Hybrid Work Best Practices

Just out in Harvard Business Review, summary of the Hybrid Experiment results and lessons on how to make hybrid succeed. Experiment: randomize 1600 graduate employees in marketing, finance, accounting and engineering at Trip.com into 5-days a week in office, or 3-days a week in office and 2-days a week WFH. Analyzed 2 years of data. Two key results A) Hybrid and fully-in-office showed no differences in productivity, performance review grade, promotion, learning or innovation. B) Hybrid had a higher satisfaction rate, and 35% lower attrition. Quit-rate reductions were largest for female employees. Four managerial lessons 1) Hybrid needs a strong performance management system so managers don’t need to hover over employees at their desks to check their progress. Trip.com had an extensive performance review process every six months. 2) Coordinate in-office days at the team or company level. Schedule clarity prevents the frustration of coming to an empty office only to participate in Zoom calls. Trip.com coordinated WFH on Wednesday and Friday. 3) Having leadership buy-in is critical (as with most management practices). Trip.com’s CEO and C-suite all support the hybrid policy. 4) A/B test new policies (as well as products) if possible. Often new policies turn out to be unexpectedly profitable. Trip.com made millions of dollars more profits from hybrid by cutting expensive turnover.

A Return To Office mandate is a funny thing. A trade-off of lower workforce productivity, morale, retention, engagement, and trust in exchange for...managers feeling more in control. It's more a sign of insecurity and incompetence than sound decision-making. The fact that 80% of executives who have pushed for RTO mandates have later regretted their decision only makes the point further, and yet every few months more leaders line up to pad this statistic. In case your leaders have forgotten, return to office mandates are associated with: 🔻 16% lower intent to stay among the highest-performing employees (Gartner) 🔻 10% less trust, psychological safety, and relationship quality between workers and their managers (Great Place to Work) 🔻 22% of employees from marginalized groups becoming more likely to search for new jobs (Greenhouse) 🔻 No significant change in financial performance while guaranteeing damage to employee satisfaction (Ding and Ma, 2024) The thing is, we KNOW how to do hybrid work well at this point. 🎯 Allow teams to decide on in-person expectations, and hold people accountable to it—high flexibility; high accountability. 🎯 Make in-person time unique and valuable, with brainstorming, events, and culture-building activities—not video calls all day in the office. 🎯 Value outcomes, not appearances, of productivity—reward those who get their work done regardless of where they do it. 🎯 Train inclusive managers, not micromanagers—build in them the skills and confidence to lead with trust rather than fear and insecurity. Leaders that fly in the face of all this data to insist that workers return to office "OR ELSE" communicate one thing: they are the kinds of leaders that place their own egos and comfort above their shareholders and employees alike. Faced with the very real test of how to design the hybrid workforce of the future, these leaders chose to throw a tantrum in their bid to return to the past, and their organizations will suffer for it. The leaders that will thrive in this time? Those that are willing to do the work. Those that are willing to listen to their workforce, skill up to meet new needs, and claim their rewards in the form of the best talent, higher productivity, and the highest level of worker loyalty and trust. Will that be you?

I once averaged the salaries of two roles someone was doing — and they quit.   50% Lawyer. 50% Company Secretary. So I split the difference and benchmarked them right in the middle. It felt right. They were doing the higher paying role, but only half the time.   Four months later, they left for a role paying what the *higher* benchmark was worth.   Oops.   Turns out diluting someone's value by averaging roles is a great way to lose talent. The market doesn't care that they also handled lower-value work — they care about the skills required for the expensive part of the job.   Here's the framework I use now when benchmarking hybrid roles:   Step 1: Map the role   - Break down what they actually do day-to-day: - What functions are they covering? - What level of seniority for each? - How much time on each?   Step 2: Run the 70/30 test   - If ≥70% of their time sits in one role → It's not really a hybrid role. - Instead, benchmark the core role and add a premium for the broader remit.   Step 3: Price accordingly For true hybrids (closer to 60/40 or 50/50): benchmark the higher-value role.   The logic is simple: if you had to replace this person, what would you actually hire for?   Hybrid roles are normal in startups, but undervaluing them shouldn't be.   P.S. I wrote a longer breakdown of this framework with examples and decision frameworks. Link in the comments if you want the full version. Have you ever had to work out what to pay someone doing 2+ jobs in one?

All is not well in fully-remote OR fully in-office work. While new Gallup research reveals that fully remote workers are more engaged than even hybrid workers (and fully on-site workers are the least engaged - a slap in the face of RTO), they aren't thriving the most - hybrid workers are. It's perhaps no surprise (to all but some CEO's and managers) that fully on-site workers are thriving the least. Interestingly, hybrid workers experience the most stress (just a hair more than fully remote), and disturbingly, fully remote workers are more likely to experience anger, sadness, and loneliness - by a decent margin. Gallup believes that physical distance can create mental distance and that work becomes "just work" without deeper connections with coworkers that can be more easily formed from spending time together in person. They also think that it's the autonomy that comes with remote work which can create stress and lead to the negative emotions mentioned above. I think these are very interesting findings, and I would like to believe that most companies would take the time to reflect on them and take appropriate action. Here's what I think companies can do: 1. Address the emotional well-being of remote workers with regular check-ins, mental health resources, and virtual social activities to combat isolation. 2. Optimize hybrid work environments by creating create clear boundaries between work and home life, help their workers manage workloads effectively, and ensure hybrid workers aren't overcompensating with longer hours. 3. Explore the advantages of remote work, seek to understand what drives the higher engagement and apply these lessons across all work arrangements. 4. Given that each work arrangement faces different challenges, develop tailored well-being strategies for each work type. A one-size-fits-all approach isn't the way to go. 5. Ensure that remote workers have career development opportunities, opportunities to develop meaningful social connections, and achieve work-life balance to close the thriving gap. 6. For companies that are (or are considering moving to) fully in-office work, reconsider hybrid and/or remote work for the clear benefits. I know - wishful thinking, especially for #6. Here's the full Gallup report: https://lnkd.in/ezQB4K5q #WellBeing #EmployeeEngagement #WorkLifeBalance #FutureOfWork #RTO

Remote is freedom in the U.S. It’s isolation in parts of Europe. And in the world of executive hiring, that one cultural difference is shifting how companies win (or lose) talent fast. When I first started working across both markets, I didn’t fully understand just how differently “hybrid” landed in New York vs. Amsterdam. Or in Barcelona vs. Boston. But here’s what I’ve seen after placing senior leaders across both regions for 12+ years: → In the U.S., remote work is often positioned as autonomy. It signals trust. Flexibility. And in a culture that celebrates hustle and independence, it’s seen as a career enabler. → In Europe, remote work especially when not well integrated can signal distance. It can feel like a barrier to culture, learning, or leadership visibility. Especially in regions where collaboration and social cohesion are prized. Neither approach is wrong. But blanket hybrid policies miss the mark when they ignore regional nuance. Let’s take a real-world example: → I’ve placed execs in the U.S. who negotiated full-remote C-level roles—with board approval. → I’ve seen execs in Germany decline offers because the leadership wasn’t visible enough in the office to earn trust. This isn’t just about where people work. It’s about how they connect, build influence, and lead. Here’s what’s working: - In the U.S., leaders win when they prioritize asynchronous communication, results over hours, and flexibility over optics. - In Europe, leaders win when they blend in-office structure with intentional, high-trust hybrid systems especially in France, Germany, and Southern Europe. - In global companies, the best leadership teams localize their hybrid models by culture, not just function. Because leadership isn’t one-size-fits-all. It’s context-aware. The companies that retain top talent across borders are the ones who’ve realized this: → Hybrid policy = talent strategy. → Culture fit = localized leadership, not just compensation. → Remote can be freedom or friction depending on how you lead. I spend a lot of my time now helping FMCG leaders navigate these nuances. Hiring across regions is one thing. Retaining leaders across regions? That’s a whole different skillset. And if we want high-performing teams in this global market? We need to stop managing policy and start leading with understanding. Let’s talk if your cross-market leadership model could use a reset. #ExecutiveSearch #HybridLeadership #RemoteWork #TalentStrategy #FMCG #ConsumerGoods #LeadershipHiring #USvsEurope #CultureDrivenLeadership #FutureOfWork

Stanford University says remote work kills productivity. The Bureau of Labor says it boosts productivity. Both are right and here’s why. Between 2019 and 2023, working from home in the US rose five-fold. Today, nearly 40% of employees work remotely at least one day a week (Stanford WFH Research Project). But the real story is not just about how many people work from home. It’s about how productivity changes depending on the model. 📌Fully remote: Research finds a 10% dip in productivity compared to fully in-office. Why? Barriers to mentoring, weaker collaboration, and the challenge of self-motivation all play a role. 📌Hybrid: Surprisingly, hybrid setups show no measurable loss in productivity. At the same time, they help companies attract and retain talent by offering flexibility without the downsides of full isolation. 📌Fully remote upside: Despite the productivity gap, firms embrace this model because of cost savings from reduced office space and the ability to tap into global talent. For some businesses, these advantages outweigh the challenges. Looking ahead, remote work will likely keep expanding since studies indicate that remote workers report a 35–40% increase in productivity, attributed to fewer distractions, more flexible work hours, and better focus. The lesson for leaders is clear: remote work is not simply about flexibility. It is about making intentional choices in how teams are structured, managed, and measured. Do you think hybrid is the long-term answer, or will fully remote eventually prove more valuable?

Hybrid work isn’t a perk. It’s a priority that drives growth for employees, leaders, and organizations alike. Cisco’s 2025 Global Hybrid Work Study, based on insights from more than 21,000 people across 21 markets and 12 industries, reveals a clear shift: While most employees see value in returning to the office, less than half believe that workplaces are equipped for the hybrid era. Today’s employees expect more than just flexibility. They want environments that enable collaboration, leaders who foster connection and trust, and technology that simply works, no matter where they are. To stay competitive and foster growth, organizations need to take bold steps:  • Rethink office spaces to support creativity and connection.  • Invest in integrated, AI-ready technology and infrastructure.  • Embed security across every layer of the hybrid model.  • Equip leaders to lead with clarity, empathy, and resilience. Hybrid work is a long-term strategy that acts as a catalyst for growth. The organizations that get it right will lead us in the future. Read the full report: https://lnkd.in/eRCXJVJb

The classic office use case is slowly dying. The traditional notion of the office as merely a place for routine tasks and clocking in hours is even 'deader'. In its place, a new role is emerging—an experience that redefines the workplace as a dynamic, engaging environment where every visit is purposeful and enriching. Hybrid work models are becoming the norm, blending remote and in-person collaboration. This shift demands a reimagining of workplace experiences to make every office visit meaningful and worth the commute. Employees now seek more than just a desk; they desire spaces that inspire, engage, and foster a sense of community. In response, many companies are attempting to right-size their offices—optimizing space to reflect new work patterns and reducing underutilized areas. This strategic downsizing allows organizations to reinvest in better workplace experiences, creating environments that attract employees back to the office by offering unique benefits not found at home. Corporate real estate is being disrupted by this evolution, moving beyond simply providing physical spaces to crafting vibrant, people-focused environments. The office is transforming into a hub of collaboration, innovation, and culture-building—offering experiences that fully remote work cannot replicate. This flight to experience is about creating workplaces that employees are excited to be a part of...sometimes. To make hybrid work truly work, companies must integrate flexible spaces, unparalleled services, and sustainable practices. Hospitality-led solutions—such as gourmet food options featuring locally sourced ingredients, artisanal coffee experiences, and orgnizational/community engagement events — elevate the workplace. Seamless meeting management ensures that every gathering is impactful, with state-of-the-art audio-visual support, tailored catering, and efficient logistics. By recognizing that the traditional office model is fading and embracing the flight to experience, organizations can enhance employee satisfaction, attract top talent, and drive success in an ever-evolving work landscape. Right-sizing offices and reinvesting in superior workplace experiences are key strategies in this transformation. The future office is not just a place to work; it's a place to connect, collaborate, and create—making hybrid work truly effective and every office visit valuable. #FutureOfWork

How much is working from home worth?!? 👀 The flexibility of remote work is one of the most valued benefits. But what if the offer on the table is an additional $20K-$40K to come back to the office? This decision isn’t just financial; it’s deeply personal and lifestyle-defining. Here’s a breakdown of what to consider before making the leap: 1. Identify Your Priorities • Commute and Time: How much is your time worth? A daily commute can add significant hours and stress, cutting into time for family, hobbies, or side projects. • Lifestyle Impacts: Remote work often offers greater control over your schedule, meal prep, exercise, or managing errands. How much would you give up? 2. Calculate the Real Cost of Going In • Commuting Costs: Gas, parking, transit fares, and even wardrobe updates for office-appropriate attire can add up quickly. • Additional Expenses: Childcare, dining out, or missing out on small savings (e.g., coffee at home) are all factors. • Opportunity Cost: Consider the networking benefits of being in the office against the productivity and focus you gain from working remotely. 3. Think About Your Long-Term Career Goals • Visibility and Growth: Being in the office can bring networking and mentorship opportunities that remote setups may lack. However, some find that the flexibility of remote work enables them to pursue additional projects or certifications that can equally boost their careers. • Job Satisfaction: Consider the nature of your work. If you thrive in a collaborative environment or need face-to-face time with your manager to feel engaged, an in-office setup could be beneficial. 4. Tips If You’re Considering the Switch • Negotiate for Flexibility: You may be able to propose a hybrid model as a compromise—some in-office days but with continued remote work flexibility. • Discuss Incremental Raises: If the raise is performance-based, ensure you have a roadmap for future raises or promotions tied to measurable outcomes. • Outline a Transition Period: Try a trial period where you return to the office to see if it works for you—this may clarify if the benefits outweigh the costs. Returning to the office can have both immediate financial benefits and long-term professional ones, but there are valid trade-offs to consider. Think carefully about what matters most to you in both work and life balance. What’s your take? Would you go back for $20K-$40K more? #CareerGrowth #WorkLifeBalance #RemoteWork #NegotiationTips #CareerDecisions

Our latest Flex Index report is a Tech Industry Deep Dive 👨💻 👩💻 🤖 We analyzed flexible work policies for 2,670 technology companies that collectively employ 11M+ people. Link here: https://bit.ly/466m0jw Despite media coverage around Tech RTO, 79% of Tech companies are Fully Flexible (meaning no required office time). That's up from 75% a year ago. However, the composition of that group has changed quite a bit. The percentage that is Fully Remote (no offices at all) is DOWN from 37% a year ago to 23% now. The percentage that is Employee's Choice (offices, but no requirement to go in) is UP from 38% a year ago to 56% now. So the office is far from dead in Tech. It's actually becoming more popular, albeit with a different use case than it had five years ago.