The COVID pandemic accelerated remote and hybrid working practices across the world. It also provided evidence that these approaches could work for a wide variety of jobs.
Author
- Jane Parry
Associate Professor of Work and Employment, University of Southampton
The UK has been at the forefront of the shift to hybrid working and its sustainability as a work practice in future. This year, the Global Survey of Working Arrangements calculated that the typical UK worker averaged 1.8 days of remote working per week, only just behind the more rural Canada (1.9 days).
Along with colleagues, I observed this adaptation in a research project called Work after Lockdown , which followed organisations through lockdowns and examined what they learned around hybrid working. And our subsequent research for the conciliation service Acas looked at post-pandemic working across various industries in the UK.
The employment rights bill , with its proposals to simplify decision-making around flexible working, may also prompt workers to formalise their hybrid working patterns.
At a time when working practices have been transformed for millions of employees, there is real value in drawing together what has been learned over the past five years. This should enable organisations to thrive as hybrid employers.
The House of Lords has now done this - pulling this information together in its special inquiry on homeworking in the UK. The inquiry has recently reported on its ten-month investigation Is Working from Home Working? .
Since September 2024, I have been seconded to parliament to work for three days a week as thematic research lead for business, economics and trade. This is part of an Economic and Social Research Council project to enhance the use of academic evidence in parliament.
During this time, I have supported the home-based working inquiry and observed how a range of select committees and special inquiries work. The committee on home-based working was one of four special inquiries that the Lords stage each year.
A huge volume of academic evidence was submitted, with the report providing a synthesis of the emerging evidence base. Now the inquiry's findings can help employers make informed decisions about their own hybrid management.
What the inquiry found
First, hybrid working's impact on productivity appears to be limited. The inquiry concluded that it's best to assess hybrid work on a case-by-case basis, looking at what is suitable in particular industries, jobs and personal circumstances.
On the other hand, remote and hybrid working shows real benefits in terms of raising employment rates, particularly for those who find it difficult to commit to full-time site-based working. This could include disabled people and parents of young children, for example.
Giving evidence to the inquiry, one employment expert estimated that hybrid working offered a potential labour supply gain of 1-2%, with real potential to enhance UK productivity. This is relevant to the government's commitment to address economic inactivity, set out in its Get Britain Working white paper.
Another area where hybrid working could benefit employers is in terms of retention and recruitment. In the report, it was estimated that this could save employers between £7 billion and £10 billion every year. But there was an important exception to this. New starters can benefit from more in-person time at their workplace during inductions.
The inquiry also observed that employers' main concern was losing opportunities for staff collaboration. But this misses an important point. Well-managed hybrid work - which coordinates so-called "anchor days" when teams get together in person - offers exactly these opportunities for workplace relationships to thrive.
And perhaps it can even do so better than full-time office work, when these interactions could be ad hoc and irregular. The inquiry pointed to the "best of both worlds" offer that hybrid working made to organisations. It noted that the potential for technology to support collaboration is under-used. As digital platforms continue to evolve, it seems likely that hybrid working can become increasingly effective.
But given that organisations appear to be concerned about collaboration, they could use this to acknowledge and incentivise employees. For example, appraisals could recognise the collaborative work (such as mentoring) that often goes unnoticed within organisations.
The inquiry also took an interest in headline-grabbing return-to-office mandates. It found that the codification of office days in mandates (along the lines of "staff must be in the office four days a week") represented a trade-off by employers between collaborative benefits and staff satisfaction. Blanket mandates fail to address the gap between employees' and employers' office preferences - and the reasons underpinning these. Unaddressed, this could cause employment relations problems.
On a practical note, after the COVID disruption some organisations have rethought their workplace needs, with the result that they now have insufficient space for genuine collaboration. Colleagues and I are finding in our ongoing research that seat-booking systems can leave workers unable to sit with their teams when they attend the office. This clearly negates the benefits of in-person days.
A more forward-looking approach is to redesign offices in a way that better reflects the needs of collaborative work. This could include creating bespoke meeting places, more differentiated individual working spaces, and the development of hybrid policy alongside inclusive office design.
The inquiry has taken into account the views of a wide range of people, providing an important and accessible review of the evidence at a key time when many organisations are reviewing their hybrid work policy. It offers a wealth of insight as to how employers can adapt and refine their hybrid working practice to achieve both productivity and happy workers.
Jane Parry receives funding from the ESRC.
