Data Visualization

Blog of the Data Visualization & Communication Course at OSB-AUB

This is my favorite part about analytics: Taking boring flat data and bringing it to life through visualization” John Tukey

The Hidden Cost of Flexibility: How Remote Work Shapes Mental Health and Work Life Balance

The Hidden Cost of Flexibility: How Remote Work Shapes Mental Health and Work Life Balance

Remote and hybrid work have transformed the modern workplace. After the pandemic normalized virtual collaboration, employees and companies embraced flexibility as the new standard. Surveys in 2024 and 2025 show that over 95% of workers prioritize remote or hybrid arrangements, often valuing flexibility even more than salary increases. But beneath the convenience and autonomy of at-home work, a more complicated reality is emerging. Flexibility does not always guarantee improved well-being. In fact, for many, it comes with hidden psychological and behavioral costs that organizations rarely acknowledge. Drawing on a dataset of 8,000 employees representing diverse industries and experience levels, this project investigates how work arrangement Remote, Hybrid, or Onsite shapes employee mental health, work habits, stress levels, and productivity. The results reveal a striking paradox: while remote work offers meaningful advantages, it also introduces new risks that can significantly undermine well-being when not properly supported.

Remote Work: Freedom on the Surface, Strain Beneath It

At first glance, remote work appears to be the ideal solution for work–life integration. Without commutes and with flexible scheduling, remote employees theoretically gain more personal time and autonomy. However, the data tells a different story. Remote workers consistently reported the highest levels of stress, isolation, overwork, and dissatisfaction, despite the very flexibility that was supposed to reduce these pressures.

Finding 1: Remote Employees Work More Hours and Feel the Least Balanced

The dataset shows a significant gap in weekly working hours across arrangements:

Remote: 47.8 hours

Onsite: 41.6 hours

Hybrid: 40.2 hours

Remote workers are effectively performing an extra full workday every two weeks. This pattern is a classic example of boundary erosion, where the absence of physical separation between home and work leads to unstructured, extended workdays.

Work life balance scores reinforce this:

Remote: 2.36

Onsite: 2.97

Hybrid: 3.63

Remote workers report the worst balance, while hybrid employees report the best.

Finding 2: Remote Workers Experience Far Higher Stress

Stress levels differed dramatically across groups:

50% of fully remote employees report high stress

Only approximately 20-21% of onsite and hybrid employees report high stress

Remote workers are 2.5 times more likely to be highly stressed.

Finding 3: Mental Health Conditions Peak Among Remote Workers

Beyond stress, employees were asked whether they experienced anxiety, depression, burnout, or no conditions.

The results were stark:

Remote: 84.5% reported at least one mental health condition

Onsite: 67.5%

Hybrid: 53%

Remote employees were far more likely to experience psychological strain especially anxiety and depression while hybrid workers reported the healthiest outcomes across the board.

Finding 4: Remote Workers Are More Isolated and Less Healthy

Social connection is a major predictor of mental health and here remote workers struggle significantly:

Isolation rating:

Remote: 3.54

Onsite: 2.82

Hybrid: 2.43

Nearly 28% of remote workers rated isolation as “extremely high” (5/5), compared to negligible rates for others.

Physical well-being also diverged:

29% of remote workers reported no regular physical activity

55% of hybrid workers exercised daily, compared to 27% of remote workers

Remote staff reported slightly worse sleep quality as well

Finding 5: Satisfaction and Productivity Are Lowest for Remote Workers

Despite the popularity of remote work as a preference, those actually working remotely express the lowest satisfaction:

Only 19% of fully remote workers are satisfied

50% are unsatisfied

59% of hybrid workers report satisfaction

Productivity changes follow the same pattern:

46% of remote workers reported productivity decreases

Only 20-22% of onsite and hybrid employees reported decreases

46% of hybrid employees reported productivity increases the best outcome of any group

Hybrid work consistently delivers both performance and well-being advantages.

Finding 6: Employer Support Matters and Remote Workers Get the Least

A key moderating factor is company support for remote work:

Remote employees rated employer support 2.47/5

Onsite and hybrid rated support 3.0-3.55

Among remote workers:

Those with access to mental health resources showed lower stress and higher satisfaction

45% reported receiving no employer support, creating a major well-being gap

Recommendations: Designing Remote Work for Real Well-Being

Based on the patterns in the data, organizations should prioritize:

  1. Boundary Protection
  2. Mental Health Support
  3. Reducing Isolation
  4. Manager Training

Conclusion: Flexibility Needs Structure

Remote work is not inherently harmful but without structure, boundaries, and support, it can become a breeding ground for stress, isolation, and declining well-being. Hybrid work often provides the right balance enough flexibility for life, enough connection for mental health, and enough structure for productivity. As organizations continue redefining the future of work, investing in the systems that make remote work sustainable is not optional it is essential for protecting employee well-being and unlocking the true benefits of flexibility

 

 

“Flexible work arrangements are rising, but without adequate support they can lead to increased stress and mental-health challenges; therefore organizations should invest in structured remote-work policies and mental-health resources.”.

Unequal Access: Mapping Lebanon’s Education Divide

Unequal Access: Mapping Lebanon’s Education Divide

Thousands of students in Lebanon are underserved by the concentration of educational opportunities in a small number of governorates. Policymakers must make investments in areas that lack public branches, colleges, and educational resources in order to create a more inclusive future.

 

1. A Landscape of Uneven Learning Opportunities

Lebanon’s education system has long been viewed as a regional strength but this strength is not evenly distributed. By mapping universities, Lebanese University (LU) branches, and the availability of educational resources across governorates, a clear pattern emerges: a select few governorates enjoy strong coverage, while others have limited or almost no access.

The visualization shows that:

  • Baabda, Zahle, and Matn dominate in the number of universities.

  • Meanwhile, areas like Bsharri, Batroun, Hermel, and Hasbaya have only 1 or zero universities.

This imbalance shapes future opportunities. Where a student is born should not determine how far they can go but right now, it often does.

2. Public Higher Education Is Even More Concentrated

Access to affordable education is even more unequal.

  • Zahle and Matn lead with 5 and 4 LU branches.

  • Many areas including Tyre, Akkar, Zgharta, Hasbaya, Hermel have one or no branches.

  • Several governorates have none at all, forcing students to relocate or drop out.

This reinforces a cycle: private universities cluster in the center, while public universities remain scarce outside major cities.

3. The Coverage Index: How Many Citizens Each University Serves?

To measure real accessibility, the coverage index compares each region’s population to the number of universities available.

Here the gap becomes dramatic:

  • In Baabda and Matn, one university serves fewer than 200,000 people.

  • In Hermel, Bsharri, and Tripoli, a single university covers more than 300,000 residents.

The message is clear: some regions are overserved, while others are severely underserved.

4. Do Educational Resources Exist Where They’re Needed Most?

When we look at the distribution of educational resources—libraries, cultural centers, labs, and learning facilities another pattern emerges:

  • Akkar, Baalbek, and Baabda have the highest counts.

  • Remote districts like Bsharri, Hermel, Batroun, and Marjeyoun have almost none.

This highlights a critical insight:
some areas have the right infrastructure but lack universities, while others have universities but no supporting learning ecosystem.

5. What This Means for Lebanon

Lebanon’s most significant educational challenge is not quality but fairness.
The maps reveal a structural inequality that affects:

  • university enrollment

  • student mobility

  • long-term employment opportunities

  • economic development in rural areas

By investing in the regions with the lowest coverage and resource availability, Lebanon can create a more inclusive and productive society.

 

Call to Action

We recommend a targeted educational investment plan for underserved governorates, focusing on:

  • Opening new LU branches in areas with zero public presence

  • Strengthening educational resources where population density is high

  • Supporting private institutions willing to expand beyond major districts

  • Digital learning infrastructure for remote areas

Education shouldn’t depend on geography. With intentional planning, it doesn’t have to.