The Controlled Frontstage: Rethinking Goffman’s Dramaturgical Model in Remote Work

Exploring how remote work reshapes the boundaries of frontstage and backstage, granting workers greater control over emotional labor and social exposure.

Abstract

This paper expands Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical model by introducing the concept of a controlled frontstage in the context of remote work. Traditional theories distinguish between frontstage (public performance) and backstage (private preparation and recovery). However, in remote work, the frontstage is no longer a fixed, continuous space — it becomes dynamic and adjustable, granting individuals control over exposure, engagement, and emotional labor. This article argues that instead of a new backstage, remote work introduces a variation of the frontstage, where individuals regulate their visibility, voice, and participation level in real time. Additionally, remote work limits the total time spent in the frontstage, allowing for more predictable, scheduled performances and extended backstage recovery time. Integrating Hochschild’s emotional labor theory and Goffman’s impression management framework, we demonstrate how digital workspaces reshape the performance of professional roles.

1. Introduction

In traditional workplaces, employees are continuously in the frontstage, required to manage impressions, regulate emotions, and adjust behavior according to their professional role. Remote work disrupts this model by allowing individuals to modulate their presence in ways that were previously impossible.

Drawing from Goffman’s dramaturgical theory (1956) and Hochschild’s emotional labor theory (1983), this paper introduces the concept of the controlled frontstage — a digital space where workers remain in performance mode but exercise agency over their exposure, participation, and emotional investment. Unlike the rigid physical frontstage, the remote frontstage is adjustable and time-bounded, leading to a significant transformation in how individuals engage with social interaction and emotional labor in professional settings.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Goffman’s Dramaturgical Model: The Classic Frontstage and Backstage

Goffman (1956) theorized that social interaction functions like a performance where individuals play roles in different settings:

• Frontstage — The space where individuals perform roles based on societal expectations.
• Backstage — A private space where individuals can revert to their authentic selves, recover, and prepare for the next performance.

Workplaces have traditionally forced employees into a persistent frontstage, with limited opportunities to step backstage.

2.2. Hochschild’s Emotional Labor Theory

Hochschild (1983) introduced emotional labor, highlighting how workers must suppress or modify emotions to meet professional expectations. She distinguished between:

• Surface Acting — Faking emotions (e.g., a flight attendant forcing a smile).
• Deep Acting — Internally adjusting emotions to align with professional expectations (e.g., a therapist convincing themselves to feel genuine empathy).

High emotional labor professions suffer from burnout due to the inability to step into a true backstage.

2.3. Remote Work as a Shift in Performance Regulation

While research on remote work (Felstead & Henseke, 2017; Bloom et al., 2015) has primarily focused on productivity and work-life balance, little attention has been given to how remote work redefines social interaction. We propose that rather than introducing a new backstage, remote work introduces a controlled frontstage, where individuals modulate their emotional labor and impression management.

3. The Controlled Frontstage: A New Dimension of Social Performance

Remote work does not remove the frontstage, but it reconfigures it. When an employee joins a virtual meeting, they immediately enter the frontstage — but they now have tools to control their level of exposure, unlike in physical offices. Additionally, the time spent in the frontstage is now reduced and scheduled in advance, allowing for better emotional preparation and recovery.

3.1. The Variations of the Controlled Frontstage

3.1.1. Full Engagement Mode (Traditional Frontstage Equivalent)

• Camera on, microphone on, active participation.
• This mimics a face-to-face meeting, requiring full emotional labor.
• Social monitoring and impression management remain high.

3.1.2. Partial Exposure Mode (Adjusted Frontstage Presence)

• Camera on, microphone off.
• The worker is still visible but retains control over verbal engagement.
• Less pressure to respond immediately, allowing selective participation.

3.1.3. Passive Participation Mode (Minimal Frontstage Performance)

• Camera off, microphone off, engaging via chat.
• The worker is technically present but at the lowest level of emotional labor.
• The ability to observe without full engagement reduces social strain.

These variations show that instead of leaving the frontstage, workers now have dynamic control over their presence, turning the frontstage into a self-regulated space.

4. Time-Bounded Exposure and Extended Backstage Recovery

4.1. Scheduled Frontstage Time

One of the most significant differences between on-site and remote workers is that in remote work, frontstage time is pre-defined and limited:

• Meetings are typically 30 minutes to 1 hour, rather than an all-day presence.
• Employees can mentally prepare before entering the frontstage, similar to an actor rehearsing before a performance.
• The ability to exit the frontstage exactly at the scheduled time provides certainty and structure.

4.2. More Time for Backstage Recovery

Since meetings are not continuous, remote workers spend less total time in the frontstage compared to on-site employees, who must manage their impression all day:

• A physical office worker is constantly visible, always in some level of frontstage mode, even outside meetings.
• A remote worker spends time in true backstage mode between scheduled meetings, allowing for better emotional recovery.

4.3. The Ability to Decline Entry into the Frontstage

Unlike physical offices, where employees are expected to engage in spontaneous conversations and meetings, remote workers have greater autonomy over their participation:

• If unwell or unprepared, they can opt out of meetings or join in a lower-engagement mode (camera off, mic off, chat only).
• This reduces the pressure to perform emotional labor when not mentally ready.

5. Theoretical Implications: Rethinking Goffman’s Model in Digital Work

This shift has key implications for sociology, workplace policies, and emotional labor research:

Frontstage is No Longer a Fixed State

• In physical workplaces, the frontstage is continuous.
• In remote work, workers modulate their exposure, making the frontstage fluid and time-bounded.

Impression Management is Now Multi-Layered

• In face-to-face settings, workers manage impressions holistically (appearance, tone, presence).
• In remote work, impression management is modular (voice, video, chat).

Emotional Labor Can Now Be Self-Regulated

• Workers adjust their engagement levels rather than enduring continuous emotional labor.
• Organizations must ensure autonomy is protected, rather than enforcing rigid “always-on” norms.

6. Conclusion & Future Research

This paper proposes that remote work does not create a new backstage — instead, it transforms the frontstage into a controlled, self-regulated space. Workers remain in performance mode during meetings, but they have greater agency over how they engage, how much emotional labor they exert, and how they manage impression management.

By refining Goffman’s dramaturgical framework in the digital age, we better understand how remote work reshapes professional interaction, social exposure, and emotional well-being.