Making Hybrid Work

The pandemic resulted in a drastic change to how organizations function. According to Gallup, in 2019, 60% of remote-capable employees worked fully on-site. In 2023, that number dropped to 20%. Meanwhile, as the number of fully remote employees has increased (8% to 29%) in the same period, the number of employees working some form of hybrid is the model that has moved into the majority. In fact, 5 in 10 remote-capable workers are now hybrid.

With 2020 in our rearview mirror, the vast majority of employers (with some exceptions) have adjusted to the flexibility needed during the height of the pandemic era and have now committed to the hybrid model for the foreseeable future. And though most employers have leaned into the new normal of a hybrid workforce, most also recognize that the decision is not without challenges.

The rub of hybrid work is that most workplaces are not set up for it. Office space, workflow, social interaction, training, business development and human resources were created in an environment where the vast majority of workers physically came into the office 5 days per week. With hybrid, all of the systems and processes that used to work like well-oiled machines are failing, or at the very least showing their wear. Some of the biggest pain points are disruption to processes, resource allocation and empty real estate — but most would agree that the “top” challenges associated with hybrid work are about people.

Walk into any meeting of leaders discussing the future of their organization and you’ll find someone showing concern over how their people are connecting, collaborating and linking into the organization’s culture. Beyond the person-to-person concerns, many industries also see that the hybrid environment can affect professional development, especially for those new to the industry or new to work altogether — and that is just chipping at the surface of ways that a permanently hybrid work culture is causing concern.

So, what are we supposed to do to make hybrid work? The solution involves adapting our thinking and working differently. While each organization is as different as the solutions that may be effective, a few broader concepts prove to be more universal.

Clarity

Employee performance benefits from clarity of expectations. When employees understand what is expected of them, they are two times more likely to engage in conversations focused on growth and over three times more likely to understand metrics of performance associated with their role. However, when employees do not know what is expected of them, performance suffers, morale takes a hit and engagement tanks — and hybrid work can muddy those waters even further.

By definition, hybrid work suggests that some amount of work is done in the office, while the remainder of it is done from outside of the office. Though that definition is understood, “hybrid” can actually refer to one of several models of implementation — from strictly identified in-office days to complete autonomy to come and go as one pleases, and everything in between. Since there is no universal definition, organizations must decipher which model works best for them and ensure it is communicated clearly to their employees.

Specificity

Once expectations have been established and communicated, leaders should think about the “why” associated with in-person days. The “butts in seats for the sake of butts in seats" narrative might seem tempting, but that rationale isn’t likely to have a positive outcome on employees. Purposeful in-person time helps employees see the value that comes from their days in-office and better understand how they might use that time.

Though studies show hybrid work and fully in-office work can be equally productive, arguably there are things that can be done in the office more effectively than they can be done outside of the office. For that reason, more collaborative projects, non-critical team meetings, engagement opportunities and one-on-ones are great things to specify for in office days. On the other hand, virtual meetings, projects that require more thought/less collaboration, and back-to-back meeting blocks are much better saved for days at home. The same goes for independent contributors or those with remote teams — in-office days can be great for connecting with mentors or leaders or reconnecting with stakeholders. Organizations can assist in this exercise by holding in-person trainings, social events and group meetings on days when there is a higher percentage of workers in the office.

Purpose

Hybrid work can be great for a lot of things, but hybrid can lead to the real and/or perceived loss of opportunities for collaboration. However, purpose can actually help to counteract some of that loss, especially where leaders are able to establish purpose that is somehow shared among teams or groups. In fact, shared purpose helps to strengthen collaboration, and employees that feel a sense of purpose at work report 2 to 4 times higher work and life outcomes: things like pride, engagement, satisfaction, and energy.

Though purpose may seem a bit far removed from an organization’s responsibility, leadership may be interested to know that employees feel differently. According to one survey, 70% of people claimed their sense of purpose was in some way defined by work. However, only 15% of non-executive level employees felt they were living their purpose at work. Filling that gap can have positive outcomes on productivity, performance capacity and even retention.

Fairness

Where employees know what is expected of them and are in-office when required/requested, ideally no one would be negatively affected by the days they are not working in the office. However, with more employees now being at least partially remote, there is increased concern that not being in the office can hurt an employee’s chances of workplace success. A recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management (“SHRM”) found that 42% of supervisors said that they sometimes forgot employees working remotely when assigning work. How does that happen? Well, it is in part due to proximity bias.

Proximity bias at work is the tendency for a leader or supervisor to favor someone they perceive as physically closer or seen more regularly. Like many biases, proximity bias usually happens unconsciously and without intent. In spite of the unconscious nature, it can be mitigated by looking at current systems and ensuring they are taking hybrid employees into account. Since most organizational systems and policies were not created or built with hybrid and remote workers in mind, this may mean auditing most, if not all, employee facing policies and looking for areas where there could be disparate treatment when employees are on-site vs. off-site.

As the SHRM data showed, proximity bias in the workplace can be a factor in work allocation, but it can also effect performance evaluations. One good rule of thumb is to ensure employee performance is evaluated using hard data whenever possible, as opposed to leaning solely (or too heavily) on subjective criteria such as personality, fit or other measures that are harder to quantify. Where subjectivity is required, ask supervisors and evaluators to use specific examples to support why the employee was evaluated a certain way. Doing so creates a clearer picture for next steps and lessens the chance that bias can creep in.

Flexibility

Things happen, and what makes the most sense now may need to adapt to changes in business needs, headcount or the ebb and flow of the economy. Monitor policy compliance, productivity, employee sentiment and other indicators of a successful working model to keep tabs on what is working and what is not. Establish intervals or checkpoints where leadership can revisit hybrid policies based on that data and make adjustments as needed.

Openness to flexibility is just as important as understanding what changes need to be be made. As sociologist Tracey Brower, PhD suggests in her article for Forbes, piloting can be an effective way that organization’s can iterate new processes or approaches to collaboration. Trying things out on smaller groups and gathering feedback can inform future decisions and allow for fine tuning before casting a wider net.

************

The new hybrid model requires us to change how we think about work. Many of the “old ways” simply won’t work anymore — but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. While challenges exist, hybrid work provides an opportunity for organizations (and individuals) to take a fresh look at where we work, how we work and why we work, and create innovative environments that can best respond to a changing ecosystem.