1 Introduction
The shift to working from home (WFH) in the COVID-19 pandemic taught employees, leaders, and organizational scholars an unexpected lesson of success: individual performance when working from home was much higher than imagined in pre-pandemic times (Kniffin et al. 2021). Not only did the pandemic profoundly change the way work was performed; it also influenced the employees’ views on how their work model should look like in the future. Pre-COVID, only 35% of companies offered hybrid work or planned on implementing it. In 2021 this number was up to 77% (Berger et al. 2021). After more than two years of pandemic enforced WFH, organizations found themselves in the middle of a reconnect phase in early 2022. Among many other organizations, Lufthansa Systems FlightNav AG in Zurich (LSY ZRH) introduced a hybrid work policy starting in May 2022. LSY ZRH provides navigational data, aeronautical charts and corresponding digital pilot solutions to around 250 world-wide airline customers and currently employs over 180 staff members of whom more than 70% are internationals. The company decided on a mandatory office presence of 50% to maintain both organizational performance and employee satisfaction. How well this policy was perceived by employees as well as its pros and cons in comparison to a full remote work model are subject to this research. Our study investigates the impact of a hybrid work policy on individual and organizational outcomes and derives design recommendations for hybrid work frameworks that benefit employees and organizations alike. This includes a deeper look at factors that make office work attractive for employees (again).
2 Theoretical foundation and literature review
What we refer to as remote work or mobile work was previously researched under the term of telecommuting. Allen et al. (2015) define telecommuting as a work practice that “involves members of an organization substituting a portion of their typical work hours (ranging from a few hours per week to nearly full-time) to work away from a central workplace—typically principally from home—using technology to interact with others as needed to conduct work tasks” (p. 44). In pre-pandemic times, many employees reluctantly made (or were not granted to) use of WFH policies fearing reward and career penalties in working cultures characterized by ‘face time’, i.e. presence time at the office (Shockley and Allen 2010) signaling commitment to colleagues and managers (Correll et al. 2014). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed this game: organizations were forced to send employees to work from home (Kniffin et al. 2021), resulting in unexpectedly high levels of self-organization and performance. With the declining threat of the pandemic many companies started piloting policies that allowed to keep WFH at ratios varying around 30 to 50% WFH (Vargas Llave 2020). The term ‘hybrid work’ evolved to describe different work locations and the subsequent orchestration of work time, tasks, and collaborative interaction. Berger et al. (2021) describe four types of hybrid work: office-centered (working outside the office is an exception), hybrid light (maximum one remote day per week), hybrid (working remotely several days a week), and hybrid remote (complete flexibility, office is used only for face-to-face collaboration). As the last two types are the prevalent models in the organization studied in this paper, the focus will be on hybrid and hybrid remote work in this paper.
Advertisement
2.1 Hybrid work policies: bridging individual and organizational goals
Remote work has shown to be desirable for the individual employee, particularly in terms of improving work-life balance and higher time autonomy and flexibility (Kauffeld et al. 2022). Organizations however relate remote work with productivity loss and reduced employee commitment on the long run (Chafi et al. 2022). Hybrid work policies attempt to strike the right balance between individual and organizational expectations. Evidence on the functioning and effects of hybrid work policies is still sparse and it is necessary to understand how this new work practice affects employee and organizational outcomes such as satisfaction, performance, and commitment. Drawing on insights relating to the job demands-resources model (Bakker and Demerouti 2007), organizational policies that address the individual need for autonomy and flexibility might increase satisfaction, commitment and performance variables. Satisfaction as an individual goal and performance as an organizational goal are closely intertwined since according to previous research, contentment at work is related to increased job performance (Mardanov 2020). Successful communication (Walden 2020), feedback and recognition (Schaufeli and Taris 2014), frequent social interaction (Allen et al. 2015), and a cohesive corporate culture (Lopez-Martin and Topa 2019) have been shown as organizational resources to attain long-term performance of a company.
2.1.1 Autonomy and flexibility
Autonomy and flexibility are strong predictors when looking at both individual and organizational outcomes of work policies. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007), autonomy is the most important predictor of excellent performance, especially in an environment of high job demands. The related flexibility where and when to work improves employees’ work-life integration (Charalampous et al. 2021), positively impacting job satisfaction and happiness as a function of being more relaxed in their personal time. Employees with high autonomy and flexibility seem able to better recharge their batteries and pursue a healthier lifestyle (Charalampous et al. 2021; Grzywacz et al. 2008). Golden and Veiga (2005) showed satisfaction peaks at a higher intensity of telecommuting which then levels off at around 15 h per week and then even slightly declines. Further evidence suggests that it is the flexibility to choose the work location rather than the possibility to work fully remote that impacts employee commitment positively (Becker et al. 2022). On the downside, remote work further weakens boundaries between work and life. Employees might tend towards extra hours or even workaholism, logging in late at night or checking emails during their time off (Charalampous et al. 2021). Wang et al. (2021) found evidence that increased work demands caused by workload and monitoring when working from home impede employees’ fulfillment of family duties in a Chinese sample. Thus, full remote work might not be the optimal solution for all employees (Nguyen Ngoc et al. 2022). Chung (2022) even argues that offering variable work schedules might be related to higher turnover and lower performance.
2.1.2 Effective communication
Doppler and Lauterburg (2014) name informal communication as one of the most important success factors for organizational performance. Furthermore, information flow is vital for innovation and competitiveness on the market. To put a number to it, Fortune 500 companies lose no less than $ 31.5 billion annually due to the lack of appropriate knowledge sharing (Babcock 2004). Bernstein and Waber (2019) reported that remote employees communicate 80% less than their co-located colleagues. Horwitz et al. (2006) noticed, communication quality ranks in first place of problems during virtual teamwork. Debates take longer in writing, issues are resolved slower, and employees feel increasingly overwhelmed by the flood of messages they receive daily (Charalampous et al. 2021). The latter indicates increased stress as a negative individual outcome of disrupted communication flows. Especially during job transition, communication reduces stress and improves the adjustment of newcomers (Kramer 1994). Due to its lack of direct interactions and non-verbal cues, virtual communication is prone to misinterpretation and negative conflicts (Savu 2019; Kahlow et al. 2020). Managers rate face-to-face meetings as the second most important aspect for teams to get off to a successful start (Horwitz et al. 2006). Drawing from previous research, it can be assumed that effective communication which adds to organizational performance and individual well-being needs face-to-face moments.
2.1.3 Feedback and recognition
Schaufeli and Taris (2014) stress the importance of frequent feedback and recognition as a characteristic of a good supervisor-employee relationship. Especially for newcomers and younger colleagues, feedback is a crucial resource to reduce the stress of new job challenges and uncertain environments (Kramer 1994). A recent meta-analysis concluded that organizational and leadership support is critical for employees to thrive at work (Kleine et al. 2019). Remote employees assumingly experience more distance between themselves and their managers (Chafi et al. 2022) resulting in the perception that their efforts and achievements are not valued enough (Kurland and Cooper 2002). As a consequence of less frequent communication, remote work might entail less feedback (Kniffin et al. 2021). In a remote work setting leaders must integrate feedback and recognition in a planned and structured way. Opposedly, onsite leaders should be able to provide feedback and recognition spontaneously and informally. Giving feedback face-to-face enhances trust, which is needed to address issues constructively and to not let conflicts get swept under the rug (Doppler and Lauterburg 2014).
2.1.4 Social interaction, organizational cohesiveness and commitment
Remote work entails less face-to-face interactions among co-workers, potentially negatively affecting organizational cohesiveness and employee commitment, particularly at the team level (Kauffeld et al. 2022). During the pandemic virtual exchange tended to be more task-focused, neglecting “psychological needs for belongingness or relatedness” (Wang et al. 2021). Remote work has been shown to entail the risk of decreasing employee commitment due to fewer moments of identification and lower team cohesion because of social distance (Hinds and Cramton 2014). From an analysis of virtual team performance, Savu (2019) suggests that teams need at least one on-site meeting per week to foster a sense of belonging. Haas et al. (2022) hypothesize that increased employee turnover during the pandemic might be a function of “frayed social connections over the last two years, diminishing their sense of commitment to the team and belonging to the company” (p. 7). From an individual perspective, research has shown how social interactions positively affect physical, e.g. strengthening the immune system (Heaphy and Dutton 2008) as well as psychological health (Allen et al. 2015). Individuals who struggle with matters on their own might suffer higher emotional exhaustion (Monzani et al. 2014). Perceived social support has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety in the face of negative life events (Moak and Agrawal 2010) as well as buffer the intensity and serve as a resource for coping with stress (Uchino et al. 1999).
2.1.5 Corporate culture, hybrid policy and the new role of the office
According to Chafi et al. (2022), the “we-feeling” and a shared culture weakens during remote work, resulting in less purpose and belongingness. During the pandemic, this was especially true for newcomers. Whereas employees who worked in the company before COVID-19 learned about common values, norms and beliefs through first-hand exposure, the challenge during full remote work was to socialize newcomers and integrate them into a common culture (Haas et al. 2022). Mortensen (2021) warns that this could entail a culture fracture between old and new employees. Related to how WFH is perceived in an organizational culture, is a phenomenon called remote work presenteeism. This describes telecommuting while being sick. In former ‘face time’ cultures, employees might now feel pressured to keep working from home as with increased flexibility, new expectations form within teams and being sick is no longer reason enough to not work (Ferreira et al. 2022). Regardless of tenure, Hinds and Cramton (2014) showed that working together in one place for a longer period of time helped distributed team members to better understand their corporate culture and to work together more effectively. Against the backdrop of employee retention, it seems more sensible than ever to design work environments in such a way that employees feel comfortable there, i.e. furniture and work space design representing an “antithesis of the traditionally formally structured office work environment” (Grant et al. 2019, p. 69). First attempts of creating an office environment as a ‘social hub’ that attracts employees for interactive work and represents the corporate image seem to be promising (Reindl et al. 2022), yet future research is needed here.
2.2 The case study
At the beginning of the pandemic Lufthansa System FlightNav AG was still making baby steps when it came to hybrid work. Many employees had workstations instead of laptops and WFH was allowed for a maximum of one day per week. Due to certain production processes where printing and filing was required, more remote work was always considered impossible. The sudden need for WFH prompted new digital processes reducing the number of days where employees had to come to the office. Although the teams learned to perform their tasks remotely and people got used to communicate via the collaboration platform Microsoft Teams, an internal survey conducted in 2021 had managers worry about new problems: Communication issues and lack of information flow, decreasing team spirit and devotion to the company, growing isolation and suffering of social connections. Hence, after a voluntary comeback period from February to April 2022 the company introduced a 50/50 policy at the office in Zurich starting May 2022. This policy was implemented on a trust basis where the company would not actively surveil the times employees badged in and out at the office. It was made clear to the employees that this would be a first trial and that management would observe how well the new policy worked and improve it further if needed.
3 Research questions
While organizations are experimenting with hybrid work policies, we know little about two things: the effects of a 50/50 hybrid work model and how it should be designed to achieve its purpose considering both individual and organizational goals. The current study takes a qualitative approach to investigate individual and organizational outcomes of a 50/50 hybrid work policy in an aviation industry IT company regarding two research questions (RQ):
RQ1
How does a 50/50 hybrid work policy affect individual and organizational outcomes?
Advertisement
RQ2
How should hybrid work frameworks be designed to foster positive individual and organizational outcomes?
4 Method
A qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews was chosen to understand individual human perspectives regarding the research questions and explore a so far rather unknown area of interest. Theoretical saturation was reached after eight interviews. Given that 70% of new data can be gathered within the first six and 92% within the first 12 interviews (Guest et al. 2006), an additional two interviews were conducted yielding a total of 10 in-person-interviews. The sample included five female and five male participants ranging in age from 29 to 56 years, employees and leaders from five departments and nine teams to reach the highest possible variability of answers. In total, interview partners varied in tenure from newcomers (4), i.e. employees who joined the company since the beginning of the remote phase in 2020 without meeting most of their colleagues in person, two to six years (4) and more than six years of working with the company (2). The interviews were semi-structured following a 10-sections guideline yet leaving room for follow-up questions to allow a richer understanding of the topic at hand. The interviews resulted in a data set of 45 pages of transcribed content. The transcription followed the rules outlined by Dresing et al. (2015). The material was analyzed using qualitative content analysis as suggested by Kuckartz (2018). Based on the literature review and aligned with the research questions, the following categories were deductively selected: Autonomy/flexibility, social interaction, feedback/recognition, communication, company culture, hybrid policy and change. During the analysis, office attractors were added as an eighth category. The results from the first five categories were further split into positive and negative as well as other comments, such as suggestions or general feedback. The analysis generated 406 coded segments using MaxQDA to categorize the given statements in alignment with our theoretical research (autonomy and flexibility, communication, feedback and recognition, social interaction, corporate culture). Statements mentioning aspects of physical and mental health such as work-life balance, satisfaction, stress, exhaustion were assigned to individual whereas as statements mentioning efficiency, performance, turnover and teamwork were interpreted as organizational outcomes.
5 Results
5.1 Effects of the hybrid work policy on individual and organizational outcomes (RQ1)
The first research question investigated the effects of a 50/50 hybrid work policy on individual and organizational outcomes. Overall, the hybrid policy was welcomed according to the interview data.
5.1.1 Outcomes at the individual level
Regarding the aim of maintaining individual autonomy and flexibility, most participants perceived their experience with the policy as sufficient and reported an improved work-life balance compared to pre-COVID times. Flexibility was particularly high as the 50/50 ratio could be fulfilled on a monthly basis as most team leaders refrained from mandatory team days. The fact that LSY ZRH time tracking system did not measure office presence was perceived as additional degrees of freedom. Due to this experience of autonomy interviewees reported feeling happier and more relaxed, potentially indicating reduced stress. These findings relate to enhanced individual performance in several ways.
With respect to social interaction, results showed that employees‘ personal contact positively influenced their satisfaction upon return to the office. In a company with many international employees, the office provides an important aspect of social life. Connections and bonds between employees seemingly improved with the increased office presence, possibly because of the high cultural diversity in the staff structure, as one participant put it: “We are all from different countries and we don’t have families here. So, we are like family to each other” (P07-25:11). Full remote work had caused feelings of isolation and loneliness people felt during the pandemic and several interviewees reported feeling happier and more motivated since meeting their co-workers again in person. Teams with new members caught up on building bonds. In terms of company culture, an issue which developed during the full WFH phase, was the trend to work while being sick. Participants observed that employees perceived the expectation to keep working although being sick, potentially due to the increased infrastructural flexibility. While for some this felt positive instead of dragging themselves to work, for others exhaustion increased prolonged recovery.
However, participants also reported several negative outcomes related to the hybrid policy. Disturbances in the office, such as chatting colleagues, were mentioned as a crucial issue and for some participants the need for undisturbed work—from home—exceeded the limit allowed by the new policy. Strong negative feedback was raised by the production department where employees work rather independently, and processes are clearly defined. Coming to the office only affected their performance negatively. “People talk and that disturbs me a lot. […] I don’t feel comfortable. I feel stressed in that matter. So, it worsened through the need to be [at the office]” (P09-24:50). Three participants mentioned lower energy levels and that too much socializing in the office negatively affected their productivity.
5.1.2 Outcomes at the organizational level
Regarding outcomes that can be assigned to organizational goals, participants reported both positive and negative effects related to the hybrid policy. With regards to communication, meeting face-to-face was described to lower barriers, raise approachability, and entail less misunderstandings resulting in fewer negative conflicts. Onsite, participants noted it easier to clear the air and re-establish trust after difficult discussions while in full remote mode “the sour or bitter taste of the aftermath of the meeting maybe stays [and] you don’t have an opportunity to fix it” (P07-13:46). Problems were reported to be solved faster in person and with less scheduled meetings, as one interviewee states: “It’s much easier just to think around a question over a coffee [and] I have it fixed straightaway” (P07-06:41). Team discussions were reported to be more productive as a function of more active participation in on-site meetings as opposed to the frequent disengagement in remote meetings. Nevertheless, so-called hybrid meetings (members participate onsite and others remote), raised new problems as discussions were continued onsite even after the digital meeting platform was closed. Those connected remotely missed valuable information.
When it comes to productivity, several interviewees reported higher concentration in the office while lacking adequate space for focused tasks in the WFH setting. Working at the office was described to entail a certain mindset as key to higher concentration. Onsite workshops were experienced as more focused than remote or hybrid workshops. Particularly for new employees, finding their way around and figuring out whom to talk to in order to solve daily issues had been rather difficult during full remote work. “Sometimes you have to go a long way before you find who’s actually your problem solver. And just doing that by Teams or by web calls, it’s not easy” (P05-09-06). For newcomers, seeking help meant to contact complete strangers. Even long-time employees reported improved knowledge transfer and creative exchange after returning to the office.
With regards to social interaction, for the interviewed newcomers it was difficult to fully connect with the team and the company during WFH. One of the newcomers even resigned due to the lack of social bonds: “During the home office, as […] I felt less connected to the company culture, I began to focus on […] the salary” (P10-15:11).
In terms of feedback and recognition, most team leaders found it easier to properly understand and support their team in person as remotely, “it was really extremely difficult to get the feeling in the team, to build up […] the mutual trust, so we can start exchanging stuff and being in a position to help them” (P05-07:26).
Summarizing, the current qualitative investigation suggests three key findings regarding the effects of a 50/50 hybrid work policy for individuals and organizations.
-
The answers in the study indicate that employee satisfaction and commitment and thus performance are potentially higher in a hybrid than in a full remote set-up.
-
In a remote work set-up, new employees take longer to connect with colleagues and the organization or might never even fully connect at all.
-
The interviews have shown that for international employees who live far off from their families and homes, more social interaction at work is especially important.
5.2 Hybrid policy, guidelines and office attractiveness (RQ2)
The second research question aimed at gaining deeper insights about how hybrid work frameworks should be designed to foster positive outcomes and reach individual and organizational goals. In general, most interviewees seemed to have accepted the new policy and related changes and were happy with the step-by-step approach introduced to bring employees from full remote to 50% hybrid work in three phases. Despite the overall positive attitude towards the 50/50 hybrid policy, participants reported levels of increased stress coordinating private life and work. The fixed quota put additional pressure on employees: “Last week when I only got the office for two days, I felt bad. Like ‘Oh my god, this week I didn’t accomplish the quota” (P02-38:44). For some, the policy was perceived as a control mechanism not fully trusting the promise that presence was not checked. In some cases, participants felt judged by their supervisor and by their colleagues. Another problem raised was the autonomy-liability tradeoff: meeting a colleague at the office failed because he/she spontaneously decided to work from home. In terms of communication, hybrid meetings were associated with higher exhaustion and feelings of disrespect. This was mostly when the remote participants felt excluded as colleagues spoke quietly or too fast among themselves onsite.
Regarding how the change was managed, most participants felt satisfied with the level of involvement via questionnaires, the monthly management Q&A sessions, or their direct superior. However, some resistance was detected due to a lack of understanding of why the company wanted to bring people back to the office in the first place. During the interviews, employees furthermore reported missing guidelines related to the enactment of the new hybrid policy which caused uncertainties. Concerning the new role of the office, for most of the participants the primary attractor to the office was to socialize and co-work.
Summarizing insights about research question 2, results indicate four key findings about the design of a 50/50 hybrid work policy:
-
Overall, working under a hybrid work policy better fulfils the different needs of a heterogeneous, international workgroup than a full remote policy.
-
A fixed office presence may not be flexible enough for all employees.
-
A mandatory office presence of 50% seems useful to break the remote work routine in the first place but might be led to a more flexible policy with time.
-
Resistance to the new work mode was highest where employees lacked understanding of its advantages.
6 Discussion, limitations, and implications
The current study adds to existing research on the topic of hybrid work at a multi-national IT company in the aviation industry in multiple ways. Most participants welcomed the hybrid policy and the results indicate that employee satisfaction, performance, as well as commitment generally improved. Employees still have flexibility and autonomy in deciding when to come to the office and where to work from on their remote days which is related to higher satisfaction (Charalampous et al. 2021). Due to the multiple facilitating effects on communication, hybrid work in comparison to full remote work could improve team harmony and relationships at work. A group of particular interest are newcomers: A shared culture and we-feeling greatly contribute to purpose and belongingness (Chafi et al. 2022). Newcomers in particular missed out on experiencing the company culture when they only worked remotely. Therefore, office presence supports their integration on a cultural level (Hinds and Cramton 2014) which might improve the motivation to stay with the company.
Nonetheless, regarding the design of the hybrid work policy, the fixed ratio was met with a certain resistance amongst employees as it was not considered flexible enough to meet the needs of individual teams. The company initially opted for a 50% office presence because management feared that voluntary office presence would result in people staying at home. This concern seems justified from the data. Nevertheless, the reactions of most participants showed that although employees asked for more flexibility, the majority also valued coming to the office. If the office is designed as a social hub on an interactional and physical level (Reindl et al. 2022) employees might take advantage of coming to the office more strongly. Literature suggests guidelines to eliminate ambiguity as well as uncertainties and at the same time anchor change (Chafi et al. 2022). During the interviews employees reported uncertainties due to missing guidelines. Furthermore, when the enactment of a hybrid policy, no matter at which ratio, is unclear, perceived judgements by supervisors and colleagues might create conflicts, finger pointing and feelings of unfair treatment, for example when team leaders do not enforce office presence equally for all team members. If full autonomy of choosing office days is to be kept, stronger liability amongst co-workers is needed. A tool to plan shared office presence with colleagues could also help to handle the autonomy-liability tradeoff. Our findings raise the question whether a relaxation of the fixed ratio might be possible after new habits are consolidated. Hypothetically, employees will keep coming to the office even without a fixed ratio. In a context of high cultural diversity employees might be actively seeking for more social interaction in the office as their families and friends are often in other countries.
6.1 Limitations
The findings of this study stem from a single organization and only from one WFH model and the findings are not generalizable. Comparing the effect of different company policies would be necessary to suggest widely applicable guidance. Potenzial contextual factors which may have influenced the study’s results were difficult to control. The results were more uniform and positive towards the new 50% rule than expected. If this indeed represents the overall feeling amongst the company’s employees needs to be confirmed with an anonymous quantitative follow-up survey.
6.2 Implications for further research
Evidence indicates that personality characteristics play a role in the intensity in which individuals seek social interaction. Introverts are argued to need a less stimulating environment to recharge their batteries and are therefore more effective when working from home (Saunders 2021). Indeed, there is a hint towards this in the current study, but this line of research needs deeper investigation.
To better understand the needs of different employee groups, research on hybrid work focusing on generational preferences and cultural dimensions could add interesting insights.
6.3 Implications for practice
The current study found support for the individual and organizational value of working at the office and at the same time participants reported difficulties working on tasks that require deep concentration. Restricting conversations, however, would ultimately affect socializing and collaboration. Management therefore needs to decide what function the office should fulfil and form attractors accordingly. The need for hybrid work guidelines led us to the following suggestions:
1.
There needs to be a clear reason to come to the office and it is the management’s task to make employees aware of the advantages of face-to-face meetings and office interactions. Onboardings should take place in the office.
2.
Moderation should be a standard for hybrid meetings.
3.
Commit and communicate established plans regarding the individual work location.
4.
Working while sick: A guideline should discourage “working from bed”.
Letting employees decide on when to come to the office and when to work from home comes down to a question of culture and trust. In the end, it should be the employees who know best what is required to do their jobs well.
7 Conclusion
This paper supports anecdotal evidence that although many employees appreciate the new flexibility in working remotely, organizations need a certain office presence to perform effectively. On the other hand, there are very successful companies, e.g., IT start-ups, working on a fully remote basis. Learning from them could provide new ideas on how to connect people and reach individual and organizational goals.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.