The Tale of Two Work Styles: Why Hybrid Work Is Best Option For Post-Pandemic Work

Did you know that the word telecommuting predates the Internet, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams? It was originally coined by physicist Jack Nilles in the 1970s. Working as a research scientist at USC, Nilles was concerned about the notorious LA traffic and volatile gas prices. Determined to find a solution, he went to his boss and pitched a radical new idea: have employees work from home. Nilles saw it as a cost-saving measure — spend less on downtown offices and increase productivity for workers. He even conducted a study and found that remote work could save a local insurance company $5 million. But his employer shot it down pretty fast (Berthiaume). As a result, remote work remained a fringe practice thereafter.

However, in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic shuttered office spaces and restricted gatherings, forcibly initiating a brave new experiment into remote work. With millions of workers switching to work from home overnight, it was the first time that companies embraced telecommuting on a massive scale. Now, with increasing vaccination rates and declining cases, governments are easing pandemic restrictions. This leaves many organizations with one fundamental question: how work will be conducted moving forward? While some are riding the coattails of remote work’s success, many are keen to move their teams back to the traditional office space. But rather than rushing to return to business as usual, we should pay attention to the lessons learned from remote work and incorporate them into our traditional work schedule. As opposed to doing a purely online or purely in-person approach, employers should implement a hybrid model that combines the socialization aspect of office culture while retaining the flexibility of online work, providing the greatest benefit for all workers.

Before discussing the merits of hybrid work, it is imperative to acknowledge that not all industries can do it. For example, a fast-food worker cannot make meals over Microsoft Teams. A dentist can’t remove wisdom teeth over Zoom. The percentage of hours done remotely without productivity loss varies dramatically from industry to industry. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, it can range from 76% in Finance and Insurance to as little as 7% in agriculture (Molla). For a large bulk of companies, hybrid work may not make any sense. Therefore, this essay will only focus on companies that conducted work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and did not suffer major losses in productivity because of it. These organizations (typically in the tech or professional services sector) have the luxury to choose if they want to conduct work in-person, remotely, or somewhere in between.

When given the option to go remote or stay in-person, a majority of managers will choose the latter. They cite that having everyone in the office leads to greater productivity. If an employee is at home, without a manager monitoring him or her, then the employee could easily slack off on work. Society values people who come to the office and stigmatizes those who elect to stay at home. But when we examine this assumption more closely, we discover that it is simply flat-out wrong. Economists have come to the consensus that remote work increases productivity. In “Why Working From Home Will Stick”, economists Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis found that when comparing the difference in business operations efficiency before the pandemic versus during it (via remote work), there was a mean boost of 4.5% in productivity. Similarly, in the paper “Does Working From Home Work? Evidence From a Chinese Experiment”, the authors found that working from home can increase productivity by 14% (Bloom et. al). And on a national scale, according to Bloomberg analyst Libby Cherry, having workers work at least one day at home would increase U.S. productivity by 4.8% (Kennedy). The stigma that remote workers are lazy is unsubstantiated.

The reasons why managers promote this myth has less to do with productivity and more to do with the nature of management. According to journalist Anne Helen Peterson, management traditionally “involved surveillance of some sort” and is seen as a “physical act.” Thus, managers want people back in the office, so that “the work that they’re doing will be more tangible and easier to ascertain to value” (Martin et al.). Nevertheless, because people can get more work done from home, these insecurities shouldn’t hold a company back from giving a remote option. In the long run, companies can gain greater value from their employees and increase profits. Therefore, to stay competitive in the market, it is in the business’s best interest to offer some form of remote work.

Offering a work-from-home option is extremely popular among employees — even as offices reopen. Based on a survey done by the Boston Consulting Group, around 24% of employees want to work remotely full-time while 65% of employees want to work remotely part-time (Stack et. al). And many people have threatened to quit their jobs if an in-person work schedule is established. Undoubtedly, top talent will leave companies that refuse a remote work option. Thus, having a hybrid model puts companies at an advantage in attracting the best employees. This increased popularity could be attributed to the increased flexibility the option provides, allowing employees to maintain a better work-life balance. One consideration is that the hybrid model reduces the times an employee has to commute to work. Commuting is a common source of stress in a person’s life and numerous studies have shown it worsens a person’s health. With commute times ranging from forty-five minutes to up to two hours one way, the journey to work sucks a lot of time out of one’s day. Therefore, reducing it will improve employee well-being. And without the daily commute (coupled with increased efficiency) employees have the opportunity to do more things with the time they are saving.

This saved time allows employees to develop greater autonomy over making their schedules. It is easy for employees to be trapped inside the office or forced into overtime. Instead, through remote work, they can pursue other creative ventures to further develop themselves as a person. For instance, if a person is training for a marathon, then that person could arrange his or her schedule to incorporate mid-afternoon runs (rather than the normal 9–5 schedule). And employees have greater freedom about where and how they can work. For Buzzfeed Contributor Evie Carrick, the flexibility of remote work allowed her to work in Paris and Jordan for a month. By combining her work with her love for travel, Evie was able to live out her dreams, something that wouldn’t be possible with completely in-person work. Similarly, for employees with children (or pets), it allows them to spend more time with their family and be more involved in their kids’ lives. Many women are also more likely to stay in the workforce if they have a remote option because it allows them to balance family and work responsibilities more easily (Molla). Overall, these benefits lead to happier employees which in turn lead to more productive work.

In addition to benefiting employees, employers who offer hybrid work will have a better time attracting top-notch talent compared to their in-person counterparts. Traditionally, a workplace can only hire people who live a commuting distance to work. A company with offices in Manhattan could not easily access talent in Philadelphia or Boston due to distance. However, with hybrid work, people may be willing to take a longer commute if it means going to the office twice a week (or in some cases even less frequently). With a larger search radius, recruiters can reach more candidates, allowing a company to potentially craft a more diverse and talented workforce.

Despite the various advantages, one major concern lingers: hybrid work will hinder ease of collaboration. Proponents of in-person work claim office spaces spur accidental meetups and stimulate greater creativity. While that may be true in the arts or media, this ideal plays out poorly in most organizations. Consider the notion of proximity. An employee will more likely talk to someone sitting at the desk across from him or her than on the other side of the building or someone four stories up. Thus, an employee will engage with the same set of people daily, making the accidental meetups unlikely. According to the Harvard Business Review article “The Truth About Open Offices”, Ethan Bernstein and Ben Waber found that when experimenting with a major software company, “90% of face-to-face interactions took place at people’s desks [while] 3% occurred in common areas.” Similarly, the duo found that “When the firms switched to open offices, face-to-face interactions fell by 70%.” Watercooler talk and accidental meet-ups will not happen naturally in the office. People will simply gravitate towards those closest to them. Therefore, it is fruitless to expect an in-person setting to generate greater creativity. On the opposite spectrum, remote tools remove the distance that prevents interactions. It becomes easier to Slack with that officemate working in a different department, meet new people during a Zoom happy hour, or set up a one-on-one meeting with an employee in a different city. Even though the meetings may not be accidental, online video conferencing reduces the friction in interacting with “far away” employees, creating more permutations for collaboration and creativity.

With the many benefits of online work, you may be wondering: Why go hybrid? Why not stay 100% remote? Although in-person workplaces may not stir up greater collaboration, they help facilitate greater socialization within the office space and establish the company culture. Consider the environment of Zoom (or a similar communication channel). Only one person can speak at a time. Only a person’s headshot is visible. The meeting time and format are predetermined. And the set of people that one can talk to is minimal. Essentially, the way people can interact is highly restricted. Thus, while technology does a superb job in connecting humanity over long distances, the extent to which it can create bonds is limited. As financial analyst and hybrid worker Haley Archer put it, “Nothing can replace in-person interactions.” On the flip side, an in-person meeting can facilitate more layers of interaction. It is easier for casual, friendly conversations. People can use body language and have side conversations. People can split into sub-groups. With much more flexibility in our interactions, it is easier to build social bonds. By nature, humans have evolved to thrive in groups. What makes the hybrid approach better than a purely online format is that by meeting team members in person, employees can develop a social bond with them. In turn, virtual meetings become more productive than ones where everyone has only met online. We see this in our personal lives. We have smoother conversations over Zoom with a friend we met in real life than with a person we have only seen virtually. Thus, the in-person aspect is a crucial part of the success of hybrid work.

Similarly, the in-person experience is especially necessary for both the youngest workers and the oldest workers in the workforce. Young workers need more mentoring and orientation about their job. They are more likely to need immediate access to higher-ups for questions or help. Zoom or Slack can make this difficult: It is harder to get a hold of people. It is harder to conduct demonstrations. It is harder to debug issues. On top of all that, they work out of smaller spaces or have roommates. They need the office space environment to be more productive. Lastly, the in-person days and events can help them get accustomed to the workplace culture and develop a stronger tie to the company. On the other end of the spectrum, many older adults are more entrenched in the traditional methods of work and stubbornly resist change. It is often more difficult for them to learn new technologies or do their work in a different fashion. While in theory they may thrive working remotely due to years of expertise and mastery of their job, the irony is that the experience may cause them to only work well in person. In the face of purely remote work and the challenges that come with it, their productivity may cripple. Thus, they are more likely to be productive in person rather than remotely.

While hybrid work will boost productivity, it will undoubtedly change social dynamics within the workplace. Many fear that hybrid work will place employees in a caste system where managers value the contributions of employees who elect to go in-person over those who remain remote. It’s easy to think that only the most malicious managers would let this happen. Nonetheless, the caste system can form unintentionally despite the best of intentions. When considering a promotion, a manager may choose between one online and one in-person employee of equal merit. But the manager may choose the in-person employee for the promotion because the manager may know the in-person employee on a deeper level and sees the employee as a more reliable personality fit.

Beyond promotions, remote employees may simply lack the same opportunities as in-person ones. On a more basic level, remote employees are missing out on office perks like free coffee or certain amenities. But on a more concerning level, remote employees may lack the same opportunities to share insights in meetings compared to those attending physically. This is already happening at LinkedIn. During a pitch where a firm was trying to sell tools which can improve hybrid work, the presenters had their backs turned towards the camera. Thus, ironically, the people attending remotely couldn’t view the presentations. In turn, they could not be fully present in the meeting (Goldberg).

The issue of remote workers being sidelined and undervalued is a common problem across hybrid workplaces. The main solution is to promote cohesion in the workplace. The most ideal situation for meetings would be to have teams that are online on the same days and in-person on the same days. In “Hybrid is the Future of Work”, Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom found that small meetings generally work better online while larger meetings work better in-person. By having everyone on the same playing field, employers can ensure equity for all employees and maximize collaboration potential.

Nevertheless, in many cases, it is not practical to have everybody on the same medium. Take, for instance, the “One Zoom. All Zoom” rule where if one person is on Zoom, everybody else has to attend on Zoom. This is a problem for in-person workers as they are pouring extra energy to commute and get ready for their jobs only to do work that they could have done at home. The value of coming in person is lost with the communications styles reverting to a remote structure. Hyflex meetings (where people can choose when they want to go in-person or online) will only work with effective managerial style.

Managers must continuously accommodate contributions from both types of employees. They must ensure that everyone’s voice is heard and can check in consistently with remote employees. Similarly, managers must communicate very clear, well-planned expectations for how to accomplish hybrid work. One method companies utilize is labeling their hybrid work policies. Asana has chosen to be “office-centric hybrid” where in-person work dominates over remote work. On the flip side, CommonBonds (a housing nonprofit) calls itself “remote first” with many higher-ups working remotely. Through labels and policy statements, companies can unify workers under a common expectation, reducing confusion and increasing productivity. Overall, proper guidance from company leadership will help avoid the formation of a caste system and prevent online employees from slipping through the cracks.

In addition, advances in digital communication technology will play a crucial role in fostering connections and bridging the gap between in-person and hybrid employees. Today, there are hundreds of different software that remote companies leverage for communication and productivity in a remote setting. Communication tools such as Zoom and Slack are excellent ways for employees to communicate their issues while many SAAS tools like Google Documents or HubSpot allow for real-time collaboration. With a greater prevalence of hybrid work compared to before the pandemic, market forces will spur more innovation in digital communication in the coming years. While technology cannot fully replace in-person collaboration, technology adeptly mirrors it, and many companies have successfully progressed projects with these tools. With the right tools, the idea of remote employees being out of the loop is unlikely.

Immediately, some may point out that these digital tools end up harming the employee’s well-being. They can extend an employee’s work schedule, keeping him or her on-call beyond the traditional work hours. Managers can use certain surveillance software to monitor their employees. People champion that these problems remain rampant in online work and absent in in-person work. But regardless of work styles, employees everywhere are being asked to adopt an increasingly larger digital footprint. The trend of responding to emails or Slack messages outside of work hours has started years before the pandemic even started. Thus, blaming the issue on remote work is futile. Instead, organizations need to focus on developing better managerial styles that help all employees lead a better work-life balance.

As firms wrestle with questions about how to best integrate remote work in their positions, we must remember that work from home is not a luxury all industries can afford. While a handful of prestigious jobs — like doctors or professional athletes — demand that a majority of work be conducted in-person, a bulk of the risks and burdens of in-person work fall on essential frontline workers such as grocery and retail clerks, factory workers, and restaurant staff, who are disproportionately low-income employees and people of color. Nevertheless, we can still take lessons from hybrid work and use them to improve the quality of work and employee benefits. More broadly, these industries should have conversations about how to give employees more autonomy and flexibility over how they work on top of improving workplace safety during the ongoing pandemic. With the emergence of the Omnicron variant, and continued uncertainty, how these industries approach in-person work can serve as a valuable model for keeping hybrid workers safe and healthy in the office.

To the vast number of companies who survived work-from-home and are looking to rush back to the office and put the remote work era in the history books, to those companies shedding office space and embracing a fully remote future, my advice is to take a moment to pause and reflect. Remote work empowers employees in choosing how to want to spend their time. And in-person work builds the necessary community needed to drive teamwork. So why not combine the best of both worlds? Because finding a way to bring more happiness and joy to an employee’s work will ultimately make the entire company better off.

Work Cited

Archer, Haley. Personal interview. 7 Sept. 2021.

Barrero, Jose Maria, et al. Why Working from Home Will Stick. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021, doi:10.3386/w28731.

Bernstein, Ethan, and Ben Waber. “The Truth About Open Offices.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 97, no. 6, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2019, p. 83–.

Berthiaume, Ed. “Jack Nilles Tried to Ignite a Work-from-Home Trend 48 Years Ago. It’s finally here.” Lawrence University, Lawrence University, 17 Aug. 2020, blogs.lawrence.edu/news/2020/08/jack-nilles-tried-to-ignite-a-work-from-home-trend-48-years-ago-its-finally-here.html. Accessed 5 Sept. 2021.

Bloom, Nicholas, et al. “Does Working From Home Work? Evidence From A Chinese Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 130, no. 1, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 165–218, doi:10.1093/qje/qju032.

Bloom, Nicolas. “Hybrid is the Future of Work.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, 6 June 2021, siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/hybrid-future-work. Accessed 4 Dec. 2021.

Carrick, Evie. “If I’d Only Known These 15 Remote Work Tips Before I Started Working Remotely, I Would’ve Saved A Ton Of Time And Energy.” BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed, 10 Sept. 2021, www.buzzfeed.com/eviecarrick/remote-work-tips-i-wish-i-knew-sooner. Accessed 7 Sept. 2021.

Goldberg, Emma. “The Worst of Both Worlds: Zooming From the Office.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/business/return-to-office-hybrid-work.html. Accessed 25 Nov. 2021.

Kennedy, Simon. “The Hybrid Work Revolution.” Bloomberg, 26 Aug. 2021, www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-08-26/what-s-happening-in-the-world-economy-hybrid-work-revolution-is-just-starting. Accessed 1 Dec. 2021.

Martin, Rachel, et al. “As companies look to bring remote workers back to the office, a writer asks: Why?” National Public Radio, National Public Radio, 9 Nov. 2021, www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/11/09/1053793602/future-of-work-author-says-its-time-to-ask-if-offices-are-worth-it. Accessed 29 Nov. 2021.

Molla, Rani. “For women, remote work is a blessing and a curse.” Vox, 13 July 2021, www.vox.com/recode/22568635/women-remote-work-home. Accessed 9 Sept. 2021.

Molla, Rani. “Just because you can work from home doesn’t mean you’ll be allowed to.” Vox, Vox Media, 21 Apr. 2021, www.vox.com/recode/22387529/working-from-home-return-to-office-remote-work. Accessed 6 Sept. 2021.

Stack, Rainer, et al. “Decoding Global Ways of Working.” Boston Consulting Group, Boston Consulting Group, 31 Mar. 2021, www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2021/advantages-of-remote-work-flexibility. Accessed 5 Sept. 2021.