Hybrid work is not always the golden compromise employees expect – even as more companies implement it

A temporary truce has ended the return-to-office wars that dominated the post-pandemic workplace. Hybrid work policies, which require some days in the office while allowing flexibility to work from home, have become standard practice. According to the workplace survey Flex Index, the adoption of these policies has surged. In 2023, only 20% of companies had implemented hybrid policies. That number rose to 38% in 2024 and reached 42% in 2025.

Supporters of hybrid work often cite research suggesting that such policies improve employee retention and decrease turnover. Some human resources professionals agree, pointing to their own experiences. Many job seekers now view hybrid work as a bare-minimum expectation when considering new opportunities.

However, business scholars who study management and communication technologies see a more complicated picture. Research indicates that employees have mixed feelings about hybrid work, with many becoming disillusioned. A hybrid solution may not always be the sustainable compromise it is hyped to be.

Researchers tracked a group of employees from three large financial services companies starting in 2022. As lockdown restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic ended, each company chose a different path. One company returned fully to the office, one stayed fully remote, and one adopted hybrid policies.

Employees in all three companies had mixed responses to their specific policies. However, the hybrid policy had the fewest fans initially. In the company that returned to the office, 50% of employees preferred working in the office. In the fully remote company, 62% preferred remote work. In contrast, only 44% of employees in the hybrid workplace were happy with the policy.

When researchers checked back with participants in 2025, most employees seemed to accept their company’s chosen policy. Approval ratings rose to 60% for the back-to-office model, 72% for fully remote, and 63% for the hybrid format. These companies experienced very low turnover, so the group of workers remained largely the same.

At first glance, the nearly 20-percentage-point jump in approval for hybrid work suggested it had become a golden compromise over time. A closer look, however, revealed an unstable support base.

In the other two scenarios, all employees who preferred in-office or remote work in 2022 remained on board with their company’s policy in 2025. In the hybrid company, the story was different. Only half of those who preferred hybrid work in 2022 held the same view in 2025. The other half shifted their preference, now favoring either in-office or remote work. The hybrid policy gained new support but lost half of its original fans.

Employees who switched to preferring in-office work cited better collaboration and relationship-building opportunities. One worker explained, "Because I like my team and my work is somewhat collaborative, I tend to find it more enjoyable and productive to be in most of the time."

Meanwhile, those who switched to preferring remote work often pointed to personal arrangements as the key driver. One employee noted, "My wife and I have made decisions about childcare based on me being able to work from home."

The result is that back-to-office and fully remote policies create durable, or "sticky," preferences. In contrast, hybrid policies form preferences that are more fluid.

In the book "The New Workplace," this divergence is explored through employee experiences. Nonhybrid policies help employees set routines with predictability. People generally prefer predictability in their work and life.

Going to the office every day is predictable, but it also offers the bonus of work-life separation. "I need structure!" was a common refrain among participants who preferred the office. They spoke of work and life "bleeding together" without the clear boundaries of a workplace.

Working remotely every day is predictable in a different way. It offers increased autonomy and freedom. Participants who preferred remote work prized their independence so much that they described their employer’s remote policy as "golden handcuffs." This policy kept them at the company even if they might otherwise have left.

Hybrid policies, however, create competing demands. They force employees to constantly switch between work and home modes. This requires personal flexibility and adaptability, traits that few people naturally possess.

Even employees who preferred hybrid work spoke of having to "train my brain" and "flip my mind" to adjust to the format’s unpredictability. Over time, some adapted successfully by developing a skill called "task-location fit." They learned to do focused, heads-down work at home and collaborative work at the office. These were the individuals who stayed on "team hybrid."

Others grew tired of adapting to the competing demands of hybrid work. This led to what researchers called "paradox management fatigue." Exhausted by the constant switching, they decided that either fully in-office or fully remote work was best for them. This fatigue is what made the hybrid preference fluid.

One worker who came to appreciate full-time in-office work stated, "I still value the flexibility to be able to work from home when needed, but I think getting out of a consistent rhythm has made me prefer working in the office."

A second reason hybrid policies lose fans is poor implementation. One major error occurs when companies hire across geographies. Most participants worked on teams where some, if not most, members were in a different city, state, or country. This defeated the purpose of an in-office requirement because it effectively required remote team meetings. "I can Zoom from my home," many participants said.

Another mistake is letting employees choose their in-office and remote work days. While this honors the flexibility promise of hybrid work, it leads to a half-empty office that feels lonely for those who do come in.

Employees know they will find teammates in the office under a back-to-office policy. They know teammates will be available online under a fully remote policy. However, a "choose-your-adventure" hybrid policy removes the certainty of how, when, and where to reach colleagues.

Given these challenges, it is no surprise that Dropbox recently called hybrid work "the worst of both worlds" and declared it would stay fully remote.

At the same time, as more employers adopt hybrid work, those jumping on the bandwagon need to prove critics wrong by making hybrid work more sustainable.

Employers can implement a structured hybrid schedule by setting specific days when employees must come in. While this sacrifices some personal flexibility, structured hybrid solves coordination challenges. When everyone is in the office at the same time, the space will not feel empty, and coworkers will collaborate more smoothly.

Managers can also make the physical office a place of community. This means investing in improvements to make the office a desirable location.

Research participants shared stories steeped with nostalgia for company picnics, Oscar-style end-of-quarter celebrations, and disco-at-the-office parties. They also appreciated small details like pizza in the office or food trucks in the parking lot. Employees wished these social activities would return, even with a hybrid schedule.

Finally, companies should better align hiring and team design practices. Hiring across geographies allows companies to recruit locally unavailable talent. However, geographically dispersed teams are not truly hybrid; they are fully remote. To solve this contradiction, managers should assign employees to teams based on geographic location. When that is not possible, they should provide teams with generous travel budgets and encourage periodic in-person gatherings.

These tactics can help companies make hybrid work sustainable. As one manager, a long-time believer in hybrid work, observed: "I continue to see huge benefits for my team members feeling like they can show up as their best selves at work because hybrid allows for work-life integration."