TOPIC NAME

EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE LEVELS

IN HYBRID WORK MODEL

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

SL.NO CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 STAGE-1
2 INTRODUCTION 4 – 12

3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13 - 17

4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 18

5 RESEARCH METHODLOGY 19 - 26

6 STAGE-2
7 DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION 27 - 50

8 STAGE-3
9 FINDINGS 52

10 SUGGESTIONS 53

11 CONCLUSION 54

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY 55 - 56

13 QUESTIONARIES 57 - 61

2
 STAGE-1
INTRODUCTION

3
 INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has changed the way people work and where they work. These key alterations, as
well as some of the chain responses triggered by the huge departure from the workplace, were
emphasised by research participants.

Hybrid employment for non-essential personnel is on the rise everywhere:

Hybrid work grew across the board in March 2020 across all of the companies in our
research. What was formerly an earned privilege exclusively accessible to strong achievers
and critical talent, depending mostly on management comfort, was now the sole way for non-
essential personnel to work. Employees who were not considered necessary, but whose
employment needed them to be present, were sent home on an indefinite basis. The epidemic
forced businesses to accelerate digital transformation projects that had been years in the
making. Digital literacy using platforms like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and Yammer became a
basic competence for non-essential workers as organisations with workforces of 2,000 to
more than 150,000 became virtual virtually overnight.

Changing the narrative on productivity: While hybrid work has long been on workers' wish
lists, senior executives were concerned that productivity would suffer in this environment.
Prior to the pandemic, around two-thirds of the firms we spoke with said that their top
leadership team was opposed to hybrid work. Approximately half of the firms also said that
the office's goal was to allow for in-person communication and encourage innovation, both of
which were previously thought to be harmed by hybrid work. The outcome, much to the
amazement of many, was the polar opposite. Productivity did not only remain constant, but
really increased after the epidemic.

Concerns about mental health and staff well-being have grown:

Employee productivity increased mostly as a consequence of their working longer hours1.

Additional meetings have taken the place of time spent travelling to and from the workplace.
This was especially true for workers who cared for others outside of work. Companies placed
a high focus on ensuring workers' work/life balance. This put even more strain on middle
managers, who were expected to meet pre-epidemic goals while also implementing,
explaining, and executing new organisational activities in response to the pandemic. The
tension produced by COVID-19 was felt by employees across the board and at all levels of

4
the organisation; yet, this shared experience served as an uniting factor that prompted
conversations that would not have happened otherwise.

Maintaining and improving cultural fluency is emphasised:

Employees in our study's companies said they liked the flexibility of hybrid work, but they
missed the informal contacts that came with being in the office. Employees sought for
strategies to retain their personal relationships once "water cooler talks" were abruptly
abandoned. New workers fought to assimilate the culture of their new firms, while incumbent
workers battled to maintain existing ties.

Employees with less experience found it difficult to "catch the scent" of their firms, teams,
and the speed of work. Senior executives responded by introducing programmes and
encouraging managers to create techniques to assist reduce the cultural erosion they believed
would occur when Hybrid work was extended.

Performance evaluation has received a lot of attention in recent years from academics and
practitioners in both the public and private sectors as a tool for managing and regulating
organisations. Performance measurement is becoming an increasingly important feature of
public service management and is a key component of public sector performance
management systems.

The focus of public service performance has shifted from outputs to outcomes in the
measurement of units of production and activity. At the core of the performance management
system is the relevance of employee performance in achieving organisational objectives.
Individual employee performance is a key concept in work and organisational psychology,
and researchers have made significant progress in defining and developing it.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the variables that impact employee performance
satisfaction in the public sector of Brunei Darussalam, which is situated on the island of
Borneo's northern coast. Data was gathered from Brunei's public sector personnel, with an
emphasis on how the country's public sector views and measures performance.

5
According to a corpus of empirical research, effective performance evaluations lead to a
range of major work outcomes, including higher employee productivity and quality, job
satisfaction, devotion, and trust. One research, for example, looked at the relationship
between performance evaluations and salesperson performance and found that "properly
performed performance evaluations may have beneficial performance benefits."

In a study of North Carolina Municipal Government workers, Daley identified "a robust
association between performance assessment systems that have been implemented as a
method of implementing pay-for-performance schemes and the productivity incentives that
these systems give." In Kenya's Mumias Sugar Company, Omusebe et al (2013) revealed a
favourable and significant association between performance evaluation and workforce
efficiency.

Performance assessment satisfaction is defined as an employee's belief that his or her

performance assessments reflect activities that help the organisation, and it is considered the
most essential of all the criteria that determine how employees respond to assessment
feedback. Furthermore, a number of authors have addressed basic conceptual difficulties
concerning the meaning of performance evaluation satisfaction, while others have asserted
that positive assessment responses are essential for performance evaluation to have a
beneficial impact on employee behaviour and future progress.

Otherwise, each and every assessment will be a failure. Despite the fact that performance
appraisal satisfaction is the most commonly measured appraisal reaction and that there is
extensive research on factors that contribute to performance appraisal satisfaction or other
reactions, empirical evidence on how and why performance appraisal satisfaction matters is
still lacking. While reviewing performance assessment studies, Levy and Williams (2004)
advocated for further field research on the relation between performance evaluation responses
and employee attitudes and behaviours.

6
According to Den Hartog et al., the impact of individual and group performance on
organisational performance is "primarily assumed rather than examined," and "understanding
and altering individual performance involves knowing the organisational context in which it
occurs." According to numerous academics, performance evaluation is also vital for
successful human resource management as well as organisational productivity and
effectiveness.

Individual life experiences, motivation levels, socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge,

attitudes, beliefs, and behavioural patterns may all have a part in the greatness and success of
an organisation. Researchers and practitioners must learn as much as possible about the
determinants of employee performance in order for management to understand individual
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours as contributing factors in achieving organisational
objectives.

In western developed countries, research has shown a shift from a micro-analytical to a

macro-strategic approach, but the micro level approach in a country like Brunei has yet to be
investigated. According to the macro-strategic approach, performance management is
strategic at the organisational level, both team and individual, and it is connected with
organisational strategy.

Employee performance is often rewarded, and performance evaluation and incentive

compensation are typically utilised in combination. In their study of commercial and non-
profit firms, Delaney and Huselid observed a “positive relationship between human resource
management approaches such as training and staffing selectivity and perceived business
success measures.”

Micro-analytical research on the relationship between employee behaviours and performance,

on the other hand, has stimulated interest in the literature on performance management,
particularly in Western countries. According to research, there is a relation between
performance and personal characteristics such as motivation, devotion, and work pleasure, as
well as the implementation of performance-related remuneration. Inter-relationships between
performance and leadership factors, as well as team factors, are comparable.

7
Employee performance and organisational or workplace environment, as well as
organisational learning, have been linked in study. As a consequence, the whole organisation
is vertically and horizontally aligned. This study might be seen as a chance to validate and
broaden findings from studies of organisational and individual performance conducted in
Western countries to a non-Western environment.

Earlier studies of employee performance focused on methodological aspects of the concept of

individual level performance. This study Endeavour makes an important contribution to the
area of performance management and measurement by providing approaches and techniques
for obtaining credible and practically applicable performance-related data.

This provided a platform for academics and practitioners to explore and find a wide range of
performance-related data applications. Some western academics have gone a step further by
highlighting the importance of employee performance in terms of organisational performance
and effectiveness. Brunei has yet to explore the influence of employee performance
assessment on organisational performance and effectiveness.

The Brunei public sector was selected for research because little is known about the micro-
analytical approach to individual performance, much alone the macro-strategic approach to
organisational performance, not just in Brunei's public sector, but also in Brunei as a whole.

Brunei, the size of Delaware in the United States, is home to one of the world's oldest ruling
families. Brunei's social and political life is centred on the Malay Islamic Monarchy concept,
and the kingdom has been greatly influenced by a dominant Malay culture that it shares with
Malaysia and Indonesia. Other eastern cultures, on the other hand, are less well-known in
intercultural schools, one of which being Malay culture, which receives the bulk of study in
eastern cultural studies.

8
Some researchers claim that Malay culture is marked by "courteousness, self-effacement, and
avoiding a conflict whenever possible." For the author, it's intriguing to examine how
Brunei's collectivist and high power-distance society influences human resource management
practises like performance management. The government employs around 30% of the
Bruneian population, the bulk of whom are Malays, and is the country's biggest official
employer. In other words, excellent governance is required, and Brunei is no different.

Because little is now known about the micro-analytical approach to individual performance,
much alone the macro-strategic approach to organisational performance, not only in Brunei's
public sector, but also in Brunei as a whole, the Brunei public sector was chosen for study.

Brunei, which is about the size of Delaware in the United States, is home to one of the
world's longest-running reigning families. The Sultanate of Brunei's social and political life is
based on the notion of Malay Islamic Monarchy, and the kingdom has been heavily impacted
by a dominating Malay culture, which it shares with Malaysia and Indonesia. The majority of
study in eastern cultural studies focuses on.

Brunei's policy-making machinery is the civil service, and the public sector serves not only as
a governing authority and a development facilitator, but also as a supplier of public goods and
services. Strong governance is both required and critical in this situation. As countries
become more competitive in the global market, governments all over the world have realised
the necessity for more flexible, dynamic, and responsive public sector organisations. For
increasingly complex organisations, stronger management systems, strategic human resource
development, better economic and policy management, and stronger financial control are all
necessary.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The relevance of evaluation responses in the establishment of good work and organisational
attitudes, as well as the drive to enhance performance, has been underlined by researchers.
All of the assessment responses have been scrutinised, but the satisfaction with the
performance assessment process has been the most scrutinised. But why is it critical to be
pleased with a performance evaluation? It's because there's a significant link between
appraisal effectiveness and assessment process satisfaction.

9
Because appraisals are designed to assist firms in retaining, motivating, and developing their
employees (Mount, 1983), those who are dissatisfied with the process have a little chance of
attaining these objectives. If rates are unsatisfied or think the system is unfair, they will be
less likely to use performance evaluations as feedback to improve their performance.

The study's core concept is that satisfaction with performance reviews is treated as an
outcome variable. As a consequence, the study's emphasis is on how satisfied people are with
the assessment system, particularly among Brunei's governmental servants. The second
assumption is that performance assessment satisfaction is a function of a set of independent
factors that influence the dynamics of the outcome variable. The relevance of individual level
performance is reflected in workplace and organisational psychology research.

Sonnentag (2002, p.4) found that “roughly half (54.8 percent) of 146 meta-analyses published
in the previous 20 years included individual performance as a main construct.” In the
majority of meta-analyses, individual performance was the dependent variable or outcome
measure (72.5 percent). In around 6% of meta-analyses that included individual performance
assessments, individual performance was the independent or predictive variable. In 21% of
the meta-analyses, “performance assessment and performance measurement issues” were
addressed. As indicated by the widespread use of individual performance indicators in meta-
analyses, individual performance is a critical variable in work and organisational progress.
It's worth mentioning that assessment response is mostly treated as a dependent variable,
which makes sense from a practical standpoint given that businesses want to enhance and
optimise individual performance.

Because performance evaluation is considered one of the most important human resource
tasks and is one of the most actively researched subjects in work psychology, construct
validity of performance measures is critical (Fletcher, 2002). The convergent validity of
performance measures is equally important to academics and practitioners; the former value
hypothesis test validity and theory construction, while the latter value appropriately assessing
employee performance to optimise limited resources.

10
According to a previous research, public sector performance metrics are multi-dimensional.
This is owing to the fact that public organisations must manage a wide range of objectives,
some of which may be at odds. The public sector's indicators and goals include a broad
variety of performance measures, including output volume, quality, efficiency, and outcomes,
as well as effectiveness.

Furthermore, as a service provider, the public sector will have issues in assessing key
performance metrics such as customer satisfaction, service delivery, and service quality, as
well as the importance of public service motivation for the success of public organisations.
Finding the right elements for performance evaluation is a conundrum that has bedevilled
both public and private sector enterprises. Landy and Farr (1983) separated subjective and
objective performance data (non-judgemental measures).

For more than three decades, academics have debated the merits of subjective vs objective
performance metrics. Several academics agree, however, that studies of the determinants of
success in government organisations have used both objective and subjective measurements
of success.

In a similar vein, the use of reward-based performance metrics as indicators of employee

effectiveness has to be investigated further. Among the scholars who have identified and
analysed the relative significance of the elements and metrics that impact performance,
particularly at the organisational level in the private sector, are Armstrong and Baron (1998),
Murphy and Cleveland (1995), and Tziner et al. (1998). The complexity of the public sector,
on the other hand, is underappreciated.

This entails the use of team-based and incentive-based metrics, which many companies have
adopted. There is presently no evidence that team-based measures provide a better
representation of employee performance. Furthermore, other researchers, such as Bannister
and Balkin (1990), Heneman (1990), and Marsden and Richardson (1994), have questioned
whether awards and pay-for-performance really promote organisational commitment,
effectiveness, and job satisfaction.

11
The core notion of performance is described as multi-dimensional and "culture-bound" (Rao,
2004). (Aycan, 2005). As a consequence, managers and workers in different cultures may
judge performance differently, resulting in both inter-cultural and intra-cultural differences in
performance interpretation. As a consequence, one may expect an emphasis on individual
effort and successes in an individualistic culture, requiring the usage of objective and
quantitative performance measurements (Harris and Moran, 1996).

In a highly individualistic culture, employees are promoted and rewarded primarily on their
own achievements, with a focus on immediate action and reward. The emphasis is on
autonomy, freedom, independence, and self-reliance. In collectivist cultures, on the other
hand, cultural processes tend to highlight the significance of one's reliance on others.
Furthermore, collectivist civilizations prioritise group loyalty, conformity, and harmonious
relationships more than other civilizations. The emphasis is on groups in this case.

Many organisations, which are formed on coherent groups, place little emphasis on individual
jobs. Because performance is seen differently in various cultures, it is clear that performance
must be developed, analysed, and managed in line with the local context, with employee
behaviours and attitudes included into the performance management cycle. As a
consequence, the issue of cultural compatibility developed.

12
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
These research projects cover design (Wisniewski and Olafsson, 2004), implementation
(Collier, 2006), and usage (Wisniewski and Olafsson, 2004). (Ho and Chan, 2002). At the
same time, performance measurement studies cover a wide range of public organizations,
including federal governments (Petrovsky and Ritz, 2014), health care organizations (Model,
2001; Fan et al, 2014), municipal governments (Ho and Chan, 2002), universities (Analoui,
2002; Model, 2003; Decramer et al, 2013), and police departments (Analoui, 2002; Model,
2003; Decramer et al, 2013), and police departments (An (Collier, 2006).

Many of these studies illustrate that balanced performance measurement may be used in
government organizations as well (Ho and Chan, 2002; Wisniewski and Olafsson, 2004). In
the public sector, performance assessment systems are critical because they may be used to
assess how well human resources or personnel are providing the needed or expected service.

As a result, performance management systems are not just at the tail end of encouraging good
governance, but also at the front end of the service delivery process (Agere and Jorm, 2000).
As a result, it is the responsibility of each country to develop an acceptable performance
management system, which involves needs analysis, implementation, and assessment, as well
as the creation of acceptable performance appraisal tools. Instruments should be open and
objective in this regard, demonstrating the level of responsibility (Ibid).

However, there are two major concerns in the long-running dispute about the proper approach
to gauge public sector performance. To begin with, performance is a multi-dimensional
concept that encompasses quality, effectiveness, responsiveness, equality, and efficiency. In
the literature on public administration, these characteristics are becoming more widely
understood. Second, depending on the stakeholder group, perceptions on what constitutes
high levels of organizational performance are likely to differ.

Both external and internal stakeholders are included in these main stakeholder categories.
Dixit (2002) claims that the public sector's key differentiating trait is the presence of many

13
principles and stakeholders, which determines the best performance assessment and incentive
structure. Furthermore, as a service provider, the public sector will face challenges
quantifying key performance indicators such as customer satisfaction and service quality, as
well as human resources being calculative receptors with discretion over their effort and thus
requiring constant monitoring and direction toward the organization's goals (Neely, et al.,
2007).

Another significant measuring difficulty is defining what the government organization truly
generates; in other words, the question of production vs. result, or efficiency vs.
effectiveness. Chan (2004) demonstrated that assessing outcomes is more challenging than
monitoring production by using the balanced scorecard methodology. As a result, Chan
(2004) and Pollanen (2005) found that Canadian municipal governments employed more
output (efficiency) than outcome (effectiveness) indicators.

Furthermore, Guthrie and English (1997, p.155) said that “in the public sector, the
mechanism for the distribution of commodities and services does not follow the market.” The
existing competing stakeholder requirements, as well as the difficulties of assessing results,
add to the underlying issues with public sector performance assessment. In a similar vein, the
nature of goals in public organizations has long been a point of contention (Rainey, 2003).
The discussion is centered on the clarity of goals in public organizations, as well as the
implications of unclear goals.

Chun and Rainey (2005) used the instance of thirty-two US federal agencies to build on key
work that had studied the causes and performance implications of goal ambiguity, and found
evidence for the significance of clear goals and objectives for public organizations. Clear
goals, according to Chun and Rainey, can decrease procedural rules, promote
decentralization, and boost reward anticipation and work satisfaction.

Pandey and Moynihan (2006) investigated bureaucratic red tape and organizational
performance, concluding that "red tape does have a detrimental influence on organizational

14
performance." However, their findings revealed that if there is a strong development culture
and political backing, a rise in red tape is linked to greater performance, implying that
organizations adapt to comparable limitations in different ways. So, what is the purpose of
performance management, particularly in the context of managing individual performance in
the public sector? The main goal is to contribute to the attainment of organizational success
in broad terms.

However, while most performance management systems involve a lot of components, what is
the advantage to the individual employee? Employee performance, in general, refers to
behaviors that are important to organizational goals and are in the control of individual
employees, according to Campbell et al. Organizational performance is the whole sum of the
individual employees in that organization, since they are groups of individuals working
together to achieve specified goals and objectives.

To get a clear image of performance management and assessment in the actual world, the
author did a literature search on performance management surveys and discovered relevant
results in a 2004 London-based CIPD research study. Despite the fact that this study did not
focus only on the public sector, but rather on both the public and private sectors, it
highlighted essential characteristics and factors of performance management. A total of 506
people took part in the CIPD poll.

The following are the key findings from the survey: 87 percent used a formal performance
management process; 62 percent used objective-setting; 31 percent used competence
assessment; 59 percent gave an overall performance rating; 79 percent linked individual and
organizational objectives; 31 percent had performance-related pay; 75 percent agreed that
performance management motivates employees. 95 percent believed that performance
management would only succeed if it combined individual and organizational goals; 96
percent believed that performance management should be about motivating individuals; 94
percent believed that performance management is an important tool in managing
organizational culture; and 84 percent believed that quantifiable performance measures are
necessary. ‘Achievement of objectives' (94 percent), ‘competence' (93 percent), ‘productivity'

15
(83 percent), and ‘aligning personal aims with organizational goals' (77 percent) were all
recognized as ‘very significant' or ‘important' measuring criteria by respondents.

So, what do the survey's findings suggest? The findings point to the need of having objective
and quantitative measurements of employee performance, as well as the requirement for such
measurements to be linked to awards and competency assessments. Simultaneously,
performance management must be used as a tool for managing and integrating organizational
culture within organizations.

Although performance can be conceptualized and measured at broader levels (i.e. group,
organization and industry), this research study will focus, however, on individual level
performance, particularly on satisfaction with the appraisal system. Individual work
performance, according to Campbell et al. (1993), refers to an employee's actions that are
directed at achieving organizational goals.

Although studies have shown that certain types of individual performance can contribute to
the performance outcomes of units of analysis beyond the individual, such as work groups
(Podsakoff, et al., 1997) and organizations, the concept of individual job performance is
distinct from group and organizational performance (Ostroff, 1992). Individual performance,
according to Brewer (2005), was a strong and substantial predictor of federal agency success
in the United States.

In a research on public service motivation for the performance of public organizations in the
Swiss federal government, Petrovsky and Ritz (2014) discovered that public service
motivation is positively connected with performance in both individual-level and aggregated
data analysis. However, presuming the organization has been able to choose which
performance dimensions it will include in a performance management system; it must now
decide what kind of dimensions to include and how those dimensions will be monitored.

16
According to Fowler (1990), performance characteristics are often picked not because they
are the most important to the organization, but because they are the easiest to assess. This was
also mirrored in a prior CIPD outcome poll, which stated that having an objective and
quantitative assessment of individual performance was critical. However, understanding
some of the foundation ideas of performance management is necessary in order to assess the
holistic picture of performance management.

17
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To study the impact of hybrid work model on employees.

2. To measure the performance levels of the employees.

3. The evaluation of working hours and efficiency of work.

4. To examine relationship b/w employees perceptions and performance level in hybrid

work model.

18
RESEARCH METHODLOGY

The findings of this study were based on interviews conducted during the months of October
and November 2020. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and followed a
consistent structur. Participants were asked questions from a pre- designed interview
template, which focused on the prevalence of Hybrid work arrangements prior to and during
COVID-19, the benefits and challenges associated with the shift to Hybrid work, and how the
company envisioned hybrid work at their organizations moving forward.

CAHRS partner companies who participated in the study selected representatives who could
best speak to how their company was adapting to and responding to the new way work was
being done. Once the representatives were identified the research assistants reached out to
schedule the interview and provided them with the interview questions ahead of time.

The titles of the participants varied in seniority, ranging from Senior Business Partner, Heads
of functions, Senior Vice President, and Chief Human Resources Officer. The participating
organizations represented numerous industries (see Appendix page 21). Due to sample size,
industry-effects were not examined. Following the completion of each interview, the newly
obtained qualitative data was transferred into a master excel spreadsheet for further analysis.
Insights from an extensive literature review were also included as a supplement to the data
compiled from the interviews.

We identified two common traits within company cultures that enabled wide-spread hybrid
work:

1. Leadership buy-in:

Senior leadership at proactive companies was changing their tone around Hybrid work and
developed confidence that productivity would not waver in this setting. They recognize that
performance is not correlated with time in the office. This shift gained momentum when

19
communication was coupled with transparency. It was paramount that leadership engaged in
frequent, honest communication about their view of Hybrid work and the value they felt the
virtual and physical workplace settings provide. Transparent conversations became the
standard across these organizations. Teams saw trust increase and micromanaging decrease.

2. New perspective on work:

These companies adapted the way they thought about work and transformed their cultures to
focus on results as opposed to process. In other words, they valued the work that was
completed as opposed to where or how it was getting done. Companies who were best
prepared for the shift to Hybrid work had become performance- and deliverable-based
companies. Work outputs were being evaluated based on their impact as opposed to
mandating that antiquated processes were followed. This cultural transformation was driven
by bottom-up feedback as companies were much more deliberate in how they measured
employee engagement.

During the Pandemic

All 18 participant companies initiated Hybrid work for the majority of their employee
populations between January and March. Although all companies had varying numbers of
“essential employees” who needed the physical workspace to complete their work (e.g.,
manufacturing, Research & Development), the pandemic essentially turned the majority of
their workforce into a virtual one overnight.

Long-term Hybrid work has allowed participant companies to observe and measure the
benefits and challenges of Hybrid work on their employee population and implement
solutions to address the challenges.

20
CATEGORIES:

a. Transformation of technology:

As companies shifted to Hybrid work virtually overnight, rapid technological transformation

and adoption were imperative. Technology-related initiatives, such as the adoption of
Microsoft Teams or digital collaborative tools that had been on the back burner became
implemented and widely utilized overnight. Participants also noted that their organizations’
digital infrastructure and data security systems were rapidly fortified to ensure the success of
Hybrid work.

b. Transformation of processes and policies:

Old inefficient processes and ineffective policies were ruthlessly removed or changed as
Hybrid work called for quick decision-making and efficient crisis management. Enabling
large scale Hybrid work also necessitated the development of new processes and policies,
which HR played a leading role in.

c. Transformation of teams and organizations:

As responding to the real-time ebbs and flows of the pandemic and business necessities
became the collective top priority, new “taskforce” teams spanning multiple departments and
roles came together with relative ease compared to the pre-pandemic days, where
organizational hierarchies and teams were much more rigid. Existing teams also found new
ways of collaborating and operating, as the realities of the pandemic provided permission for
greater agility and flexibility.

Participants pointed out that many of these transformative initiatives would have required a
long process of getting buy-in from senior leadership, pilot programs, and other grueling
change management processes in the pre-pandemic times. More dispersed decision-making
capabilities, increased agility and willingness to take risks, had enabled successful
transformations. For example, a couple of companies successfully accelerated and
implemented their digital sales systems and strategies, which had been stagnating as a
potentially important but low-priority strategy.

21
 Other frequently mentioned benefits included an organizational increase in compassion and
empathy and a flattened organizational hierarchy as Hybrid work put “everyone on a level
playing field” and made accessing senior leaders easier.

Overall, the key theme unifying the benefits participants mentioned was that this large-scale
Hybrid work acted as a catalyst for transforming organizational culture. As organizations
mature, their organizational identities and beliefs can calcify. While consistency and stability
in these beliefs are critical to the development of a unique organizational culture, these can
also become barriers to innovation and change.

The beliefs participant companies held about their organizations prior to COVID-19, the
ways in which COVID-19 acted as a “myth buster” for these beliefs, and the long-term
positive cultural impact are summarized in the table below.

Before the Pandemic During the Pandemic Sustained Positive Gains

Hybrid work will lead to Hybrid work can, in fact,

decreased productivity boost productivity

As a major global company with Major changes and decisions can be

complex organizational structures
and
work processes, agility and quick
decision-making are not core
competencies
Cultural transformation
made quickly and effectively,
especially
when more people are empowered to
make decisions ● Increase in trust
● Flattened hierarchy
Risk-taking and forgoing the ● Changing perspective on
“compulsion to have all the data and work
knowledge” can be beneficial

Employee performance and

productivity are measured best when
employees are physically present in Performance is measured by the

22
 impact
the office with their teams and the work has - in or out of the office
Manager.

It is important to note that these realizations were largely enabled by the rapid transformation
and implementation of technology, processes, and policies that participant companies noted
as a major salient benefit of Hybrid work.

The challenge companies now face is sustaining the positive cultural changes once the
pandemic ends. Once organizations start to “return to work” and their old ways of working,
the positive cultural impact companies mentioned can easily atrophy away. Participant
companies noted that finding ways to codify and develop these positive “pandemic
learning’s” will be an area where HR will be called upon to take a major leading role.

Taking the Plunge: Committing to Long-term Hybrid Work

The 41% of companies that have proactively committed to long-term hybrid work are doing
so in various ways. Below are three major approaches these companies are taking and their
main incentives for doing so.

1. Changing the physical workspace: A couple of companies have either already moved
office to smaller and less-costly locations. Others have begun to consider different workplace
designs - based on a predicted decrease in “in-office” employees - by increasing co-working
spaces while decreasing private office space and desk space. The main incentive here is the
potential cost-savings from smaller real estate footprints.

2. Piloting hybrid work arrangements: These companies have begun to pilot hybrid work
arrangements within teams or in other countries where more employees have returned to the
physical office. The intention and incentive of these pilot programs are to gather long-term
data on the impact of hybrid work on employee productivity and engagement when: 1)

23
certain team members are Hybrid while others are not, and 2) Hybrid work is an option rather
than a public health-mandated necessity.

3. Re-categorizing jobs based on how much in-office work is required: These companies
have begun to re-categorize all their jobs based on how much of the work requires the
physical workplace. For example, while jobs in manufacturing or R&D might require the
physical workspace at all times, some corporate functions can be done entirely remotely. This
approach allows companies to diversify their talent acquisition strategy, as they are no longer
as geographically limited in seeking new talent. This approach may also allow for a much
larger and systematic transformation of the workforce. One of the participant companies, for
example, decided to transform a large team of customer support employees from entirely
office-based to entirely Hybridmoving forward.

Navigating Uncertainty

Thus far, the media has tended to focus on companies that have boldly embraced “100%
Hybrid work” commitments, providing perhaps an overinflated perspective of Hybridand
hybrid work in the future. In reality, all participant companies - even the ones making
proactive commitments - were much more measured in their approach, for three major
reasons:

1. Current model is not sustainable: What is working well about Hybrid work is working
because non-Hybrid work is not an option. Employees and organizations, to put it simply,
have no choice but to “make Hybrid work.” Increasing burnout and fatigue rates already
suggest current Hybrid work practices may be unsustainable. Furthermore, once Hybrid work
becomes optional again, navigating the benefits and challenges of Hybrid work will become
more complex.

2. Implications of Hybrid work are unknown: We still only have short-term experience
and data on Hybrid work: Although Hybrid work has continued for nearly a year, data that
would help clarify the long-term implications of Hybrid work remains limited. For example,

24
how would Hybrid work impact diversity and equity? How would Hybrid work impact the
long-term performance and growth of early-in-career employees? These critical talent
questions are not ones that can be answered based on companies’ Hybrid work experiences
and data through COVID-19.

3. Formal decisions have yet to be made: Communicating a long-term hybrid work

strategy to employees now, when so many factors remain uncertain, does not provide space
or flexibility to change. Companies were wary about announcing hybrid work commitments
to employees in such uncertain times, as any changes would create additional confusion, and
more importantly, damage employees’ trust in their organization.

Ultimately, there is no singular “best” form of Hybrid work arrangements. The continued
ebbs and flows of COVID-19 infection rates and their impact on business performance and
company finances add several layers of complexity. The Hybrid work arrangements that will
work best will depend heavily on each company’s unique culture, structure, enabling policies,
processes, technology, and buy-in from senior leadership. Even within a company, the best
form of Hybrid work arrangements may and most likely will vary from team to team or from
region to region.

Amidst this uncertainty, participant companies discussed several key questions they are
asking their leaders, employees, and stakeholders to decide what form(s) of Hybrid work will
work best, not just in the next three to six months, but for sustainable and impactful change.

Below, we have captured some of the most salient questions for HR leaders to start taking a
lead on asking and answering:

1. What additional data should we be tracking to predict and understand the long-term
impact of large-scale Hybrid work (e.g., talent acquisition, employee engagement, employee
growth, employee attrition and turnover)?

25
2. What factors or potential mitigation strategies must be considered to ensure that
Hybrid work does not create or exacerbate inadvertent inequities (e.g., gender, race,
generations, and job functions/teams)?

3. How do we ensure we do not lose the positive cultural gains from Hybrid work?

4. How do we find the right alignment between what employees want with business
realities and what senior leadership wants?

5. How will we message the “value proposition” of our long-term Hybrid work approach
to senior leadership and employees?

26
 STAGE-2
DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

27
Thematic analysis is presented in this chapter for both the year 2000 and the years 2019 and
2020. It explains how the components are classified into subcategories and primary
categories, as well as how the graphs are organized. Each category is shown with a few
representative essential variables. As an appendix, there are charts that show all of the
elements. For the years 2019–2020, a thematic analysis has been conducted.

After extracting all of the elements from articles published in 2019 and 2020, two graphs
were created: one for elements that have a positive impact on productivity and another for
variables that have a negative impact on productivity. Each element is mentioned in a
subcategory that is part of a larger category.

While Organizational Factors and Employee-Related Factors are the two primary groups in
both charts, there are also Home-Related Factors and Others. Each primary category has
subcategories.

Under Organizational Elements, there are two subcategories that display factors that have a
favorable impact on productivity: Transportation-related and organizational-related. Work-
Life balance and flexibility, employee characteristics, psychological and communicational
factors are the four divisions under Employee-related Factors.

Organizational variables include things like organizational support, greater salary, and job
benefits. They also include transportation-related benefits such as reduced commuting
expenses and time, as well as the ability to work longer hours because workers who work
from home have more time than those who work in an office since they do not have to
commute. The number of employee-related elements is higher. Some of these aspects have to
do with work-life balance and flexibility, such as employees being more comfortable and
relaxed at home (having easy access to tea, lunch, and restrooms), deciding when and where
to work on their own, and being able to manage personal concerns during office hours.
Individual characteristics have a role in influencing productivity impacts; for example, if an
employee has resilience, efficacy, and optimism, productivity rises. Other psychological

28
characteristics that impact employee happiness include intrinsic motivation, job and leisure
pleasure, and overall happiness. Finally, communicational factors must be addressed. One of
the most crucial communicational variables is adequate communication, particularly video
calls. This can be found in stories from 2019 and 2020

There are no subcategories under Organizational Elements for displaying factors that have a
negative impact on productivity. Distractions, Multitasking, Psychological, and
Communicational aspects were split into four subcategories. Under Home-related variables
and others, there are no subcategories. Not being prepared to conduct working from home
practice and having higher degrees of task dependency between workers working from home
and in-office workers are two major organizational concerns. Distractions have a significant
detrimental impact on the productivity of employees. Distracting causes include the decision
to engage in other activities during working hours, unexpected guests, Smartphone use, social
media, and pressing family matters, to name a few.

Multitasking is another barrier for home-based employment, which has become a severe
concern in the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak. Many employees are responsible for caring for
their children and ageing relatives at home without assistance. Another multitasking element
is the stress of managing work and household responsibilities. Fear of the Covid-19 outbreak,
feeling saturated from being in the same location for a long period, social and professional
isolation, and feeling detached due to social isolation are all psychological aspects to
consider. The communication subcategory of employee-related elements is the last
subcategory. Less face-to-face connection with colleagues, which enhances the impression of
being out of touch with people in the job, and a lack of teamwork benefits, such as spillover
effects from high-performing workers on other workers are two of the most critical causes.
There are further considerations associated to the employee's residence, such as increased
costs. This can be found in stories from 2019 and 2020

Factors in Perspective for the Years 2000 and 2019–2020

In the selected articles from the years 2000 to 2019 and 2020, each primary category has at
least one element impacting employee productivity both favorably and adversely.

29
Variations in the factors

While organizational and transportation-related elements are listed in both time frames,
technical, management-related, office-related, and distance-related elements are not
addressed in the primary category of organizational in the years 2019 and 2020.

While employee characteristics and psychological aspects are included in both time periods
under the major topic of Employee-related, employee sense and perception is only discussed
in papers produced in 2000. However, there are subcategories in which elements are listed in
articles written in 2019 and 2020, but not in those written in 2000. Communication, Work-
Life Balance & Flexibility, Distractions, and Multitasking are the four variables. In articles
written in both years, both home-related and other aspects are discussed.

In both time frames, only the organization-related subcategory has both positive and negative
aspects influencing employee productivity. Technical elements were stated with both positive
and negative impact among other organizational categories in the year 2000, but they are not
addressed in any way in the second time period. In the articles published in 2000, both
management-related and office-related elements with a favorable effect are stated; however
they are not featured in the articles produced in 2019 and 2020. In the first time period,
distance-related elements are only stated with their negative impact; in the second time frame,
they are not stated. In the first time period, transportation-related issues are cited as having a
negative impact, but in the second time frame, they are noted as having a positive impact.

Employee characteristics are the only component that is cited in both time frames with a
favorable impact on production. In the year 2000, the employee's sense of perception is
described with a favorable impact, but it is not stated in either aspect in the second time
period. The negative effects of psychological issues are discussed in both time periods;
however the beneficial effects are only discussed in publications published in 2019 and 2020.
Although communicational elements are not addressed in the first time frame, the second
time frame lists both positive and negative aspects. In the first time period, work-life balance

30
and flexibility variables are solely highlighted in terms of their beneficial impact. Distractions
and multitasking elements aren't stated in the first time frame, and they're not highlighted as
good elements in the second. Home-related and other elements are discussed in both positive
and negative terms in the year 2000, as well as in the years 2019 and 2020.

Presents all of the factors' categories and subcategories for the years 2000 and 2019-2020.
Positive and negative impacts are represented by the “+” and “–“marks, respectively. Blue
boxes show that the subcategory's variables are discussed in the relevant time period, either
as a positive or negative impact depending on the box's placement, whereas "n/a" indicates
that the factors are not mentioned in the relevant time frame, either as a positive or negative
effect.

A summary of the many categories and subcategories

Year Years
Category Sub-category 2000 2019 - 2020
+ - + -
Organization-related
Technical n/a n/a
Management-related n/a n/a n/a
Organizational
Office-related n/a n/a n/a
Distance-related n/a n/a n/a
Transportation-related n/a n/a
Characteristics of the employee n/a n/a
Sense perception of the employee n/a n/a n/a
Psychological n/a
Employee-
related Communicational n/a n/a
Work-life balance and flexibility n/a n/a n/a
Distractions n/a n/a n/a
Multitasking n/a n/a n/a
Home-related Home-related n/a
Others Others n/a

Pre-Pandemic: Hybrid work Spectrum

Prior to the pandemic, Hybrid work was the exception and not the norm within the majority
of organizations. Approximately two-thirds of companies indicated that Hybrid work was

31
minimally prevalent in their organizations and only 12% felt that their companies had wide-
spread Hybrid work. Almost every company we spoke with shared that they had some type of
formal flexible work policy or arrangement.

Our research found that Hybrid work came with set criteria that employees had to meet and
established processes that had to be completed in order to leverage Hybrid work:

1. Manager comfort:

Manager comfort was a common barrier that employees had to go through to leverage Hybrid
work. Comfort can be a product of the relationship between the manager and employee or the
manager’s confidence in their ability to manage remotely. This is a skill managers have built
since March, but prior to the pandemic, many managers had minimal experience executing
this because of the belief that the best work happened in the office.

2. Performance:

Employees had to be considered high performers in order to take advantage of Hybrid work.
In other words, Hybrid work was an opportunity that had to be earned as opposed to given

32
based solely on the employee’s need. Senior leadership also held onto the belief that
performance would suffer in a virtual setting, so Hybrid work was not necessarily common,
even among high performers.

3. Nature of the role:

Companies considered in what setting an employee could do their best work and be the most
productive. If the company or manager felt an employee needed to be in person then that
employee would not be able to take advantage of Hybrid work. Because of the skepticism
that existed, an employee needed to be in the right environment for the company to feel
confident their performance would not waver. Prior to the pandemic, an ideal role for
Hybridwould have required minimal collaboration and did not necessitate access to specific
equipment or tools.

4. Key talent:

When Hybrid work was offered it was often deployed as a talent retention tactic. Companies
were more likely to offer Hybrid work in order to attract or retain key talent to their
organizations. Hybrid work offerings were scattered across small pockets of the organization
for a select few. This re-emphasizes the notion that Hybrid work was the exception and not
the norm.

Many companies in our research sample had strong, relational cultures that were bolstered
through in-person collaboration and negatively impacted their perspective on Hybrid work.
Because of these perceptions, the culture of most companies was not aligned to hybrid work.
Companies fell into three buckets along our Hybrid work continuum based on their
orientation for in-office work.

33
Approximately 28% of the companies described their orientation for the office as the primary
location where the culture could be shared and where employees could do their best work.
About half of them were further along in terms of their comfort with hybrid-work
arrangements. They provided formal flexible work arrangement and hybrid-work was
occurring within some pockets of the workforce. The remaining 22% were transforming their
organizations to be better suited for hybrid work. This made the transition to universal Hybrid
work much easier as business continuity concerns and cultural barriers had been addressed.

Challenges of Hybrid work

34
While Hybrid work has had its benefits, the months-long stretch of Hybrid work has also
taken a major toll on employees. The most frequently mentioned challenges were as follows:

1. Burnout and disruption of work/life balance:

Long-term Hybrid work increased employee burnout and fatigue. Burnout has been a
growing topic of concern and discussion since before the pandemic (for example, burnout
was officially recognized by the WHO in 2019 as a medically diagnosable condition), but
Hybrid work led burnout to take on unique dimensions.

a. Whereas commuting to and from the office allows for a physical and temporal
separation between work and home, working from home dissolves this barrier, making it
more challenging to separate our lives from work. Participant companies observed that,
especially in the earlier days of the pandemic, employees were taking additional calls,
meetings, or emails before or after “normal” working days or hours and working more in
general.

b. Increased time spent on virtual calls and “back-to-back” meetings also created “Zoom
fatigue,” leading companies to seek alternative ways of collaborating that did not require
meetings.

c. Burnout from Hybrid work has been especially pronounced among working parents or
caretakers, who found they juggling work and caretaking responsibilities simultaneously
within their home environments.

2. Employee development and on boarding:

The lack of a physical office and in-person interactions made employee development and on
boarding much more challenging. Although on boarding programs had swiftly been adapted
to virtual environments, participant companies were quick to note that virtual programming

35
could never replace how the physical workplace and in-person interactions transmit culture to
new employees.

For companies that had a particularly strong “in-person work” orientation in Pre-Covid times
and for companies with a strong “grow our talent from within” mindset, the consequences of
Hybrid work on the on boarding and development of early-career talent were especially
pronounced.

3. Loss of relationships:

The attenuation of relationships and interactions was also named as a top challenge of Hybrid
work. The organic interactions, shared meals, and “water cooler chats” that happened in-
person prior to COVID-19 were made impossible with Hybrid work. Participant companies
found many creative ways to stay connected virtually, but employee relationships became
more limited to their departments and teams. In addition, as Hybrid work continued and
“Zoom fatigue” took hold, some participant companies observed that enthusiasm for these
virtual activities also faded. The desire to connect and interact with coworkers again also
seems to be an incentive for employees to return to work.

4. Loss of in-person innovation and collaboration:

Although employee productivity and ability to adapt to virtual meetings remained high,
participant companies singled out collaborative innovation as a major area of concern.
Collaborative innovation frequently took place through white boarding sessions and other in-
person meetings that allowed hands-on problem solving, brainstorming, and fast-paced
learning. This means that virtual meetings and processes served as a functional but limited
and oftentimes frustrating substitute.

Companies also observed that, in pre-COVID times, innovative ideas could come from
serendipitous one-off conversations, especially with colleagues outside of one’s regular
teams. Empirical research also suggests that these types of interactions with new people - the
power of “loose ties” - and cross-germination of ideas are conducive to innovation7. These

36
 “happy accidents,” however, disappeared with Hybrid work, as virtual meetings always
require pre-ordained scheduling and intention.

The common theme behind these challenges, similar to benefits, also seems to be about
organizational culture: What are the cultural consequences of losing the elements of the
workplace and in-person interaction that cannot be substituted or augmented with
technology?

More specifically, challenges two through four capture three of the most critical areas where
in-person interaction or physical workspace are beneficial and strategically important. The
table below summarizes what these three areas looked like before the pandemic, how they
adapted to the virtual setting, and most importantly, the long-term consequences of continued
Hybrid work.

Before the Pandemic During the Pandemic Long-term Consequences

Innovation & Collaboration • Usage of more facilitated virtual • Decrease in speed,

• In-person white boarding sessions meetings with white amount, and effectiveness
• Organic & serendipitous spread of boarding/collaboration functions of innovation
ideas • Exploration of asynchronous • Soloed teams

• Fast-paced learning collaboration opportunities • Decrease inter-organizational

• Adoption of new collaboration learning and knowledge
processes, mainly involving more
virtual touch points and meetings

Employee development & on • ” Lists” of stakeholders, • Increase in employee turnover

boarding mentors, and subject matter • Decrease in employee
• Learning through mentors & experts provided growth or performance
relationships • Creation of online spaces for new •Early-in-career talent heavily
• Connect to culture through talent to form cohorts or bonds impacted
the office environment • Bolstering of “buddy systems” or
• Build relationships through access to senior leadership
in-person interactions
• Develop mentors and close

37
relationships with managers
Employee relationships and • Creation of informal “non-work” • Attrition of culture
interaction related virtual opportunities, such • Increase in employee turnover
• “Water cooler chats” and as Zoom happy hours or workout • “Siloing” of relationships
organic development of sessions
relationships • Creation of online spaces
•Office as a representation of culture (chartrooms) for employees to
share common interests or
updates

These long-term consequences have serious implications for talent management, HR strategy,
and business success. Accordingly, these were all factors participant companies were
considering as they looked forward to determining what post-pandemic Hybrid work and
hybrid work would look like for their organizations.

Responses to Challenges of Hybrid work

To mitigate the challenges and enable the success of Hybrid work, participant companies
deployed a variety of solutions. Some key responses include:

38
1. Enable managers:

Companies placed heavy emphasis on developing managers’ capabilities and behaviors for
Hybrid work. Many companies implemented both formal and informal training programs
(through webinars), 1:1 coaching, and peer-to-peer learning groups to help managers manage
their teams remotely. While some of this training focused on business and performance
management, a much more significant proportion of the training aimed to develop managers’
compassion, ability to trust and empower their teams, and ability to manage employees’
mental well-being. This shift highlights the fact that this pandemic, more than ever before,
called upon managers to become good leaders of people, rather than just good managers of
work.

2. Intentionally recreate informal in-office interactions:

Companies implemented virtual activities and calls to help employees feel connected outside
of their regular work meetings and interactions. Virtual happy hours, for example, were an
especially popular choice. Other common activities included virtual cooking classes, virtual
fitness or yoga classes, and informal virtual coffee chats with senior leaders. These examples
show that companies maximized these virtual activities to not only help employees stay
connected, but also to help employees improve their well-being, or connect with top senior
leaders.

3. Improve employee benefits and offerings:

Companies bolstered their employee benefits and offerings to help mitigate the challenges of
Hybrid work. These benefits and offerings can approximately be categorized into three
categories:

a. Ergonomic home office benefits:

39
Companies introduced stipends and reimbursements for employees to purchase home office
equipment and furniture.

b. Health and wellness benefits:

On the physical wellness front, companies increased employee access to virtual fitness
classes and cooking classes, and increased reimbursement options for fitness equipment. On
the mental wellness front, companies provided access to meditation or mental wellness apps,
and bolstered their employee assistance program (EAP) and virtual counseling offerings.

c. Working parents and caretaker benefits:

Recognizing that Hybrid work has had a particularly heavy impact on working parents and
caretakers, companies introduced discounts and increased access to childcare, tutoring, and
college test prep. More importantly, companies provided increased flexibility in schedules,
paid time off (PTO) days, and leaves.

Companies had a keen recognition that increasing these employee benefits and offerings had
long-term strategic significance in differentiating their employer “brand” in the talent market.
Current and prospective employees are increasingly asking companies how they cared for
employees throughout the pandemic. An empathetic company-wide response and strong
benefits, therefore, are an effective way to capture and retain key talent.

4. Limit meeting and work times:

Companies sought to limit meeting times and work times, recognizing the contribution of
back-to-back virtual meetings and long working hours to burnout. Companies implemented
company-wide “No meeting Wednesdays” or “No meeting afternoons” to free up employee
time, and coached employees to maintain firm boundaries between working and non-working
hours. One partner company even set a long-term company-wide goal to reduce their meeting
time by 20%.

40
Data used to measure and inform Hybrid work decisions

Participant companies used various forms of data to measure how employees were
responding to Hybrid work. As employees were no longer visible in a physical workplace,
data was more critical than ever.

1. Formal employee feedback:

Most companies used formal channels of employee feedback, such as surveys or focus
groups, to understand how employees were responding to Hybrid work, what additional
support they needed, and how they felt about returning to the workplace. The frequency of
surveys ranged from twice (over the span of six+ months) to everyday (via quick pulse
surveys). This data informed the design of expanded benefits, short-term return-to-work
policies, and potential long-term Hybrid work strategies.

2. Business and performance metrics:

Companies also used business metrics to measure the effectiveness and success of Hybrid
work. Strong business performance - especially at a team or business sector level - served as

41
compelling evidence that large- scale Hybrid work could sustain or even enhance
productivity.

3. Employee activity or behavioral data:

These behavioral metrics include time employees spent online or in meetings, number of
emails sent, or log-in data. This data was used to track employee work and productivity, but
also to inform ways to mitigate burnout by limiting employee working hours and meeting
times.

4. Informal/indirect employee feedback:

Companies also used informal employee feedback - gathered from managers or HRBPs - to
gauge employee engagement and responses to Hybrid work. While many companies used
both formal and informal channels to collect employee feedback, some companies only
gauged employee engagement and sentiment through these indirect methods.

Other forms of data used by partner companies include:

A. benchmarking with external organizations to compare other organizations’ responses,

especially in similar geographic regions or industries; and

B. diversity metrics to measure the impact of long-term Hybrid work and the pandemic
on women and minority employees.

Considerations for Short-Term Return to Work

The pandemic has not completely diminished the value of the office. Every company in our
sample shared that their goal is to eventually have employees be back in the office in some
capacity. The timeline for doing so is dependent on advancements in how the virus
progresses, vaccine distribution, updates to local regulations, and the health and safety of

42
employees. In the meantime, the majority of the companies we interviewed have opted to
faze non-essential employees back into the office.

Multinational companies have taken learning’s from their international offices and applied
them to their domestic locations. Companies shared that they often have come up short in
terms of their capacity goals as employees generally opt to continue working from home. Part
of the goal in gradually increasing the number of employees in the office is to reestablish the
value of the office in the eyes of employees. For those in a similar position here are some
items to consider:

1. Feasibility based on geography: Some employees opted to relocate during this time
and may not be near a company site. Companies shared that they will eventually require
employees to relocate near company sites, but for the time being it should not be surprising
that fewer employees are coming into the office than is being allowed or desired.

2. Nature of the role: Does this employee need to be in-person to do their best work?
Companies are prioritizing the business need as well as the quality of the work as opposed to
where it gets done. For example, support functions such as HR, Finance, and IT may be
phased in last because they generally do not need to be in the office to be productive.
Additionally, many companies shared that senior leaders have continued to work from the
office to encourage others to do the same, but it is also helpful if they are creating or
conducting video addresses for large swaths of the company.

3. Implementation: Companies have divided employees into different groups, often

based on the nature of the role, and schedule time for those groups to be in the office. For
example, a company may create red and blue teams and rotate those teams on a weekly basis-
one week in the office and then one week at home. Rotations give leadership a chance to
evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility, and desire for hybrid work going forward.

43
4. Voluntary decision: Companies have stressed to their employees that as of right now
returning to the office is completely voluntary and is dependent on employee comfort and
what works best for them based on their situation. To ensure that employees truly feel it is a
voluntary decision some companies have administered pulse surveys. Amidst so much
uncertainty and heightened stress, flexibility remains pivotal. For example, companies shared
that one of the most common reasons employees are coming to the office is to get a break
from their responsibilities outside of work. This is particularly true for caregivers.

Closing in on 10 months into the mass exodus from the office we would like to highlight
some key watch outs that companies highlighted as they are managing return to work:

1. Unintended pressure: If you are opting for a voluntary return to the office for the time
being, be cognizant of the unintended pressure this may be causing employees. Senior leaders
coming into the office may cause a trickle-down effect to managers, which place unnecessary
pressure on employees to model this behavior.

2. HR is imperative in this process: It is not hyperbole to say that the role of HR has
never been more critical. The function has been thrust into leadership positions and job
responsibilities that were not known prior to the pandemic. Companies shared that it is
critical for HR to be in absolute lockstep with their business leaders and connect them with
the resources they need to be successful. Additionally, HR must continue to be the cultural
stewards for their organizations and model the behaviors they would like to see as well as
being conscious of and communicating employee pain points to the business. Lastly, HR
must ensure that the learning’s from this time are not lost by enabling intra- organizational
learning.

3. Transparent communication is paramount: In terms of a communication strategy,

many companies have not formalized this step yet, but for the ones who have begun
communicating next steps to employees they have been transparent about how they view the
future role of the office. Whether the goal is to bring everyone back to the office or that the
company will be embracing some form of hybrid-work in the future, companies should
consider the impact this new strategy has on its employees.

44
4. Local flexibility within centralized guardrails: Lastly, as companies think about
moving forward there is still so much work to be done and more to learn, but our research
found that companies are trending towards some type of centralized policy around flexibility
that provides guardrails based on legal and regulatory requirements, but will allow for
localized implementation based on employee, cultural, and of course business needs.

Long-Term Approaches to Hybrid work

So how does this “greatest experiment in Hybrid work” impact how organizations envision
hybrid work in the post-pandemic future? This is the key question employees, employers, and
the world at large is asking. According to a recent Census wide report, 83% of the workers
surveyed expect Hybrid work to become a standard business practice in the future8. Global
Workforce Analytics also estimates that 25 to 30% of the workforce will be working from
home multiple times per week in the future, as Covid-19 has proven Hybrid work to not only
be tenable, but cost-effective and valuable9.

Nonetheless, organizations have reason to be cautious about making sweeping changes and
commitments to Hybrid work and hybrid work now, when the long-term implications of
large- scale Hybrid work remain opaque.

Before the pandemic, participant companies could be categorized into these three categories,
based on their level of in-office orientation.

45
In comparison, participant companies’ stance on long-term to hybrid work and Hybrid work
post-pandemic can be categorized into these three categories, based on their new level of
commitment to hybrid work and Hybrid work.

A strong desire to “return to the way things were before the pandemic” was noted by 33% of
companies with no major changes to their Hybrid work policies or offerings. For a majority
of these companies, this “back to the office” orientation and belief in the value of the
workplace started from the top leadership level down.

46
For the remaining 67% of our participant companies, however, the pandemic will likely result
in lasting transformation. Many companies said the pandemic has been a “Pandora’s Box.” It
has proven that large-scale Hybrid work is not only possible, but conducive to new work
processes and efficiencies. Most importantly, the pandemic has changed employees’ desires
and expectations around Hybrid work - as shown through pulse surveys and other data.
Companies shared that employees will certainly desire and expect increased Hybrid work
opportunities moving forward, and that they will shift their stance on Hybrid work
accordingly.

The 26% of companies in the “expanded remote/hybrid work” bucket may not be committing
to massive organizational transformations yet but have accepted that Hybrid work will go
from an exception to an expectation and have begun to consider ways to expand their Hybrid
work policies, processes, and support infrastructure.

The remaining 41% of companies have begun to make substantial changes or commitments
to enable long-term hybrid work and committing to hybrid work becoming an organizational
norm.

47
 RECOMMENDATION

The engagement of an employee at a virtual workplace is a difficult task. The employee-

employer interaction through a virtual platform has restricted every non-work-related
interaction, which earlier engaged employees. Team interaction, team gathering, individual
development opportunities have reduced due to which work has become monotonous, boring,
non -creative. Those who are happy with this new work culture, also agree to issues of lack of
belongingness for work and organization. Work is more like an assignment that needs more
interaction and expression for communicating ideas. Companies are working through various
programs to make the virtual workplace more engaged, offering games, interactive sessions,
video call celebration, and many more. But still, they need to work more so that employee
soft skills are used more and more while they work.

Virtual Work Environment can become convenient if work-life balance can be maintained at
employee's level, and company's level, appropriate support to the employees and engagement
of the employees is carried out properly, most of the employees would get satisfied.

To increase employee engagement, a company can use a Hybrid model (Phadnis, 2020). The
work environment is the combination of a traditional office-based work environment and the
virtual work environment. Further, the company can develop a hybrid model on three
different bases or based on their combinations.

The three other bases for the Hybrid model are as specified below-

1. They give the employees the option to choose which kind of work environment they
are convenient with and want to work in, for the company with their highest performance
level.

2. Having a fixed number of employees engaged in both traditional office work

environment and virtual work environment on a rotation basis (e.g., 40% employees in
traditional office work environment and 60 % virtual work environment) either daily, weekly,
monthly, or any other time period, which the company is comfortable with.
48
3. based on four degrees, i.e., not satisfactory, satisfactory, good and excellent for
performance levels of employees' in the last six months i.e., when employees worked
traditionally and in the last six months, when they have worked virtually. A comparison is
made to help the company in making the decision to call the employees. A decision would be
taken on whether calling employees to traditional office work environment would be
advantageous or disadvantageous for the company.

Since the team is dispersed worldwide, and can't have team gatherings or celebrate team
achievement through a virtual meeting. Casual gatherings for friends in the same city, who
are employees of either the same company or different companies, can be promoted. Instead
of giving the monetary compensation, the companies can provide them special lunch coupons
which he/she can utilize with his/her friends who have the same coupon, which is given to
them from their company for the same reason. It can be implemented by a tie-up between
companies that favors this kind of compensation coupons. For example, company X and Y
can make a hybrid compensation plan (Lunch budget, Team Party Budget). The employees of
companies X and Y living in the same city can avail these coupons.

Employees' level of engagement can be improved by involving them in the decisions relating
to overtime work, as now they are getting more tasks, the moment they complete one at ski
well before the deadline, which makes them feel stressed more. To make it easier to
understand, if an employee has to complete a task in 5 days and he/she has achieved it in 3
days, then he/she has to start working on another task 4th day. They are monetarily
compensated for that but not asked whether they would like to take a break and continue on
the 5th day rather than the 4th day. If it goes on, they may not try to perform better if they are
instructed to work, unwillingly, just because of some monetary benefits. Employees may start
taking their work messages casually or neglecting them if things are not adequately handled.

According to the company's needs, employees now have to work on the weekends as well,
and even have lesser break timings, which play a large part in their work-life imbalance, not
keeping both employees' mental and physical health in mind. Now, for the weekends as well,

49
employees have to ask for leaves, frequently. To have all the work completed, well before
time, disregarding employees' mental and physical health can reduce employee engagement
in the company, which can be beneficial for the companies in the short term but not in the
long term. So, a company should provide the employees regular holidays to help them
maintain their work-life balance and should only be disturbed, if very urgent work is there,
during the holidays, thus increasing the employees' level of engagement.

50
 STAGE-3
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS, CONCLUSIONS

51
 FINDINGS

1. According to the data, 100 percent of Hybrid workers have their shops, thus there is
no difficulty with seed supply for employees.
2. According to a market survey, 64 percent of dealers are happy with the employee
offered by the firm, 47 percent of which are dealers who influence sales.
3. It was shown that 49 percent of employee perception favor high producing varieties
when purchasing hybrid, taking into account factors such as yield, price, promotion,
water needs, and so on.
4. It was discovered that the majority of employee grew hybrid work model for
commercial purposes.
5. The Mahyco corporation ranks first in terms of sales promotion activities.
6. It has been noticed that the majority of employee follow progressive.
7. Because 84 percent of employees are content with the kinds they are now employing,
it has been discovered that they will continue to use that variety.
8. It has been shown that the real potential of hybrid work model is just 19%, implying
that the untapped potential is 81 percent.

52
 SUGGESTIONS

1. Maintaining quality keeps clients and boosts client repeat purchases. As a result, the
perception employee corporation should maintain its product quality level in the
market.
2. It has been discovered that certain area are unaware of the product, thus it has been
proposed that the market their product in this district.
3. To retain existing customers, businesses, employee could use point of work model
more aggressively, such as offering discounts to loyal customers.
4. It has been noted that hybrid work does not have a single cross variety of models;
nonetheless, during interactions with dealers, they stress that the firm should have this
type of models on the market.
5. In order to increase sales, the employee perception should provide a bonus, gift, or
voucher to customers who purchase more hybrid model.
6. Supply should be in accordance with demand, with a sale return.

53
 CONCLUSION

Hybrid work had been a growing trend and topic of discussion since before the pandemic.
However, company-wide Hybrid work initiatives remained few and far between, oftentimes
due to the lack of buy-in from senior leadership, lack of supporting IT infrastructure and
enabling processes, and lack of data that suggested the success of large-scale Hybrid work.
For most of our participant companies, Hybrid work was an organizational exception rather
than a norm.

The pandemic, almost overnight, made Hybrid work not only an organizational norm but a
necessity. In doing so, the pandemic has served as the largest (and perhaps, the most rapidly
undertaken) experiment in Hybrid work. At the center of this critical transformation has been
the HR function. HR leaders and professionals have been called upon like never before to not
only carry on their day-to-day work, but become experts in public health, digital
transformation, and the voice of employee needs and the vision-setter for the future of work.

Almost a year into the pandemic, the future of Hybrid work, both the short-term “return to
work” and long-term Hybrid work strategies, remains uncertain. It is also important to note
that the pandemic, as well as the racial injustices and political unrest of this year, are human
tragedies that have taken an enormous emotional toll on all of us. Through these times, the
adaptability and resilience demonstrated by employees and the HR function stand as
admirable feats that will help organizations navigate the challenges ahead. And despite these
challenges, this year of Hybrid work has created many benefits and cultural transformations
that would never have happened otherwise. The major task for companies now will be to
protect and scale these learning’s so that the post-pandemic future of work is better and
stronger than the present.

54
 REFERENCES

1. Airtasker. (2020, March 31). The Benefits of Working from Home. Retrieved
December 6, 2020, from https://www.airtasker.com/blog/the-benefits-of-working-
from-home/

2. Bathini, D. R., & Kandathil, G. (2015). Work from home: a boon or a bane? The
missing piece of employee cost. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 568-574.

3. Bloom, A. N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Jenny, Y. (2015). Does Working from Home
Work? Evidence from a Chinese Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
130(1), 165- 218.

4. Bloom, N. (2014, January). To Raise Productivity, Let More Employees Work from
Home. Harvard Business Review (Productivity).

5. Dixon, S. (2019, February 7). “Yeah but, Yahoo!” Learning from Hybrid work’s
Biggest Fail. Retrieved from Distant job: https://distantjob.com/blog/yeah-but-yahoo-
learning-from- remote-works-biggest-fail/

6. Lockwood, N. R (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive

advantage. Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1 (1), 1-12.

7. Osborne, S., & Hammond, M. S. (2017). Effective Employee Engagement in the

Workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 50–
67.

55
8. Phadnis, S. (2020, December 16). Future of work is hybrid, says Infosys CEO.
Retrieved from The Times of India:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/future- of-work-is-hybrid-
says-infosys-ceo/article show/79750757.cms

9. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic
definition and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

10. Tripathi, J. P., & Sharma, S. (2016). The Key to Improve Performance: Employee
Engagement. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR- JBM), 19-25.

11. Zhao, D. (2020, March 18). Work From Home: Has The Future of Work Arrived?
Retrieved from Glassdoor.com: https://www.glassdoor.com/research/working-from-
home/#

56
 APPENDIX

Questionnaires:

One of the projects is taking on this semester focuses on the future of Hybrid work. Through
this project, we hope to learn more about how companies are creating, adjusting, and
communicating their long-term hybrid work strategy in consideration of the pandemic Hybrid
work spectrum and its impact on the way we think about the future of work and talent.
Moreover, what are the key steps HR leaders must take to ensure the success of these
strategic initiatives? To answer these questions and more, we are looking to speak with
individuals who are responsible for shaping and overseeing the Hybrid work strategy of your
organization. We understand that the capacity of employees is limited so we thank you in
advance for taking the time to assist our research.

1. How prevalent/normalized was Hybrid work at your company prior to COVID-19?

How did it differ for different employee segments of the organization? Why did their
hybrid/Hybrid work arrangements pre-COVID look that way? What was the rationale?

2. How has this changed as a result of the pandemic? To what extent has Hybrid work
increased, and how has that differed for different employee segments?

3. What were the most salient positive results/changes of Hybrid work have you seen
during the pandemic that you would like to replicate and expand even “post-pandemic”?

4. Where have you seen or experienced the biggest challenges? How have you
responded to/addressed these challenges (e.g., practices, policies, tools)?

5. What data and information are you using to evaluate the impact of Hybrid work?

57
6. Short-term hybrid work strategy: How are you currently thinking about “return to
work”? How are employees being fazed back into the office?

7. What is your long-term hybrid work strategy? How does this align with your long-
term HR strategy and business strategy?

8. What are the most critical things HR will need to do to enable the success of this
hybrid work strategy?

9. How are you communicating the value of your hybrid work strategy to your
employees? How have your employees been responding thus far?

Section A: Current Performance Appraisal System

1. Is there any form of performance appraisal system in your organization?

• If yes → Are you using the appraisal system currently being used by Public Service
Department, Brunei?

• If no → Why is there no appraisal system being used? Do you think the performance
appraisal system is not important?

2. In your opinion, how effective is the current appraisal system in your organization?

• If effective → in what ways the current appraisal system is effective with regards to
measuring employee performance and achieving organizational goals?

58
• If not effective → in your experience, what are the issues and challenges that
undermine the current appraisal system?

3. Are you an appraiser or an appraise, or both?

• If appraiser → as an appraiser, do you think the current general criteria used to

measure employee performance in the appraisal form is a true measure of employee
performance?

• If appraise → as an appraise, do you think the current general criteria used to

measure employee performance in the appraisal form is a true measure of your performance?

• If both → ask both questions

4. Do you think the current appraisal system is a true reflection of employee

performance?

• If yes → can you explain a bit more?

• If no → Why do you think this is not so? How do you make the appraisal
reflect true measures of employee performance?

5. In your experience, are you aware of any specific rating scales format used in the
current appraisal system?

• If yes → can you explain what is it?

• If no → would like to have a proper rating scale format in the appraisal

system?

6. Do you think the current appraisal system needs to change?

59
• If yes → in what ways?

• If not → Why not?

Section B: Perception of Performance Management System

1. In your opinion, what is your perception of an effective performance management

system? How do measure an effective system?

2. What do you think are the key factors in the determining the accuracy of performance
ratings?

3. Do you think a performance appraisal system should be objective or subjective, or a

combination of both?

• If objective → do you think objective measures of performance can easily be

measured?

• If subjective → do you think subjective measures of performance can easily be

measured? If not, why not?

• If both → Why do you think is this so?

4. Do you think a team-based performance appraisal measures is a better representation

of employee performance appraisal than individual-based appraisal measures?

60
• If yes → Why is this a better measure?

• If no → Why is this not a better measure?

5. On top of the current appraisal system which is linked to annual bonus, do you think
that there should be an incentive scheme in terms of performance-related pay for those who
achieve Grade a (Excellent) in their annual appraisal?

6. Any other additional comments about the effectiveness of an appraisal system

61