Home News Was Hybrid The Wrong Approach To Delivering Workplace Flexibility?

Was Hybrid The Wrong Approach To Delivering Workplace Flexibility?

by admin

Despite the growth of hybrid workplace policies over the last five years, many managers and employees feel disappointed with the results. While most employees appreciate the opportunity to work from home, making the commute to half-empty offices and dealing with disjointed team dynamics are, among other challenges, common frustrations. While it is certainly possible for organizations to make hybrid policies work, organizational leaders should also take a fresh look at other approaches to more broadly support workplace flexibility.

The desire for greater workplace flexibility began long before the pandemic. Gallup’s State of the American Workplace 2020 report, released in February of that year, emphasized, “The benefits and perks that employees truly care about are those that offer them greater flexibility, autonomy and the ability to lead a better life.” In the pre-pandemic context, flexibility included occasional remote work but also encompassed a broad array of other approaches to meet employee needs. Likewise, in a 2018 article for Harvard Business Review, authors Annie Dean and Anna Auerbach highlighted a vareity of strategies to meet employees’ desire for more flexibility. In addition to remote working options, they emphasized the benefits of flexible working hours, reduced travel, and the option to work part-time during certain life stages.

The desire for schedule flexibility, in particular, still remains a higher priority for most employees than location flexibility; 93% of desk-based workers surveyed by Future Forum desired schedule flexibility, compared to 81% who desired more location flexibility. For workers who feel trapped on video calls all day, having more control over their calendars not only alleviates burnout but also gives them greater control over their work outcomes.

Despite the various ways flexibility can be delivered, hybrid and remote working policies that allow people to work from home have become the most popular approach, with 67% of companies adopting these policies, according to the recently published Flex Index Q3 Report. Even then, in recent months many organizations are backtracking on previous commitments, either by requiring more in-office time or implementing “structured hybrid programs” that mandate a certain number of days spent working on-site. Organizations like Amazon, which have reversed course on previous commitments, may find that their approach leads to increased frustration among employees.

Given these challenges, what is the path forward for organizations that have adopted hybrid policies but are concerned about the results? For many, it will require a deeper commitment to making it work. This should include adopting new work practices to keep team members connected, utilizing asynchronous technology tools to facilitate collaboration across distance, and redesigning office spaces to enhance social connection and relationship-building. All of these practices are essential.

Just as importantly, organizations should explore additional ways to deliver greater flexibility. The larger issue is that hybrid policies offer a one-dimensional solution for a multifaceted set of needs. During the debate over remote work during the pandemic, other options were often overlooked, and when the conversation about flexibility became dominated by “days per week,” other critical needs were left behind.

As examples, a broader, multi-faceted approach to delivering workplace flexibility can include:

  • Hiring empathetic managers and training them to promote work-life balance within their teams. Investing in leaders who genuinely care for employees’ needs not only fosters flexibility on a day-to-day basis, but also drives innovation and well-being.
  • Providing employees more control over their calendars, enabling them to proactively block time for important activities, especially during their time in the office. This approach promotes both retention and productivity.
  • Implementing policies that prevent after-hours work, similar to what Australia has recently adopted, can ensure that employees have the ability to disconnect.
  • Offering shift-swapping tools and other resources for hourly or onsite employees to address last-minute emergencies without having to panic about lost wages or being reprimanded.
  • Creating special shifts or structured hybrid programs that align with the schedules of working parents. For example, asking a working parent to be in the office five days a week from 9 AM to 2 PM and then work from home in the late afternoon may be more appealing than simply offering two days of remote work.
  • Adopting elder care policies to help employees address the needs of elderly parents, especially as the U.S. elderly population is expected to grow by nearly 50% in the next twenty years.

As we reflect on the past five years, was hybrid the wrong approach to delivering workplace flexibility? Not necessarily. Hybrid policies can be effective if organizations are willing to invest the time and effort to make them work. The greater concern is that organizations may be relying on these policies to deliver more benefits than is realistic. To move forward, organizations should revisit the broader landscape of options and adopt well-rounded approaches that can improve outcomes for both the organization and its employees.

You may also like

Leave a Comment