I’ve had many conversations like this with leaders across various industries. With so many conflicting (and confidently stated) opinions circulating, it’s no wonder they’re confused.
But this isn’t just an abstract debate – it’s a critical issue with very real consequences for team performance, retention, and productivity. Leaders can’t afford to simply agree to disagree on hybrid work; they need clarity and direction. Without a concrete strategy, companies risk disengagement, higher turnover, and missed opportunities for meaningful collaboration. Understanding the nuanced realities of hybrid work isn’t just helpful – it’s essential for any organisation aiming to thrive in today’s evolving work landscape.
As someone who tracks the ongoing debate on hybrid work closely, I’ve seen the endless back-and-forth in articles, opinion pieces, and research. Some argue that hybrid work is here to stay and point to its various potential benefits, while others insist that a full return to the office is necessary to maintain productivity and culture. In response, I decided to write this article to provide Jane – and other senior leaders in similar positions – with some practical, research-backed guidance.
It’s understandable that leaders want a black-and-white answer about whether hybrid work is globally “good” or “bad” (and whether it is “dead” or the new reality of post-pandemic work). Human brains naturally tend to prefer simplicity, often boiling complex issues down into straightforward concepts. But the polarised debate around hybrid work misses the bigger picture. There’s no universal answer to whether hybrid work is inherently “good” or “bad.” Instead, the real question is how leaders can make hybrid work successful under the right conditions, using strategies that align with both organisational goals and employee well-being.
Let’s start by unpacking the broader debate to understand why hybrid work is so contentious before diving into the latest research on what works.
The debate: In-office vs. remote work
The conversation around remote and hybrid work has intensified as more companies roll back their pandemic-era flexibility. High-profile return-to-office mandates, like Amazon’s five-day in-office requirement, reflect a belief among many executives that in-person collaboration drives productivity and maintains company culture.
In fact, a KPMG survey of U.S. corporate CEOs found that 79% expect most roles to return to full-time office work within the next three years, with some leaders even planning to reward in-office employees with more promotions and perks.
At the same time, research and employee sentiment reveal a strong preference for flexibility. Numerous studies, including a recent report from McKinsey & Company, suggest that hybrid work often boosts productivity by reducing commute times and allowing employees to tailor their work schedules to peak performance hours. In Australia, a survey from the Council of Trade Unions found that nearly half of employees felt more productive working from home.
Nicholas Bloom’s research on hybrid work: What the data tells us
Amid this polarised debate, Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom’s recent study with Trip.com provides a data-driven perspective on hybrid work’s benefits and limitations. Over six months, Bloom and his team worked with Trip.com, assigning 1,600 employees to either a hybrid model – three days in-office, two days remote – or a five-day in-office model. The findings were insightful for anyone wanting to understand the nuanced reality of remote and hybrid work.
Hybrid workers turned out to be just as productive as their fully in-office peers. However, hybrid workers also reported higher job satisfaction, and hybrid work reduced quit rates by 35% at Trip.com. This finding has major financial implications, given that the cost of an employee quitting is often estimated to be between 50% to 200% of an employee’s salary. In Trip.com’s case, where each departure costs the company an estimated $30,000, the impact of hybrid work on the bottom line was significant.
Bloom’s real-world data suggests that a thoughtfully structured hybrid model can drive both engagement and retention without sacrificing performance.
Recommendations: How to make hybrid work “work”
Bloom’s research provides a valuable framework for leaders who want to implement hybrid work effectively. Here are four practical strategies to consider based on his findings and other key research.
1. Shift focus from hours in the office to outcome-based metrics
To manage hybrid work effectively, leaders need to rethink traditional productivity metrics that equate “time spent visibly in the office” with performance. In Bloom’s study, Trip.com evaluated employees based on outcomes and impact rather than office hours, relying on structured six-month performance reviews. By focusing on results – like project completion and quality of work – leaders can foster a culture of accountability that gives employees flexibility without losing sight of key organisational goals.
2. Establish predictable in-office days for collaboration
One of the main challenges with hybrid work is the risk of commuting to an office only to end up on virtual calls all day. To prevent this, Trip.com designated specific in-office days – Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays – where team members could align for collaboration. For other organisations, setting fixed in-office days for team cohesion can reduce this frustration while keeping remote flexibility. Leaders might also experiment with structured “core hours” or specific collaboration days to maximise the benefits of both in-office and remote work.
3. Secure visible support from leadership
Hybrid work cannot succeed without strong buy-in from leadership. At Trip.com, executive support for the hybrid model sent a clear message that flexibility is a valued part of the company’s culture. When leaders openly support hybrid policies, they signal trust and respect for employees’ autonomy, encouraging teams to embrace the model fully. Executives can model flexible work policies themselves, reinforcing that hybrid work is not a temporary measure but an integral part of the organisation’s long-term strategy.
4. Protect employee wellbeing with clear boundaries to avoid burnout
While hybrid work offers flexibility, it can also blur the line between personal and professional life, leading to longer hours without intentional boundaries. The Australian Council of Trade Unions survey found that roughly 40% of hybrid employees reported working longer hours at home. Leaders can help prevent burnout by setting clear “offline” hours and promoting healthy work-life balance practices. This might include encouraging regular breaks, promoting mental health resources, and creating wellness programmes that support sustainable productivity.
The path forward: Hybrid work as a strategic advantage
As Bloom’s research and others show, hybrid work is not simply a “yes or no” issue. Instead, it’s a nuanced framework that, when implemented thoughtfully, can support both organisational resilience and employee satisfaction. Leaders who approach hybrid work with flexibility, experimentation, and a focus on outcomes are best positioned to navigate this new landscape successfully.
Ultimately, hybrid work isn’t just a compromise or a post-pandemic convenience. When structured well, it becomes a strategic advantage—one that can improve retention, engagement, and productivity in today’s competitive market. As we continue to redefine the future of work, organisations willing to balance flexibility with purpose will have the edge in attracting and retaining top talent.
