What an incredibly shoddy piece of work. Makes you wonder about the quality of the rest of what's in HBR.
What I've taken away from this is the major shift has been to distributed teams. To say it is to hybrid working is a misdiagnosis. The problem is that managers have not been trained to succeed in this environment and many processes and structures have not been adapted.
You might have pulled this together quickly but it's an excellent summary of the key issues and backed up with data. Great work.
I share your emphasizing the importance/power of engaging teams collectively to articulate how they do their most business-critical work and what spatial attributes or cultural norms would best support their processes and interactions. When they develop team agreements and share them with us workplace strategists/designers, we get way better data/insights about designing workplaces and teams are heard and seen - and they become influencers for their various work locations.
Love the interaction of team agreements with workplace! The team at Genentech has been a great leader in this for years -- supporting teams in building their agreements, because they know that alignment is essential for teams AND it leads to better workplace interactions!
I think you know how I feel about this, Brian, because I've left my comments about it multiple times. I think it comes down to control more than it does anything else.
It's disheartening that given how disengaged workers are, how unhappy they are, the mental health crisis going on, that employers are still stuck on this kind of inflexibility when it doesn't serve anyone in the long run, including the organization.
It's such short-term thinking. I know it permeates because quarterly earnings dominate everything, and CEOs are increasingly under pressure (and shorter duration) but the continual dehumanization is crushing us.
Brian, apologize for the late response. I was away last week in the paradise of Anguilla, and my mind is still moving to the rhythm of the waves in the moonlight.... it takes a while to return to reality.
To the topic here, I believe the real issues at the heart of the "place" articles are these:
1) Natalie DeCiantis (comment below) may have hit it best with this: "The future of work isn’t binary. It’s not remote versus office. It's about context—designing work models that are informed by data, responsive to employee realities, and aligned with strategic goals." Our world of work is now quantum, yet those with binary solutions still manage to get published regularly. The issues affecting work are far more complex and specific, depending on the work being performed.
2) Most organizations have yet to capture the objective data that could be available for every employee if their business process and workflows were properly digitally designed and managed (likely by AI, not humans). We often make management decisions based on observed and interpreted reality rather than objective data, including factors such as physical presence, subjective surveys, and overall gut feelings. This provides a warped answer into things like productivity, the quality of the work product, employee happiness, etc.
3) We are at the very beginning of the AI changes that will be deep and profound and will affect almost all knowledge work performed. The impact of this can only be imagined now through how much less human labor will be needed. But the changes go far beyond that for sure.
As all this change is unfolding right in front to us today, perhaps we need to give AI enhancements a little rope to show us what can be done before we start to rein it in. My sense is that we are entering "The Big Pause" as we become aware of all the new possibilities that are not yet in our consciousness. These are surely coming regardless of what humans do.
We are all looking at the sunset of the old ways of work. Let's enjoy the experience and wait to see the sun to come up again tomorrow with the new glow of the future.
Thank you, Brian, for taking the time to highlight some of the biases and inconsistencies in the HBR article "Hybrid Still Isn’t Working." In an era where misinformation is easily amplified, I deeply appreciate your commitment to evidence-based analysis and a more balanced conversation.
What’s particularly concerning, and in Trumpian fashion is the article’s tendency to present sweeping generalizations as fact—such as the claim that “organizations large and small are forcing their employees to return to the office for the entire workweek.” While some companies have indeed mandated full-time returns, broad statements like this ignore the substantial nuance in current workplace trends - where mandates and employee behavior are not aligned.
Even more troubling are the article’s extreme recommendations, such as encouraging managers to record attendance and penalize non-compliant employees. Not only does this promote a culture of mistrust, but it also risks disproportionately impacting caregivers—who, as research consistently shows, are still predominantly women. This kind of rigidity risks undoing progress made toward more equitable and inclusive work environments.
The claim that "companies no longer have the office space to house all their employees" also reveals a lack of understanding of strategic planning. As someone who works in real estate and supports organizations in shaping workplace strategies, I can say with confidence that the objective is not about choosing extremes—too much or too little space—but about calibrating needs thoughtfully. Smart portfolio management is about aligning space with business goals, employee needs, and evolving organizational culture. It's not one-size-fits-all.
The article’s call to preserve remote or hybrid work arrangements “at least for the time being” seems to disregard the mounting evidence that distributed work is not a temporary reaction—it’s a long-term shift. Research from McKinsey, Future Forum, and others consistently shows that flexibility remains one of the top drivers of employee satisfaction and retention. Meanwhile, the office still plays a meaningful role in fostering connection, innovation, and culture—but only when used intentionally, not mandated unilaterally.
The future of work isn’t binary. It’s not remote versus office. It's about context—designing work models that are informed by data, responsive to employee realities, and aligned with strategic goals. Let’s move beyond absolutism and focus instead on building adaptive, inclusive, and resilient workplaces that reflect the evolving nature of work.
Thanks Brian. Great insights. When I read the section in the article that articulated their perspective of the problems of hybrid work, I couldn't help but think about how all of those same problems existed in the workplace before 2020 when most companies were in fact in the office. For example:
- New hires struggle - I'm not confident that we've ever (collectively) been exceptional at onboarding
- The wrong people get promoted - This has existed forever. I might even make an argument that at the very minimum hybrid actually made organizations confront some of these issues out of necessity. There's been more discourse over the past 4-5 years about the idea of presentism, and equitable performance management than ever before
It's unfortunate because I actually think their intent (studying companies and figuring out what is and isn't working) is something that more companies should do.
I would love to put one of my professional research friends back in the rooms where they held the focus groups at the one company they talked with -- I'd bet sizable amounts that the conversations were general in nature as you note, and the author(s) decided to pin the root cause on their desired outcome...
What an incredibly shoddy piece of work. Makes you wonder about the quality of the rest of what's in HBR.
What I've taken away from this is the major shift has been to distributed teams. To say it is to hybrid working is a misdiagnosis. The problem is that managers have not been trained to succeed in this environment and many processes and structures have not been adapted.
You might have pulled this together quickly but it's an excellent summary of the key issues and backed up with data. Great work.
I share your emphasizing the importance/power of engaging teams collectively to articulate how they do their most business-critical work and what spatial attributes or cultural norms would best support their processes and interactions. When they develop team agreements and share them with us workplace strategists/designers, we get way better data/insights about designing workplaces and teams are heard and seen - and they become influencers for their various work locations.
Love the interaction of team agreements with workplace! The team at Genentech has been a great leader in this for years -- supporting teams in building their agreements, because they know that alignment is essential for teams AND it leads to better workplace interactions!
I think you know how I feel about this, Brian, because I've left my comments about it multiple times. I think it comes down to control more than it does anything else.
It's disheartening that given how disengaged workers are, how unhappy they are, the mental health crisis going on, that employers are still stuck on this kind of inflexibility when it doesn't serve anyone in the long run, including the organization.
It's such short-term thinking. I know it permeates because quarterly earnings dominate everything, and CEOs are increasingly under pressure (and shorter duration) but the continual dehumanization is crushing us.
And the worst part… It's just not necessary. Show a little grace and kindness to your employees. It's not that hard.
Brian, apologize for the late response. I was away last week in the paradise of Anguilla, and my mind is still moving to the rhythm of the waves in the moonlight.... it takes a while to return to reality.
To the topic here, I believe the real issues at the heart of the "place" articles are these:
1) Natalie DeCiantis (comment below) may have hit it best with this: "The future of work isn’t binary. It’s not remote versus office. It's about context—designing work models that are informed by data, responsive to employee realities, and aligned with strategic goals." Our world of work is now quantum, yet those with binary solutions still manage to get published regularly. The issues affecting work are far more complex and specific, depending on the work being performed.
2) Most organizations have yet to capture the objective data that could be available for every employee if their business process and workflows were properly digitally designed and managed (likely by AI, not humans). We often make management decisions based on observed and interpreted reality rather than objective data, including factors such as physical presence, subjective surveys, and overall gut feelings. This provides a warped answer into things like productivity, the quality of the work product, employee happiness, etc.
3) We are at the very beginning of the AI changes that will be deep and profound and will affect almost all knowledge work performed. The impact of this can only be imagined now through how much less human labor will be needed. But the changes go far beyond that for sure.
As all this change is unfolding right in front to us today, perhaps we need to give AI enhancements a little rope to show us what can be done before we start to rein it in. My sense is that we are entering "The Big Pause" as we become aware of all the new possibilities that are not yet in our consciousness. These are surely coming regardless of what humans do.
We are all looking at the sunset of the old ways of work. Let's enjoy the experience and wait to see the sun to come up again tomorrow with the new glow of the future.
I started the phrase "Digital is your new HQ" back at Slack, so concur strongly with all of this - and that was pre-generative AI.
You are spot on with all of this -- thank you for the thoughtful and well considered response!
Thank you, Brian, for taking the time to highlight some of the biases and inconsistencies in the HBR article "Hybrid Still Isn’t Working." In an era where misinformation is easily amplified, I deeply appreciate your commitment to evidence-based analysis and a more balanced conversation.
What’s particularly concerning, and in Trumpian fashion is the article’s tendency to present sweeping generalizations as fact—such as the claim that “organizations large and small are forcing their employees to return to the office for the entire workweek.” While some companies have indeed mandated full-time returns, broad statements like this ignore the substantial nuance in current workplace trends - where mandates and employee behavior are not aligned.
Even more troubling are the article’s extreme recommendations, such as encouraging managers to record attendance and penalize non-compliant employees. Not only does this promote a culture of mistrust, but it also risks disproportionately impacting caregivers—who, as research consistently shows, are still predominantly women. This kind of rigidity risks undoing progress made toward more equitable and inclusive work environments.
The claim that "companies no longer have the office space to house all their employees" also reveals a lack of understanding of strategic planning. As someone who works in real estate and supports organizations in shaping workplace strategies, I can say with confidence that the objective is not about choosing extremes—too much or too little space—but about calibrating needs thoughtfully. Smart portfolio management is about aligning space with business goals, employee needs, and evolving organizational culture. It's not one-size-fits-all.
The article’s call to preserve remote or hybrid work arrangements “at least for the time being” seems to disregard the mounting evidence that distributed work is not a temporary reaction—it’s a long-term shift. Research from McKinsey, Future Forum, and others consistently shows that flexibility remains one of the top drivers of employee satisfaction and retention. Meanwhile, the office still plays a meaningful role in fostering connection, innovation, and culture—but only when used intentionally, not mandated unilaterally.
The future of work isn’t binary. It’s not remote versus office. It's about context—designing work models that are informed by data, responsive to employee realities, and aligned with strategic goals. Let’s move beyond absolutism and focus instead on building adaptive, inclusive, and resilient workplaces that reflect the evolving nature of work.
Thanks Brian. Great insights. When I read the section in the article that articulated their perspective of the problems of hybrid work, I couldn't help but think about how all of those same problems existed in the workplace before 2020 when most companies were in fact in the office. For example:
- New hires struggle - I'm not confident that we've ever (collectively) been exceptional at onboarding
- The wrong people get promoted - This has existed forever. I might even make an argument that at the very minimum hybrid actually made organizations confront some of these issues out of necessity. There's been more discourse over the past 4-5 years about the idea of presentism, and equitable performance management than ever before
It's unfortunate because I actually think their intent (studying companies and figuring out what is and isn't working) is something that more companies should do.
I would love to put one of my professional research friends back in the rooms where they held the focus groups at the one company they talked with -- I'd bet sizable amounts that the conversations were general in nature as you note, and the author(s) decided to pin the root cause on their desired outcome...
Spot on analysis @Brian