What Does Hybrid Working Actually Mean Anymore?
It's a question and a conversation that's come up more than once recently.
We've spoken to candidates who have applied for roles advertised as ‘hybrid', only to discover later in the process that the expectation is four days a week in the office, with one day working from home.
Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that model if it works for the business. Every organisation has different needs, cultures and ways of operating.
The interesting part is that many candidates wouldn't necessarily describe it as hybrid.
So we decided to ask the question.
What is hybrid working these days?
Our LinkedIn poll attracted a high response with over half (56%) saying hybrid working means 2-3 days in the office. A further 35% felt it meant 1-2 days in the office, whilst only 8% associated hybrid working with 3-4 office days per week.
The results sparked some interesting comments with one summing it up perfectly:
“Hybrid is different to each organisation according to business need and to some extent the type of role or individual preference. There's not one standard criteria.”
And from what we’ve seen in the market we’d have to agree.
Has the meaning changed?
Interestingly, the concept itself isn't new.
Long before Covid, many organisations offered some form of flexible, remote or home working. People split their time between offices, client sites and home, often without anyone referring to it as “hybrid working”.
The term hybrid working really entered mainstream business language during and after the pandemic. What had previously been viewed as a flexible working arrangement suddenly became a recognised working model with its own label.
Perhaps that's part of the challenge today.
A few years ago, if someone worked from home one day a week, many people would simply have described that as flexible working. Today, some organisations would call that hybrid. Others would expect hybrid to mean a much more even split between home and office working.
As the phrase has become more widely used, its meaning has arguably become less clear.
Fast forward a few years and the reality is far more nuanced.
For some organisations, hybrid means one day a week at home.
For others, it's three days at home.
Some businesses have set office days. Others allow teams to decide. Some focus on outcomes rather than attendance altogether.
The challenge is that whilst businesses may define hybrid one way, candidates often interpret it another.
And that's where expectations can quickly become misaligned.
It's not necessarily about the number of days
One of the most interesting things we've noticed is that conversations about hybrid working aren't always just about the number of days in an office.
They're often about something much bigger.
Flexibility.
Autonomy.
Trust.
For many people, hybrid working represents the ability to balance work and life in a way that enables them to perform at their best.
That's not to say office attendance isn't important. There are huge benefits to collaboration, relationship building, learning from colleagues and being part of a team environment. But increasingly, people want clarity around why they're being asked to be in the office, not simply how often.
Two organisations could both require three office days per week, yet employees may experience those cultures very differently depending on how much flexibility, trust and autonomy sit around that expectation.
How much does it influence candidate decisions?
Pre pandemic, hybrid working was often viewed as a perk.
Today, for many candidates, it's simply part of their decision-making criteria. From a recruitment perspective, hybrid working continues to be one of the first questions candidates ask.
Often before salary.
Sometimes before the role itself.
The initial conversation will typically involve a conversation about number of days in the office in much the same way candidates will consider:
- Salary
- Location
- Flexibility
- Career progression
- Company culture
Working patterns have become another important factor when assessing a potential move.
That's not to say candidates are all looking for maximum flexibility or fully remote roles. What they often want is clarity.
The reality is that applying for a new role takes time and energy. There are CVs to tailor, interviews to prepare for and often multiple stages to navigate. Most candidates simply want to understand what the working arrangement looks like before investing in that process.
When expectations are clear from the outset, candidates can make informed decisions about whether a role is right for them. When they aren't, it can sometimes lead to unnecessary frustration for both sides.
As we know, the more aligned expectations are at the beginning of a recruitment process, the smoother that process tends to be for both candidates and employers.
When working patterns become a reason to move!
We're also seeing another trend emerge.
Applicants aren't necessarily looking for a new role because they're unhappy in their current one. Instead, their organisation has increased office attendance requirements and, for a variety of personal or practical reasons, they're finding that arrangement difficult to accommodate.
For some, it's the additional commute time. For others, childcare commitments, caring responsibilities or simply the routines they've established over the last few years. Many have built their lives around a particular working pattern and a significant change can prompt them to reconsider their options.
It's worth noting that this isn't about employees refusing to come into the office. Most candidates we speak to fully appreciate the benefits of in-person collaboration and many actively enjoy spending time with colleagues. More often, it's about finding a working pattern that feels sustainable and works alongside the realities of day-to-day life.
As a result, working arrangements are increasingly becoming a catalyst for career moves in a way that perhaps wasn't the case a few years ago.
Is the word ‘hybrid' still enough?
Perhaps that's the bigger question.
The term hybrid has become so broad that it can mean very different things to different people.
Maybe the answer isn't to stop using it altogether.
Maybe it's simply to be more specific.
One day from home.
Two days from home.
Three days in the office.
Fully flexible.
Whatever the model may be.
Because whilst there may not be a universal definition of hybrid working, our poll suggests that most people still arrive with an expectation of what it means.
And in recruitment, clarity is rarely a bad thing.
Final thoughts
There's probably no right or wrong answer when it comes to hybrid working.
Every business has different commercial needs. Every role has different requirements. Every individual has different preferences.
What our poll highlights, however, is that the conversation continues to evolve.
Perhaps the question is no longer whether a role is hybrid or not.
Perhaps the more useful question is:
What does hybrid working mean in your organisation?
It’s a check to see whether candidates and employers are using the same definition, because one thing is clear, working patterns are now influencing attraction, retention and employee movement more than ever before.
We'd be interested to hear your view.
If a role requires four days a week in the office, would you still describe it as hybrid?