The future of work is hybrid—but leadership is still catching up

An employee arrives at the office and signs in to a work video call to meet colleagues from across the country, even overseas. The meeting and the rest of the tasks on the ‘to-do’ list are much the same as the day before, when the employee worked from home. The only difference today is the commute. 

Since the COVID-19 pandemic increased the number of people working from home, there has been an ongoing discussion of the merits of remote work, as well as the downsides. Many companies embrace the flexibility that remote or hybrid work offers to employees, and they view it as a progression towards the future. But there’s another line of thought—many businesses are removing the remote or hybrid work options and calling employees back into the office. 

If hybrid work is widely accepted as the way forward, why are so many companies struggling to let go? 

Norbert Monfort, Academic Assistant in the Department of People Management and Organization at Esade, believes there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to the best way to work. But the effects of in-house, hybrid, or remote work should be evaluated from both an employee and a managerial perspective. 

Hybrid is here to stay

The research indicates that hybrid work is not merely a temporary adjustment, but more of a structural shift. Monfort says, “Hybrid models allow companies to access a broader and more diverse talent pool, no longer limited by geography. By contrast, insisting on fully in-office roles narrows hiring options and risks excluding candidates who prioritize flexibility.”  

Hybrid work answers employees’ emotional needs, too. Research from Esade’s Institute for Social Innovation highlights the importance that workers place on autonomy, purpose, and emotional wellbeing. Esade’s Carlos Cortés, an academic collaborator at the institute, says, “Hybrid models align with what many workers now expect from their professional lives: greater control over their time and a stronger sense of meaning in their work.” 

While hybrid or remote work is widely preferred by employees, businesses are now enforcing a return-to-the -office at record rates. Yet there is no solid evidence that an office-based workforce is any more productive than a remote or hybrid one. 

There are complex factors at play. Hybrid work has benefits, but it’s not a universal solution. Its success depends on the extent to which the role is remote-capable, the individual’s ability to self-manage, and whether their environment allows them to focus. 

Not enough trust 

If hybrid work is the preference for employees, why are companies tightening control and mandating more time in the office? When questioned, 85 per cent of leaders cited a lack of trust that work-from-home (WFH) employees were performing well.  

Monfort says, “Restricting roles to in-office work limits access to talent and may exclude individuals who value flexible, forward-thinking work cultures.” However, many managers are dubious about how much work employees are doing if they are not physically in the office. Even though office time is also full of distractions, such as chats at the water cooler or stepping out for a coffee break. 

Companies need to focus not so much on where work happens, but how it is managed. Hybrid work requires a change from monitoring presence to evaluating outcomes.  

Which environment enables productivity? 

Businesses need to optimize labor force productivity, but this is where confusion arises because the evidence for whether a WFH model is more productive is mixed.  

Some data found that remote workers log fewer hours per day compared to their in-office counterparts. Other studies indicate the opposite: that people working from home often work longer overall hours due to increased flexibility. At the same time, research shows that while remote work can increase total working time, it may reduce focused hours because of distractions at home. 

Conversely, location may not even be a factor in productivity at all. Several studies reveal that the average worker is fully productive for only three or four hours each day—no matter where they are. 

Cortés says, “Productivity cannot be reduced to a question of location. What matters more is how teams are structured, how clearly goals are defined, and how effectively people collaborate. Hybrid models can support productivity, but only when combined with strong team dynamics and clear ways of working.” 

When control backfires 

Many employees have reacted strongly to being forced back into the office.  

Amazon made the news in 2023 when more than 1,000 employees in Seattle walked out in protest against return-to-office policies. In Texas, YouTube contractors went on strike, arguing that the cost of commuting made office attendance unsustainable and that they had originally been hired as remote workers. In 2025, a major union filed a lawsuit against a return-to-office mandate for state employees in California. 

Returning to the office isn’t always about increasing worker productivity. Shockingly, a quarter of executives surveyed admitted that return-to-office policies were designed to encourage voluntary resignations.  

These examples demonstrate the need for diplomacy and understanding from companies seeking to bring workers back into the office. Without trust and transparency, the workforce isn’t going to perform in any location. 

Rethinking the role of the office 

So, how should companies navigate their requests to relocate workers back to the office? 

Both Cortés and Monfort advocate for some office time. Face-to-face interaction is important for building organizational culture, integrating new hires, and consolidating team cohesion.  

But they argue, the office should no longer be considered a default daily workplace. Monfort suggests, “Offices should evolve into spaces designed for collaboration and connection rather than routine individual work.” 

Practically, this often means businesses may need to downsize office space, as it isn’t economically viable to run a large office if most workers are at home. This is the trend we are seeing. Over 50 per cent of global companies are making plans to reduce office space in response to hybrid working. 

There’s a fine line for companies to tread. If the office is to be a meaningful hub, it must offer a clear purpose that justifies both the investment and the commute. Otherwise, it’s just wasted space. 

From control to confidence 

The discussion around hybrid working runs deeper than just location. And while many organizations have embraced a flexible approach, they are hindered by working with management models built for a different era. 

Hybrid work is not failing. It’s just highlighting how much work culture has relied on visibility and control rather than trust and outcomes. 

Successful organizations will focus less on where people work and more on how they define performance, leadership, and accountability. The challenge is cultural, and the organizations that adapt will be those that replace control with confidence.