The shift to hybrid working: Management challenges

Hybrid work is a workplace arrangement that combines work from the employer’s premises with work from other locations, most commonly employees’ homes. It encompasses a wide variety of arrangements, from fixed schedules for on-site and remote work to more flexible set-ups. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many organisations have formalised hybrid work policies to establish a sustainable balance between remote and on-site work.

Line managers play a central role in translating hybrid work policies into concrete workplace practices. From a policy perspective, examining management challenges is essential to ensure that hybrid work arrangements are workable in practice; support effective, sustainable and trust-based management; and contribute to productivity growth, while also enabling a flexibility that improves employees’ work–life balance. Yet, despite line managers’ pivotal role in the success of hybrid work, much of the post-pandemic research on this topic has focused on employees’ experiences.

The limited available evidence suggests that hybrid work reshapes managerial tasks, creating challenges in communication, coordination and team cohesion and raising concerns about trust and digital monitoring. It also highlights the need to ensure fairness and equal treatment between remote and on-site staff and to adapt management approaches, calling for flexible rather than one-size-fits-all policy responses.

Building on prior work carried out by Eurofound on hybrid work and drawing on case studies, expert interviews and survey data, this report seeks to address the research gap by foregrounding managerial perspectives. The report identifies areas where additional guidance, support or policy initiatives could strengthen hybrid work frameworks and outlines practices and approaches to address emerging management challenges.

Several EU legal instruments are relevant to managing hybrid work. They cover issues including occupational health and safety, working time and work–life balance, and information and consultation. Such instruments were largely developed for traditional co-located workplaces and, therefore, provide only indirect guidance on the day-to-day management of hybrid teams.

In 2021, the European Parliament called for EU legislation on the right to disconnect – that is, the right of workers not to engage in work-related activities or communications by means of digital tools outside working time. The European Commission consulted the social partners, who expressed divergent views. While workers’ representatives highlight the risks associated with an ‘always on’ culture, employers emphasise the importance of flexibility, caution against overly prescriptive regulation and call for supporting workers in appropriate ways to manage connectivity.

In parallel, the 2020 framework agreement on digitalisation concluded by the European social partners has contributed to shaping the policy debate. One of its key pillars addresses the modalities of connecting and disconnecting, encouraging negotiated solutions at national, sectoral and company levels to define rules on availability, workload management and the use of digital tools. Although the agreement does not establish binding rights, it provides an important reference framework for addressing these issues through social dialogue. It also served as a blueprint for company-level ad hoc arrangements when COVID-19 struck.

• According to the 2024 European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS 2024) data, about 24 % of the employees in the EU workforce can be classified as hybrid employees, combining remote and on-site work. When considering the degree of autonomy over working-time arrangements and work location, employees in hybrid work arrangements can be grouped into categories: 48 % are in fully flexible arrangements, 17 % in location-flexible arrangements, 13 % in time-flexible arrangements and 22 % in controlled hybrid arrangements. The case studies show that hybrid work is not a fixed model but an evolving practice, shaped by pandemic legacies, employee preferences, managerial discretion and broader strategic goals, such as talent retention, digital capacity and, in some cases, environmental sustainability.

• Hybrid work is driving organisational reconfiguration; the case studies indicate an intended functional differentiation of locations (home for focused work and office for collaboration). This differentiation is more explicit in more flexible arrangements. The survey data highlight some constraints, such as limited home workspaces, continued reliance on traditional offices, and the increased use of digital and algorithmic tools in both contexts (working outside the employer’s premises and in-office work).

• The case study evidence shows that hybrid work introduces new complexities in how work is coordinated and managed. The case studies point to coordination difficulties in fragmented digital environments and tensions between trust and monitoring. The survey data suggest associations between the types of hybrid work arrangements and a range of outcomes. Location-flexible arrangements are associated with greater use of computer-based performance monitoring. Fully flexible arrangements are associated with higher levels of reported cognitive demands, particularly among supervisors. More controlled arrangements are linked to higher stress levels for both non-supervisors and supervisors. Perceived fairness appears to be lowest in controlled hybrid arrangements, but the gap between supervisors and non-supervisors is largest in location-flexible settings.

• The research proposes a framework, derived from expert insights, for effective hybrid work arrangements structured around five key steps: strategic alignment, workflow redesign, team co-design of hybrid arrangements, experimentation, and deliberate efforts to maintain strong social ties and a sense of belonging among employees. These elements provide a structured approach to the design and implementation of hybrid work. Gaps in these areas can lead to inconsistent implementation, equity issues and potential inefficiencies.

• Hybrid work should be task driven, with decisions about work location and scheduling based on the nature of tasks and desired outcomes rather than fixed routines. Structured dialogue and co-design between employers and employees can strengthen legitimacy, flexibility and consistency among roles and teams.

• While public policy does not determine how work is organised at company level, it can shape the frameworks wherein such decisions are made. Public policy can support organisational approaches that focus on outputs rather than where, when or how long people work. This can be achieved through regulatory arrangements that are sufficiently flexible to support diverse forms of work organisation. This may include flexible workingtime regimes, such as task- or results-based systems. Yet overly rigid rules can limit the ability of organisations to adapt their working practices to their specific needs or those of the sector in which they operate.

• Hybrid work requires investment in managerial capabilities, including outcome-based management, coordination and performance management. In practice, this involves setting clear objectives, structuring workflows around tasks and collaboration needs and using communication channels intentionally. Managers must engage in regular dialogue and feedback, ensure inclusive participation across teams and shift from task supervision to coaching and supporting employee autonomy. Alongside these managerial capabilities, employees require digital and self-management skills to operate effectively in more flexible and autonomous arrangements. Policymakers have a role in supporting training, reducing capacity gaps and ensuring that appropriate frameworks exist for the responsible and transparent use of digital tools.

• Hybrid work requires a broader approach to occupational risk that includes psychosocial factors, such as stress, isolation and digital overload. Managers play a key role in identifying, preventing and managing these risks. Health and safety frameworks should support this by moving beyond ergonomics towards more proactive wellbeing measures, with policies that clarify protections against hybrid-specific risks.