Hybrid working has been widely adopted throughout the world, and many commentators, like us agree there is no going back. This is substantiated with evidence such as the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) survey in the US. To put it another way, according to the Monster 2023 Work Watch Report , 26% of workers would rather get a root canal than work in the office five days a week.

Hybrid working has also been recognised as having the potential to support productivity benefits and there is much anecdotal evidence and surveys studies to support this. For example a study by But the game changing, first randomized controlled trial, at Trip.com, managed by Stanford professor Nicholas Bloom , adds much credibility to the argument.

The problem is we still have companies introducing blanket mandates, and thereby promoting what we call Presenteeism 2.0, driven by a lingering lack of trust of what goes on in a home working environment. Some companies have swung from 4 days at home to 4 days in the office with variations in between. For some the mandate may require unnecessary and unproductive time in the office, creating disengagement and leading to increased churn. In the same Monster survey 26% said if they were mandated to work in-person just one day a week, they would consider quitting their jobs.

The problem is hybrid solutions require care and attention to individual employee profiles to be successful and guarantee those reported productivity benefits. A one size fits all approach just does not cut it.

At a simplistic level we can identify employee profiles whose work activities vary from highly contained, static tasks with little or no collaboration to those who have varied tasks, high levels of creativity and collaboration, who need to be interacting in person with others in the right work environment. Of course there are many variations in between. We have not even started to consider mobility patterns, psychometrics or the alignment between the individual and the actual or perceived culture of the organisation. Factor in other aspects such as, generational differences, caregiving responsibilities, attitudes to ESG, especially the daily commute, and you see the scale and complexity of the problem.

The point we are making is that for hybrid working to be successful and balance the requirements of both leadership and the employee, a deep data dive into the culture of the organisation, the individual work activities undertaken, connectivity patterns, personalities, psychometrics and preferences is needed to design a successful hybrid workplace strategy.

In the past this would take many hours of data design and collection, involve multiple consultants, and significant costs. Now, with the application of proptech and the creation of a unified logic, this can be achieved quickly and easily.

The data can then inform how the correct alignment of the employee can be achieved, and formulate solutions, that amongst other things:

  • identify the optimum number of days in the office, at home and third spaces, to promote both productivity and satisfaction, which are of course interlinked;
  • reduce Co2 through unnecessary commutes;
  • reduce tensions between actual and perceived organisational culture and employee preferences,
  • improve occupational efficiency (and reduce costs) by recognising who needs to be in the office and preferred days of the week and working hours recognising both psychometrics and preferences/commitments to inform scheduling

So far we have only discussed the complexity of what we call at Workplaced the hybrid balance, the optimised number of days in the office, at home or in a third space such as co-working.

We haven't even started on how to configure the office, and the work settings provided to manage those significant variations in employees, what they do, how they collaborate and how they respond and feel in different work environments.

More about that in future blogs.