, consistently with the literature,55,56 this way of working may also play a protective, anxiety-relieving role for workers, since they were not asked to go to work, and thus be exposed to possible contagion by leaving home. On the other hand, we also observe that perception of lower productivity is associated with the increasing age of workers, a result probably explained both through the difficulties that these employees may have with technological tools, and their potential less ability to adapt to changes,57 especially if they take place quickly.

There are some implications for future research in this field that derive from the present study. Indeed, our model, although including many variables, gives only a small account of the many dynamics that underlie the complex phenomenon of the WFH. Based on this, we believe it is important that future studies take into consideration, with a more specific research design and a more representative sample, other constructs, particularly among the job and personal resources. In particular, we point out that the PsyCap, a psychological state consisting of the dimensions of self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, determination,58 applied both at the personal and team level, can open important horizons for future studies, which still have much to investigate on the complex reality of remote work and its outcomes in terms of employees' well-being and health.

We also point out some of the limitations of this study, as well as some suggestions for future studies. One limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, which allows us to trace associations between the investigated constructs but on the other hand does not allow determining causal relationships between the variables. Furthermore, we also believe that to generalize the results may be not possible, since our sample was a convenience sample, susceptible to biases, including the fact that the data collection took place online, among people accustomed to the use of digital technologies.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we investigated if WFH-related job demands and job resources are related to remote work productivity and work engagement as well as on stress. We found that the empirical results we analyzed and discussed, except for the relationships between distracting working environment and the outcomes of productivity and stress, and the relationships between both autonomy and self-leadership and stress, mostly confirmed our assumptions.

We believe that this study contributes to the literature concerning remote work and the well-being of remote workers that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is marked with relevant emotional and health implications. Furthermore, the implications of this study are of further importance as they provide information concerning the needs of workers who have had to adapt to enforce full-time WFH due to the pandemic, most of whom have no prior WFH experience. Managers, HR officers, and workers engaged in remote activities should consider family-work conflict, social isolation, and distracting work environments as potential obstacles and job autonomy and self-leadership as potential enablers of WFH engagement. In times of pandemic, such as the COVID-19, where containing the spread of the disease is crucial, WFH is a key opportunity and can give a competitive advantage to sustain and improve performance of organizations.

Footnotes

Funding Sources: nothing to declare.

Conflict of Interest: nothing to declare.

Ethical Considerations & Disclosure: This research fully respects the Declaration of Helsinki. All ethical guidelines were followed. The Bioethics Committee of the University of Bologna formally approved this study.

Clinical significance: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused people to work from home, in most cases without any preparation. Our results help identify factors associated with employee well-being, charting ways to follow to make sure people at home can work without negatively impacting their health.

REFERENCES

1. Ahrendt D, Cabrita J, Clerici E, et al. . Living, Working and COVID-19. 2020; Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 1-80. [ Google Scholar]

42. Manz CC, Neck CP. Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for Personal Excellence. 3rd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2008. [ Google Scholar]

47. Weinert C, Maier C, Laumer S. Why are teleworkers stressed? An empirical analysis of the causes of telework-enabled stress. Proc der 12 Int Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik; 2015:1407-1421. [ Google Scholar]

49. Soraci P, Ferrari A, Abbiati FA, et al. . Validation and psychometric evaluation of the italian version of the fear of COVID-19 Scale. [[ Int J Ment Health Addict. Published online May 4, 2020. doi:10.1007/s11469-020-00277-1. PMC free article] [ PubMed] Google Scholar]

50. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Vol 8[ th. 8th ed.London, UK: Pearson Education; 2018. Google Scholar]

54. Bianco A. The Next Society - Sociologia Del Mutamento e Dei Processi Digitali. Milano, Italy: FrancoAngeli; 2019. [ Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Work From Home During the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Impact on Employees' Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Impact on Employees' Remote Work Productivity, Engagement, and Stress The COVID-19 pandemic made working from home (WFH) the new way of working. This study investigates the impact that family-work conflict, social isolation, distracting environment, job autonomy, and self-leadership have on employees' productivity, work engagement, and stress experienced when WFH during the pandemic.

# data[].attributes.body
"Today, we’re seeing a return to the work-home. Professionals, both those employed by companies and the large and growing freelance workforce, are once again spending more time working from home. Resources are growing on remote workforce management and creating company cultures remotely." (Reynolds 12)

It is clear that today's equipment and machinery, along with certain software tools and the internet, has alleviated the necessity for employees to have to work together at the same place and time. Companies are beginning to understand the flexibility that can benefit both the company and the employee.

It might be certain that certain jobs, such as engineers and accounts, may be able to process 90% of their workload from home. We also recognize that many other jobs can benefit from remote flexibility.

But, in the end, society still needs to make things happen. The the Covid-19 era demonstrated that humans will use their primal instincts to hunt and gather for survival. We adapted to change in extensive ways that our generation has never experienced. We fought, we loved, we watched awful things happen to undeserving people, and we are still in rapprochement between how we view work, society, ourselves, and the future. But, rationality exists in humans to recognize that we must commit ourselves to continue to work -- whether for ourselves or for the greater good.

By no means do I conclude that remote work will be the future of work for all people, but I do figure that more companies will soon acknowledge the benefit in the pliancy for both the employees and themselves.

"In sum, it appears that working from home will fall relative to the high levels during the pandemic, but it is likely that it will be more common than before Covid-19. Crucially, any rise is expected to be concentrated in a few industries rather than common across all types of work." (Haskel 4)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the future of working from home? - Economics Observatory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Working from home has become more common during the pandemic, but only in certain sectors. The likelihood that the practice will be permanently adopted depends on perceptions of workforce productivity.