Next Thursday, the Labour Government in the United Kingdom is set to publish its Employment Rights Bill, which includes a number of major provisions that will shape the future of work in particular the fact that employers will now need to allow requests for flexible working unless it is “not reasonably practicable” to accommodate. While no legal restrictions will be put in place, businesses will also be encouraged to establish clear boundaries for employee contact outside of working hours, to enable a “right to disconnect” from work.
It’s not the first time I’ve made these suggestions. In fact, I proposed a legal right to work from home in 2021 (see my Forbes piece)—though it seems the Conservative government weren’t too interested back then!
Naturally, we can expect backlash from certain parts of the private sector, especially given the current wave of firms pushing for a return to the office. However, the claims that these companies make against hybrid and flexible working have been consistently debunked by extensive social science research—including studies I’ve contributed to.
Debunking the Myths: The Case for Hybrid Working
One of the main concerns from employers is that hybrid or remote working will reduce productivity. Yet a large-scale field experiment at a major Chinese tech firm, recently published in Nature, shows otherwise. In this study, employees worked from home two days a week, and there was no negative impact on individual or organizational performance. In fact, job satisfaction improved, and managers, who initially feared a drop in productivity, revised their expectations upwards from a predicted -2.6% to a perceived +1% gain in productivity. Another working paper even shows benefits in productivity in the public sector driven by “reduced distractions.”
Additionally, the Nature paper highlighted that hybrid working reduces quit rates and enables firms to attract talent at a lower cost. Several surveys show that flexibility is now a top priority for new entrants to the job market—so if firms wish to remain competitive, hybrid working needs to be embraced, not resisted.
Answering the Critics of Hybrid Working
On the negative side, it’s true that remote work can lead to shrinking networks for employees, potentially stifling innovation across teams as shown by a study of Microsoft during COVID. However, this can be mitigated with thoughtful planning of which days to be in the office, and what to set up during those days. Another piece of research has shown that if people work from different buildings, even physical co-presence loses its benefits. Firms should design office days to ensure cross-team interaction, fostering the type of spontaneous exchange that drives innovation.
Finally, critics often argue that remote work weakens organizational culture. Yet, culture is not only the physical manifestation of interactions within the office—it is a set of unspoken, tacit behaviors like trust, collaboration, and autonomy. Hybrid working, when done right, can foster these same elements of culture. By bringing people into the office on certain days to reinforce these behaviors, while embracing flexibility on others, firms can build a stronger, more motivated workforce.
Interestingly, flexibility itself can become a core part of that culture. Research consistently shows that autonomy is one of the strongest drivers of employee motivation.
Finally, another key component of the Employment Rights Bill is the “Right to Switch Off.” This provision isn’t legally binding, and businesses are simply encouraged to set clear boundaries around after-hours communication between workers. As my research with Vitality in 2022 and others have shown, hybrid working can make it more difficult for employees to disconnect, leading to increased stress outside of working hours. Creating clear “off” times is critical to maintaining employee well-being in this new era of work.
Return-to-office mandates, such as the Amazon back to work policy that made the news a couple of weeks ago, have been heavily researched too. What we know is that they are more likely to occur in poor-performing firms. These companies have found hybrid work to be a great culprit. But research shows these mandates result in decreased job satisfaction—further exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.
The Employment Rights Bill is clearly an audacious and welcome step in the right direction, giving employees more flexibility and protecting their time outside of work. But the Labour government will face significant backlashes from businesses that want to retain autonomy and scope in the way they manage and structure work relationships. Employers may resist these changes, and the government would be well advised to offer research evidence on the implications of hybrid work if they want to convince and not only constrain.