A hybrid work policy is not always the golden compromise. A three-firm study found 63% approval for hybrid, 72% for remote, 60% for office.
By Cosby Khosa · Published
- A study of three firms from 2022 to 2025 found 2025 approval of 60% for back-to-office, 72% for fully remote and 63% for hybrid.
- Hybrid started with the fewest fans (44%) and produced the least settled preferences.
- The authors warn against letting employees choose their own office days.
- The results come from three firms and a commentary summary, so treat them as informative, not universal.
A hybrid work policy is often seen as the golden compromise between office and home. A study described in The Conversation suggests that this belief may be too simple. Researchers tracked employees at three firms from 2022 to 2025 and found that hybrid arrangements did not always win the most approval.
In 2025, approval was 60% under a back-to-office policy, 72% under fully remote work and 63% under hybrid. Hybrid had also started with the fewest fans, at 44%, and it produced the least settled preferences. The authors even warn against letting employees choose their own office days.
This article explains the findings and what they mean for employers and workers. The summary is based on a search extract of the commentary piece, published around June 2026, so it keeps to the facts the extract gave. The date is approximate, inferred from the age label in the search listing.
What the three-firm hybrid work policy study did
The research followed employees at three firms over four years, from 2022 to 2025. That is a valuable feature. Many studies take a single snapshot, but tracking the same workplaces over time shows how opinions change as arrangements settle.
The study measured approval of the policy in place. Some employees worked under a back-to-office policy, with most or all days at the workplace. Others worked fully remote. Others worked under a hybrid work policy that mixed the two.
The write-up appears in The Conversation, a site where academics explain their research to the public. It is commentary based on the study, not the full paper. The extract used here is short, so some detail, such as the names of the firms or the exact sample size, is not given.
Studies of this kind have strengths and limits. Following the same firms over time reduces some problems of comparison, but three firms are a small sample. The results may not apply to every industry or country. It is better to treat them as an informative case, not as a rule.
The 2025 approval figures for each arrangement
The headline numbers come from 2025. Approval was 60% under a back-to-office policy, 72% under fully remote and 63% under hybrid.
Fully remote was the most popular. Hybrid came a close second to the office model, at 63% against 60%. Those three points are small, and with a limited sample they may not be statistically strong.
What stands out is that hybrid, often described as the best of both worlds, did not come out on top. Fully remote working won more approval than either the office or the hybrid arrangement.
Why might that be? The extract does not say, but we can think of reasons. Fully remote workers save commuting time and can plan their day freely. Hybrid workers may feel that they get the worst of both, still commuting and also working alone. Mixed schedules can also be confusing, with unclear rules about who is in on which day.
Whatever the cause, the lesson is that a hybrid work policy needs careful design. It is not automatically the happiest option.
Why hybrid started with the fewest fans at 44%
The study reports that hybrid started with the fewest fans, at 44%. That is a low figure for a policy that is widely praised. It suggests that, at least in these firms, many employees were unconvinced when it began.
Early opinions can change. By 2025, approval of hybrid had risen to 63%. That means people grew more positive as they got used to the arrangement. It is common for new policies to face doubt at first, and then to settle.
Still, the hybrid work policy produced the least settled preferences. That means employees' views kept shifting, and there was less agreement over time. Fully remote and back-to-office arrangements seem to have produced firmer views.
An unsettled preference is a warning sign. It suggests that people are still not sure what they want, or that the arrangement does not fit everyone's needs. Employers should check in often, ask what is working and adjust.
For workers, it is normal to take time to find a rhythm. If you start a hybrid role, give yourself a few months to experiment with routines, and be open with your manager about what helps.
Why unsettled preferences matter for a hybrid work policy
Settled preferences matter because they affect stability. If employees are unsure whether they like an arrangement, they may keep asking for changes, grumble to colleagues or look for another job.
A hybrid work policy mixes two environments, so it gives people more things to compare. On office days they may miss home. On home days they may miss colleagues. That can feed constant second-guessing.
Fully remote and full-time office arrangements have a clearer identity. You know what you are getting, and you can build habits around it.
To settle preferences in a hybrid model, make the pattern predictable. Use fixed anchor days when the team meets. Tell people the plan well in advance. Make sure the office days are worth the trip, with meetings, collaboration and social contact that cannot easily be done remotely.
Also pay attention to fairness. If some people get more flexibility than others, resentment can grow. Explain the reasons for differences in plain terms, and apply rules consistently.
Why the authors warn against letting employees choose office days
One of the most interesting points is the authors' warning against letting employees pick their own office days. At first glance, choice sounds like a perk. Why not let people decide what suits them?
The extract does not give the full reasoning, but the problem is easy to imagine. If everyone chooses different days, teams are rarely together. Meetings are hard to schedule, and the main reason for going to the office, which is to work with others, is lost.
Individual choice can also create unfairness. People with more power or louder voices may get the days they want, while others make do. It can also produce empty offices on some days and crowded ones on others.
A better approach may be to set team-level days. The team agrees to be together on certain days, and people have freedom on the others. That keeps the benefits of collaboration and gives some flexibility.
This is a view of the authors, based on their study, and employers should test it in their own context. But it deserves serious thought before you offer a free choice of days.
How to test a hybrid work policy inside your own firm
The three-firm study is a reminder that you should not assume a hybrid work policy will succeed just because others use it. Test it in your own firm, with a small, structured trial.
- Choose a pilot team or two. Define the arrangement clearly, including how many days are in the office, which days and why. Set goals for what you hope to achieve, such as better collaboration, higher satisfaction or lower costs.
- Collect baseline data before the pilot starts. Measure engagement, approval of the arrangement and a few simple performance indicators. Then collect the same data after three and six months.
- Include the voices of those affected. Run short surveys and hold open conversations. Ask what is working, what is frustrating and what would help.
- Review the results honestly. If approval is low or preferences are unsettled, adjust the design. You might change the anchor days, improve the use of office time or give managers more training.
- Share the findings with employees. People are more willing to accept a hybrid work policy when they see that it was tested fairly and improved by their feedback.
Lessons for South African employers and workers
The study describes firms in another setting, but South African employers can learn from it. A hybrid work policy that looks fair on paper may feel different in practice, depending on commute, housing, connectivity and the nature of the work.
South African employers should ask staff how they travel, how long it takes and what home conditions are like. A policy that assumes reliable power and fast internet at home may not work for everyone. Offering support, such as data allowances or a quiet space at the office, can make a difference.
Employers should also think about equity. Not all roles can be done remotely, and workers who must attend every day may resent colleagues who can work from home. Explain the reasons for differences, and look for other ways to offer flexibility, such as adjustable hours.
For workers, the study suggests that an unsettled feeling about hybrid work is common. Give yourself time, be clear about your needs and ask for a trial of new routines.
Whatever the arrangement, the key ingredients are the same: clear goals, trust, regular communication and a manager who cares about results and people alike.
What employers should do with these findings
A good hybrid work policy rests on a few principles.
- Be clear. State how many days are expected, which days are fixed and how decisions are made. Put it in writing.
- Be purposeful. Explain why the office days matter. If they are for collaboration, plan collaborative activities. If they are just for presence, employees will feel it is pointless.
- Be consistent. Avoid frequent changes. If you must change the policy, give notice and reasons.
- Be fair. Apply rules evenly and explain exceptions.
- Be curious. Ask employees how the arrangement is working, and collect data on engagement, performance and turnover.
In practice, that means:
- Write down the policy and explain the reasons.
- Set team-level anchor days.
- Make office days useful.
- Review the policy at least once a year.
If the evidence shows that fully remote working is more popular, consider whether more roles can be remote. For some work, it is the best fit.
What employees and job seekers should take from the study
For employees, the study offers reassurance and advice. If you find hybrid work confusing or unsatisfying, you are not alone. Many people start as doubters.
Give the arrangement time. Try different routines, such as grouping meetings on office days and doing focused work at home. Notice what works.
Speak up. If the policy is not working for you or your team, tell your manager, with specific examples and suggestions. Employers are more likely to change when feedback is constructive.
For job seekers, the study is a reminder to ask about arrangements and to think carefully about what suits you. Fully remote roles may bring higher satisfaction for some people, but also less social contact. Office roles may bring more connection but less flexibility.
Be honest about your own preferences, and remember that they may change. A role that suits you now may not suit you in two years. Keep your options open.
How to read the hybrid work policy study with care
A few cautions are in order.
- Three firms are a small sample. The results may differ in other industries, countries and company cultures.
- Approval is not the same as productivity. A policy that people like may or may not lead to better work. The study as described measures approval, not results or quality.
- The figures come from a commentary piece, which summarises the research. For full method and details, find the underlying paper if it is available.
- The date is approximate. The extract suggests June 2026, but that comes from an age label in the search listing, not from the page itself.
- Preferences can shift with the job market. When jobs are scarce, employees may accept policies they dislike. When jobs are plentiful, they may be pickier. Keep this in mind when you read approval figures from any year.
Final thoughts
A hybrid work policy is not always the golden compromise. In the three-firm study, 2025 approval was 60% for back-to-office, 72% for fully remote and 63% for hybrid. Hybrid began with just 44% approval and produced the least settled preferences. The authors also advise against letting employees pick their own office days.
The message for employers is to design hybrid carefully, with clear rules, team-level anchor days and regular review. The message for workers is to give the arrangement time, speak up and think hard about what suits you.
Read the full commentary and, if possible, the underlying research for more detail.
Sources and further reading
- The Conversation, Hybrid work is not always the golden compromise employees expect
Related reading
- Upskilling for AI: Paylocity's Workforce Training Strategy
- AI Reskilling: How to Prepare Your Workforce, Step by Step
- What Is HR Compliance? A Quick Guide for HR in 2026
- AI Replacing All Jobs? LinkedIn Exec Says the Data Differ
- Technology Job Market 2026: Robert Half's In-Demand Roles
- How to Apply for Jobs and Get Your Application Noticed