Hybrid working: promises under pressure

Expert

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, hybrid working has become the norm in many organisations. It generally involves one to three days of remote working per week, with the rest of the time spent in offices that have been redesigned as flexible, unassigned spaces; employees equipped with digital tools and multiple communication channels; and formalised rules for the use of spaces and technologies. These transformations are often accompanied by change management measures, such as workshops on hybrid working, and supported by top-down communication relayed by employee representatives. The whole process is part of a discourse promising agility, modernity, cross-functionality, enhanced collaboration and a better work-life balance.

However, far from fully delivering on these promises, hybrid working can give rise to friction and tension. This is highlighted in a longitudinal study conducted in an organisation that has implemented this way of working (Hasbi & van Marrewijk, 2024). The results show that these tensions are not a matter of individual resistance that needs to be eradicated. Rather, they are tell-tale signs of different expectations, heterogeneous practices and routines, and sometimes contradictory needs. The challenge, therefore, is not to eliminate them, but to recognise them and develop appropriate management and learning methods.

 

Four key tensions at the heart of hybrid work

1. Being connected without being extremely connected

The proliferation of digital tools and communication channels, initially designed to promote remote collaboration and connectivity, can paradoxically lead to information overload and hyperconnectivity. In the case studied, virtual availability and responsiveness have gradually become the implicit norm, to the detriment of the time needed for complex cognitive tasks and maintaining clear boundaries between work and private life. Some employees even interpreted excessive demands during teleworking days as a form of managerial control. Faced with this paradox, they developed self-regulation strategies, such as creating artificially “busy” slots, in order to preserve periods of concentration.

2. Promoting agility without disrupting sedentary routines

The redesign of offices into agile, unassigned workspaces, based on clean desk rules and the provision of collaborative spaces, is intended to promote mobility and physical movement. However, the study in question reveals a marked divide in the way these spaces are experienced. While a minority of employees see them as a symbol of modernity and a lever for physical well-being, the majority perceive them as detrimental to productivity, spontaneous collaboration and the human need for sedentary behaviour. These divergent perceptions have led to informal adjustments and even circumvention of the rules governing the use of these spaces, such as the manipulation of motion sensors in order to appropriate a workstation and thus recreate sedentary routines.

3. Dematerialising without eliminating paper

Although dematerialisation is associated with modernity and environmental concerns, many employees surveyed in the study expressed a strong attachment to paper. It is perceived as an essential medium for memorising, reflecting, structuring thoughts and stimulating creativity. Some also mentioned visual fatigue linked to intensive use of screens. This tension has led to compromises, with employees combine paper and digital tools depending on the nature of the tasks to be performed.

4. Teleworking without replicating the routine of on-site work

In the case studied, despite managerial intentions to make teleworking strictly equivalent to on-site work, employees clearly distinguished between the two modes of working, while expressing an increased need for flexibility in choosing when and where to telework. Teleworking is preferred for activities requiring concentration and autonomy, while on-site work is associated with strategic meetings, teamwork, peer collaboration, informal learning and socialising.

 

Rethinking hybrid work as a process of adjusting to tensions

One lesson is clear: hybrid work is not a universal model that is fixed and transferable from one organisation to another. The tensions observed — whether they concern connectivity, agility, dematerialisation or the articulation between on-site and remote work — are not temporary anomalies. They reflect structural paradoxes inherent in the coexistence of sometimes contradictory rationales: connectivity and the right to disconnect, autonomy and coordination, agility and sedentary lifestyles.

In this context, the central question for organisations is no longer how to deploy hybrid working, but how to learn to develop it. This requires adopting a logic of continuous adjustment and experimentation based on employees' experiences, thereby breaking with a normative approach to hybrid work. Spaces, time and digital tools can no longer be designed as definitive and fixed resources, but rather as dynamic and flexible ones, to be adjusted to the experiences and needs of employees.

 

Source:

Hasbi, M. M., & van Marrewijk, A. (2024). Navigating tensions in the organisational change process towards hybrid workspace. Journal of Change Management, 24(4), 275-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2024.2379253

 

Biography:

Marie Hasbi is a doctoral researcher at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research focuses on the daily lives of hybrid and nomadic workers. Marie has published her research in leading international academic journals such as Organization Studies.

Release date: February 2026