When the pandemic forced businesses into remote work, the idea of hybrid quickly took root. And with good reason—it offered a middle path between the freedoms of home and the collaboration of the office. Leaders embraced it. Employees welcomed it. And workplace strategists worked overtime to redesign policies and spaces that reflected this “new normal”.
But here’s the problem. In many organisations, hybrid was never truly designed as a system. It was treated as a set of isolated decisions—a policy document here, a desk-booking tool there, maybe some flexible work charters thrown in. The office was reconfigured, but the underlying operations? Mostly unchanged.
And now the cracks are showing.
Hybrid isn’t working in many places not because the idea is flawed, but because it was deployed as a setting, not a system. It was framed as a change in location, not as a shift in how an organisation functions across people, process, space and technology.
If we want to fix hybrid, we have to stop asking “where should people work?” and start asking “how does work work in our organisation now?”
Let’s explore why this mindset shift matters—and what to do about it.
1. A setting solves for presence. A system solves for performance.
When hybrid is treated as a setting, the focus becomes attendance logistics: Who is in on which days? How many desks do we need? What’s our anchor day?
These questions aren’t unimportant. But they’re also not enough.
A systems-led hybrid model starts from the other end: What enables performance? What rituals build trust? How do we share knowledge asynchronously? What digital tools support hybrid rhythms?
In this view, office days are not the goal—they’re a tool. The true system answers why we gather, not just when.
2. Systems integrate. Settings isolate.
Many hybrid strategies sit across silos. HR owns policies. IT owns digital tools. Real estate owns space. Leadership owns culture. But these efforts rarely connect.
That’s where hybrid models start to fragment. You get flexible working policies that contradict presenteeism-based performance expectations. You get digital collaboration tools but no guidance on how to use them across time zones. You get redesigned offices but no clarity on who comes in—and why.
A system, by definition, connects its parts. It’s where people strategy, technology, workplace design and cultural norms come together to reinforce each other. Without integration, hybrid stays fragile.
3. Systems need tuning. Settings get locked.
Organisations that approached hybrid like a one-off project are now stuck. They rolled out their plan in 2022. It sounded good. But things have changed—headcount, client expectations, team dynamics.
The problem is, those initial models weren’t built to evolve. They had no feedback loops, no built-in tuning mechanisms.
A system, however, learns. It collects usage data, pulse survey results, performance metrics. It adapts. Teams hold regular retrospectives. Policies are revisited. Leadership habits are recalibrated.
Hybrid is not a fixed point—it’s a moving rhythm. And that rhythm needs tuning.
4. Systems allow local nuance. Settings impose blanket rules.
Another mistake? Imposing top-down hybrid mandates and expecting them to work equally across all teams, roles and geographies.
Hybrid isn’t one-size-fits-all. The needs of a legal team in London are different to a product team in Bangalore. A system recognises this and allows for structured autonomy—central principles with team-level flexibility.
Instead of enforcing uniformity, systems clarify guardrails. They enable teams to co-create agreements within those bounds. That’s how trust scales.
5. Systems make accountability visible. Settings leave it fuzzy.
In many hybrid setups, nobody quite knows who’s accountable for what. Is it the line manager’s job to ensure office attendance? Who owns the team’s collaboration rituals? What happens when someone never shows up in person?
The vagueness breeds inconsistency. And inconsistency breaks trust.
A system defines accountability clearly. Managers are supported and expected to lead hybrid effectively. Teams are guided to create working agreements. HR, IT and workplace leaders align their efforts. Metrics are agreed upfront—and shared.
Without that clarity, hybrid becomes guesswork.
5. Systems make accountability visible. Settings leave it fuzzy.
In many hybrid setups, nobody quite knows who’s accountable for what. Is it the line manager’s job to ensure office attendance? Who owns the team’s collaboration rituals? What happens when someone never shows up in person?
The vagueness breeds inconsistency. And inconsistency breaks trust.
A system defines accountability clearly. Managers are supported and expected to lead hybrid effectively. Teams are guided to create working agreements. HR, IT and workplace leaders align their efforts. Metrics are agreed upfront—and shared.
Without that clarity, hybrid becomes guesswork.
So what does a well-designed hybrid system look like?
There’s no universal template, but the strongest models include:
1. A guiding philosophy
This goes beyond a policy—it’s a clear, written articulation of why the organisation supports hybrid work. It should reflect business goals, values and expectations. Without this, decisions become reactive.
2. A cross-functional operating model
Hybrid must be co-owned across functions. That means HR, IT, CRE and business leadership working in sync—not in silos. Joint governance teams help maintain the model long-term.
3. Team-level playbooks
Every team should be empowered to shape their own way of working within the system. That means setting norms on when to meet, how to share knowledge, and how to measure success. It’s not one model for all—it’s one framework adapted locally.
4. Workplace feedback infrastructure
Use surveys, sentiment analysis and occupancy data to inform decisions. Ask not just where people work, but how well they work across different environments.
5. Leadership modelling and alignment
The system will only work if senior leaders behave in alignment with the principles they promote. That means showing up with intention, championing flexibility, and reinforcing new success markers.
6. Continuous evolution
Treat hybrid like a product. It needs a roadmap, feature updates, sunset policies, and user research. Run retrospectives. Pilot improvements. Kill what’s no longer working.
Final thoughts
We’re past the honeymoon phase of hybrid. The novelty is gone. Now we see which models were built for endurance—and which were designed for headlines.
If hybrid is treated like a setting, it will always be vulnerable to inconsistency, resentment and failure. But when it’s treated like a system—integrated, adaptive and people-centred—it becomes a competitive advantage.
The shift is subtle, but powerful. It moves the conversation from where people work to how organisations work. That’s where the real transformation lies.
