The state of hybrid working & how we got here.

The concept of hybrid working has moved from a niche alternative to a mainstream work model, reshaping our understanding of productivity and workplace flexibility. But, how did we get here?

Historical roots, technological advancements, cultural shifts, and economic factors have contributed to a rise in hybrid arrangements. However, the challenges, benefits, opportunities, and implications this increase in variation in working patterns presents for employees and employers are still being understood and explored.

Defining different working arrangements.

Different working arrangements accommodate various and diverse company needs, roles, and individual preferences. To better understand the hybrid model, let’s define some of the typical working arrangements:

1. Traditional office-based work involves working from a single location, usually an office, with fixed hours and a structured schedule (common among white-collar professionals).
2. Remote work allows employees to work from any location, enjoying flexibility in their workplace and (often) work hours while avoiding daily commutes.
3. Hybrid work allows employees to divide their time between an office and another location, often their home, balancing business needs with employee preferences.

‍

From then to now.

Pre and Post WWII: ‘hybrid’ working as a necessity.

COVID-19 often gets credited with catalysing hybrid working arrangements, but historically, numerous jobs have operated under what we now recognise as a hybrid model. Salespeople and consultants as early as the 1920 and 30s were pioneers of this work style. Their roles required frequent travel to meet clients and manage relationships, resulting in a blend of office and field work. Think of the classic salesperson, spending much of their time on the road and limited time in their office. Whilst not hybrid working as we tend to think of it - a different form of the 9-5 that reflects many of the working patterns we now see as commonplace.

The 1980s and 90s: the rise of the machines

Whilst nascent we start to see the rise of technology enabling different working patterns. The fax and early email enabled remotely connected teams delivering on collective outcomes in the 80’s, mobiles, laptops and early email in the 90’s further accelerated the move to what we have today with those working remotely enabled to communicate and stay connected to their colleagues and work much faster than previously.

Early 2000s: the hybrid model becomes more commonplace.

Hybrid working becomes more accessible with the rise of the Internet and new mobile technologies. WiFi, push emails, and smartphones enabled full-scale productivity on the go, so professionals could respond to emails, participate in meetings, and perform other office tasks remotely. This significantly shifted the traditional work paradigm, revolutionising when, where, and how tasks were performed.

2010s - 2019: technology advancements cause tension in the workforce.

By the early 2010s, many workplaces still relied on desktops and traditional technology setups, However, technology firms (somewhat naturally started to lead the way - using their products to enable increased flexibility of location and hours - and using this as part of their EVP and increasing numbers of digital natives in the workforce brought a different set of expectations on the tech available to them - and on how they maintained their work relationships..

This set the stage for a growing tension between hybrid possibilities and traditional work environments.

2020: the pandemic sets a new standard for modern hybrid models.

In 2020, businesses were suddenly forced to make remote working viable, adopting video conferencing tools and collaborative platforms as standard - not a nice to do.

Even once the immediate, heightened threat of COVID-19 subsided, many businesses were reluctant to revert back to their traditional model — even those opposed to hybrid working before the pandemic struck.

‍

A closer look at COVID’s influence on hybrid working.

During the pandemic, many businesses managed to survive, but few could claim to truly thrive in terms of the way that they managed their organisation and cultures.. The sudden shift to remote work presented several challenges, particularly in maintaining employee engagement, social connection, and productivity. These issues deeply impacted organisational cohesion and effectiveness, causing attrition rates to rise - especially for new hires through the period.

The pandemic underscored that while remote work is technically possible, it requires more than just functional tools to be successful. It demands deliberate care and attention from leaders, managers and individual contributors and strong communication channels to preserve the culture and social fabric of the workplace.

‍

The “Great Reshuffle”.

Post-COVID, we are still witnessing a sustained period of elevated staff turnover and organisational reshuffling, driven by two primary factors.

• Employees reassessing what they want from their careers; the type of work they enjoy and the degree of flexibility they desire (hybrid or remote options).
• Employers reevaluating their organisational culture and their practices on workplace flexibility and how hybrid they are going to become.

This has led to a fundamental shift in the employment landscape where employees seek out organisations that align with their work and flexibility preferences. Likewise, employers (at a slower pace) are continuing to explore what hybrid arrangements they want to offer and the implications for their people, their ways of working and their culture.

So why has it taken so long?

‍

Hybrid working today.

Ongoing experimentation & undefined expectations.

Over four years after the onset of COVID-19, we're navigating a period of ongoing, unstructured experimentation regarding hybrid working — and there are still gaps. For example, recent research highlights that the majority of organisations that offer a hybrid model haven't actually defined their expectations for employees in those arrangements.

This lack of clarity must be considered in the context of the Great Reshuffle, which has understandably led to employer apprehension about high turnover rates. To combat this, employers are likely to have preferred keeping their arrangements open-ended, rather than making definitive policy statements. This cautious approach helps them avoid potential disruptions while they continue to assess the long-term implications of new working models.

‍

Calling the shots: the tide is turning.

During COVID, employees wielded significant power due to a shortage of skills and resources. However, macroeconomic conditions have evolved — we’re seeing a shift towards an employer's market where companies are able to define their approach with more confidence than any resulting staff attrition can be managed. This dynamic is influenced by three macroeconomic factors:

1. The labour pool is expanding - mainly due to increased migration
2. Low but rising unemployment likely creates increased caution in potential job changers
3. Increased interest rates and cost of living pressures make financial stability more pressing for employees, who may be less willing to change jobs amid economic volatility.

In this context, some organisations may feel confident setting and enforcing less more ‘restrictive’ policies, unlike others who feel more able to maintain increased flexibility and hold off any significant announcements until market conditions are more normalised.

‍

Hybrid arrangements as a marketing ploy.

Employers are increasingly using hybrid work arrangements to attract new staff. While there’s nothing wrong with this, jobseekers should be aware that (as with most things EVP) not all that glitters is gold.. There’s a need to differentiate between genuine commitments to hybrid and flexible working conditions, and those that are tactics to promote the organisation as a place to be.

Hybrid initiatives should be viewed critically by prospective employees, and not taken as blanket endorsements of hybrid work as the optimal model for everyone.

It's also fair for employers to be cautious here. It's not so long ago that the likes of Goldman Sachs were castigated for their less flexible approach (often by those who are going fully hybrid and remote!).

‍

A lack of research causes ongoing debates.

The pandemic demonstrated that remote work is possible, challenging previous norms about workplace presence. However, due to a lack of clear direction from employers, arguments about hybrid and remote working are often overly simplistic and polarised. Both sides rely more on attitudes and anecdotal evidence rather than data and analysis. The prevailing debate that most commentators would have us believe us that:

• ‘Management’ (replace this with older, more senior, less tech savvy - more like me!) insists on a return to the office to supervise work.
• Employees (particularly younger ones in the earlier stages of their career) prefer the flexibility of digital platforms and want to avoid unnecessary commutes that waste time and contribute to environmental degradation.

Despite these arguments, there is a lack of research on the effects of hybrid models. Only a handful of academic studies have explored its implications on productivity, innovation, creativity, empathy, and collaboration. What has been conducted typically looks at smaller sample sizes in specific industries and job types, which hardly provides a foundation for widespread policy decisions.

‍

Modern hybrid working isn’t as accessible as you might think.

Hybrid models are often presented as a widespread opportunity, realistically, they’re only viable (by my estimate) to about 25% of the workforce. This is because any role that necessitates direct interaction with materials, environments, or customers that cannot be replicated remotely. For example, industries such as mining, construction, agriculture, retail, and hospitality involve practical and relational tasks that must be performed onsite. Similarly, shift systems with defined hours, overtime, and locations make hybrid work impossible.

‍

There’s no “one-size-fits all” hybrid solution.

The hybrid compromise commonly takes the form of three days in the office and two days at home, though this can vary. When designing and implementing the right hybrid model (watch out for a soon to drop blog on how to do this well), employers must strategically consider how to cater to business objectives and employee expectations. The exact arrangement should optimise productivity and maintain an appropriate organisational culture, and depend on the business’s priorities, industry, workforce preferences, and so on.

‍

We’ll help you find the right hybrid balance.

The traditional model of a rigid five-day office week is out, but reshaping your organisation’s work arrangements can be a huge undertaking. Contact us to pinpoint an ideal hybrid model for your company, and then explore people and culture strategies you can engage to make it sustainable.