The Case Against Dogs in the Office

Petra, the Alsatian dog from the BBC's children's program, "Blue Peter," answering her fan mail. Credit - John Pratt—Getty Images

During a recent camping trip near South Lake Tahoe in California, my family and I made a quick trip to town for a couple of errands. At the bike rental shop, a very large, very sweet German Shepherd greeted me from her dog bed by the counter. I gave her a good scratch while an enormous black dog lying behind a row of bikes briefly lifted his head, let out a deep groan, and went back to sleep. At the used bookstore, a compact, wiry terrier stood behind the counter and examined me as I examined the shelves. At the used outdoor gear store, a black and tan pooch gave my hand a thorough sniff-over, and then sauntered off. A second black and tan dog eyed me suspiciously from his pad behind the counter. A third—yes, black and tan—trotted right past me, out the door, and through the parking lot, finally disappearing down the street. In South Lake Tahoe, apparently, every day is Take Your Dog to Work Day.

The expansion of “dog-friendly” workplaces across the U.S. and in other pet-obsessed countries is often hailed as a move in the right direction, a loosening of the unfair social discrimination against dogs and the people who love them. But as a bioethicist whose work focuses on dogs, and as an avid dog lover myself, the trend troubles me. That’s because “dog-friendly” workplaces have myriad implications for employees, employers, and customers. And, of course, they have important implications for dogs.

The rise of the office dog

A complex mix of trends are driving the “dog-friendly” transformation. The most obvious is that there are simply more dogs and dog owners than at any time in the past. A second factor is that people grew used to co-working at home with their dogs during the COVID-19 pandemic and transitioning back to the office has been difficult. More employees are requesting, even demanding, that their dogs be allowed to join them at work; dogs, for their part, are now used to having their humans around and many are having trouble adjusting to being home alone. A third and rather troubling factor is the pervasive influence of the “Pet Effect,” the belief that having pets will make us happier, healthier, and, by extension, even more productive and engaged at work. Yet the  science surrounding the Pet Effect is murky, at best.

Read More: The Case Against Pets

Very little is known about how the presence of dogs at work affects dog owners, other people in the workplace, and overall work culture. A 2019 study of 749 employees found that those who brought their dogs to the office “sometimes or often” reported higher than average work engagement and lower turnover intention. The study authors also found higher scores on general wellbeing, career satisfaction, and overall work quality of life. Yet self-report surveys like this one are notoriously subject to bias, and the selection of survey respondents—dog-owning employees—almost guarantees results that affirm the benefits of dogs at work.

Dogs may genuinely give their owners a happiness boost at work. But they may also introduce problems. A 2021 research paper emphasized that dog owners may, in fact, be less productive and focused when their dog is present. They may be distracted by their dog, may take frequent breaks because their dog needs to pee or get a drink, they may feel stressed because their dog is “disruptive.” And dogs will be (and should be!) dogs: they bark, they jump up to say hi to people, they investigate, they are curious, they move around.

The presence of dogs may also increase levels of distraction and stress for other, non-dog-toting employees. In another small study, researchers found that 20% of employees without dogs thought that having dogs present in the office reduced their productivity.

Then there are the health, safety, and diversity concerns. A fur-covered workplace will be miserable for people with allergies to dog dander (between 10% and 20% of the population). It may be very uncomfortable for people who are not used to being around dogs, dislike them, or are even afraid of them (in a 2001 Gallup poll, 11% of respondents reported being afraid of dogs); and not all communities have a culture of dog ownership. It also introduces some liability concerns, such as the very real and serious risk of dog bites or other dog-related accidents. Some 4.5 million dog bite injuries are reported to the CDC each year; roughly 2% of these occur in the workplace.

What do dogs think about going to the office?

The phrase “dog-friendly workplace” is a bit of a misnomer. Workplaces that allow dogs are first and foremost accommodating dog owners. That’s because workplaces may be stressful for dogs, and pet dogs may be suffering from a lack of meaningful, dog-relevant work of their own.

It’s hard to generalize, because so much depends on the individual dog and workplace. Some offices might provide dogs the benefit of offsetting separation anxiety or boredom—and may even provide healthy social stimulation and socialization. But there are many things that dogs might find stressful about an office: sensory overstimulation from the sounds of phones and computers and voices, bright fluorescent lighting, the harsh smells of cleaning products, or chronic activation by exposure to unfamiliar people (an experience many dogs find aversive), and unwanted human interactions.

The needs of humans in the workplace often cut against the needs of dogs. That’s because a "good" office dog is one who doesn't bark, doesn't shed, doesn't sniff crotches, doesn't scavenge snacks from the lunchroom counter or the garbage can, and doesn't smell like a dog. Basically, a good office dog is one that does not behave like a dog.

One common policy for dog-friendly workplaces is that dogs must remain with the employee-owner at all times and must not be allowed to roam freely. In practice, this might involve the dog being tethered to a desk, blocked in by a barrier, or even kept in a crate. From a workplace harmony perspective, this makes perfect sense. From a dog-centric point of view, this policy sucks.

Paws for thought

All of this should encourage us to think more broadly about what it means to give pet dogs a good life. One of the most significant issues with contemporary pet-keeping practices is our failure to provide them adequate opportunities to do the meaningful work of being dogs. They need more than the demanding and undervalued job of human emotional support blanket which, incidentally, poses profound and under acknowledged welfare risks.

Dogs, like humans, thrive from meaningful work. That means going well beyond contrived jobs like flyball, obedience trials, and canine musical freestyle. Dogs need what political theorist Alasdair Cochrane calls “good work” that affords them the opportunity to engage their skills, exercise agency, and achieve a sense of fulfillment. Good work for dogs might include roaming, establishing and marking territory, gathering information and using it to make decisions, foraging for food, finding mates, playing with friends, and maybe rolling in a little bit of dead stuff. A rich body of research shows all of this is needed for dogs to thrive. Canine work also includes some of the partnerships that have been the backbone of human-dog coevolution, such as guarding, herding, hunting, and acting as sentry.

Dogs need meaningful work of their own. Not “dog-friendly” human workplaces.

Contact us at letters@time.com.