Hybrid work does not reduce engagement by itself; the problem is often rules designed for the traditional office

Hybrid work removed part of the structure that a physical workplace used to create automatically. Employees came to the office, the workday had a clearer beginning and end, and managers could observe some cooperation directly. When work is split between home and office, those rules do not arise by themselves. People may handle a work call, a contractor at home, care for a child or an older relative and then return to meetings within the same day. Flexibility is valuable for many employees, but it can also increase the feeling of never being fully present in either role. It is a mistake to respond to this uncertainty only by increasing the number of office days. Around 52 percent of employees whose jobs can be done remotely continue to work in a hybrid model. For many organizations this is not a temporary arrangement that will simply pass. Managers need rules designed for the new way of working. The foundation is a more precise description of expected outcomes. If managers judge performance mainly through visible activity, the number of messages or immediate availability, employees are encouraged to prove presence rather than complete important work. It is more useful to define the output, deadline, required quality and situations that require immediate collaboration. The second task is communication design. Teams need to know which information belongs in a shared system, what can be handled asynchronously and when a meeting is necessary. Without such an agreement, two extremes can emerge: people overload one another with meetings to replace missing personal contact, or they communicate only in writing and complex problems take unnecessarily long to resolve. Managers also need to understand continuously whether a person’s load comes from work itself or from the combination of work with other responsibilities. Respect for personal circumstances is not the opposite of performance accountability. A leader can allow a short-term adjustment while still requiring an agreed result. The key is for rules to be understandable and for employees not to see flexibility as something that depends on negotiating with a more or less accommodating manager. Hybrid work also increases the importance of regular feedback. In an office, small misunderstandings may be exposed through informal conversations. At a distance they can persist longer. Managers therefore need shorter and more regular checkpoints focused on obstacles and priorities rather than proof of activity. When evaluating hybrid arrangements, organizations should track performance, cooperation quality, turnover and people’s ability to disconnect from work. The number of office days alone does not explain whether the system is working. Key terms Hybrid model: An arrangement in which an employee regularly alternates between working on site and elsewhere. Outcome-based management: Judging work by agreed output, quality and deadline rather than visible presence alone. Asynchronous communication: Sharing information without requiring all participants to respond at the same moment.

Hybrid work does not reduce engagement by itself; the problem is often rules designed for the traditional office

The full article is available to users registered at Hard Skills