Hybrid Remote Work Uses the Worst of Both Worlds

Remote work, once thought about a novelty or an odd experiment, has actually become a need for many companies in the Covid-19 world. This has challenged the typical assumption that remote work environments hinder employee productivity. Executives throughout industries have actually admired productivity staying consistent or even increasing as workers quickly moved to working from house with much of them doing double task as home-school teachers. In some way, the lesson that business have actually deduced from this isn’t that they need to go all-remote, however instead that they must go hybrid: integrating remote and co-located work. No matter how you approach it, hybrid-remote is hard, and in the end, companies that attempt to do both will either go all-in with remote or return to being office-based.

Hybrid creates two fundamentally different employee experiences to manage. Regardless of current successes with remote work, employers are resuming offices to a few of their workers to encourage social bonding, reinforce culture, and increase company collaboration. The presumption underlying these reopenings is that some crucial things can’t be done as efficiently outside of the office. Leaders who built their companies in offices counted on shared area to serve as a glue for culture and as a stopgap for inadequacies in communication systems and processes. While the office-based model has traditionally shown to be effective for many companies, it will provide significant obstacles for business committed to also supporting a remote labor force. If a workplace is the “glue”, and procedures and systems do not adjust for a re