Academic fires back at hybrid work doomsayers

CEOs have begun the countdown to the end of hybrid work, but new research suggests flexible work is here to stay.

In October, KPMG released a controversial report that found that 64 per cent of global chief executives predict a full return to office within three years. The return, respondents said, will come through offerings of better assignments and even raises and promotions.

It was in response to the above findings that a researcher in workplace design at UNSW, Iva Durakovic, said the following: “Business leaders who think this way are really misunderstanding what being at work means for today’s workers.”

Behind the challenge, Ms Durakovic recently authored two research papers on the effectiveness of hybrid work and the importance of getting workplace design right.

In 2020, one paper claimed, “technology, human connection, and flexibility in choosing where to work” was the top enabler of productivity. In the three years since, the three factors have only grown in importance.

“Long before the COVID-19 lockdowns proved that there was a lot of work that could be done effectively without being in an office, workers were seeking autonomy over how, where and when they worked,” said Ms Durakovic.

“WFH during lockdowns only amplified this, so the persistent demand of employees for more flexibility really should not be a surprise.”

Why rush back into the office?

The question employers should be asking, said Ms Durakovic, is “why?” Why am I forcing my employees to work face-to-face?

“If the team comes together and they’re engaged and actively reaping the benefits of face-to-face interaction, then it makes sense that people are in the office. But simply doing what can be done elsewhere doesn’t make sense,” she said.

Behind the drive to get people back into work is a sense that employees will get more done. According to Ms Durakovic, simply having employees physically return to work will not guarantee greater productivity. Indeed, it could have the opposite effect.

In forcing people back unnecessarily, she said, leaders risk undermining the trust shown in allowing broader hybrid work arrangements – a cost that could undermine the individual employees’ sense of autonomy, value, cohesion, community, as well as motivation and wellbeing.

“It’s interesting that the CEOs surveyed have an impression that people will be more effective if they are in the office,” said Ms Durakovic.

“They might turn up, but it’s certainly not going to do wonders for your culture or your turnover rates. Forcing presentism on people is not going to have a positive outcome for anyone. Not for them, and not for the business.”

Interestingly, the research also found that hybrid working is a skill that takes time to foster. This might imply that certain hybrid shortfalls – whether it’s lower productivity or higher rates of absenteeism – could be remedied while preserving hybrid work arrangements. In other words, a hybrid work problem might be less about hybrid work and more about the approach used by employers or employees.

The case for hybrid work is growing. As noted by Ms Durakovic, hybrid working from home increases average productivity by 5 per cent – a figure that is expected to grow as better hybrid approaches are developed – while allowing for more diverse and innovative work teams.

More broadly, Ms Durakovic pointed to the potential ramifications of a hybrid work future for cities and physical workspaces. Though humans care greatly about workspaces and the sense of connection between themselves and their surroundings, research suggests that office redesigns are failing to win employees back into the office.

“There has been a move away from workers being attracted to companies that offer super-experiences, think amazing work campuses with free food and other perks, and incentives, towards looking for values alignment and engagement.

“People are looking for purposefulness and meaning in their work and to work for companies that take their social responsibilities seriously,” said Ms Durakovic.

The research suggested that part of the drive for getting employees back into the office is a desire to justify real estate investments on the part of the employer.

“This will not solve the corporate real estate crisis nor meaningfully reactivate CBDs,” said Ms Durakovic. “There is a huge opportunity, if not responsibility, to start to dramatically rethink building assets and diversify.”

In other words, the very idea of the CBD could come under fire as research shows that areas least affected by economic downturn were those with a greater balance in land use types – from retail, office, residential and beyond.