sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Mixing it up: Hybrid work models can offer the best of both worlds for worker wellbeing and productivity

Business / opinion
Mixing it up: Hybrid work models can offer the best of both worlds for worker wellbeing and productivity
wfh
Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash.

By Stephen Blumenfeld, Chris Peace, Joanne Crawford & Roya Gorjifard*

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon sparked debate on the future of work in New Zealand this week when he ordered public service employees back to the office.

But Luxon’s edict neglects a broader transformation in work culture.

Work from home (WFH) arrangements have grown considerably over the past decade, propelled by an increase in dual-income households and rapid technological advancements.

The COVID pandemic acted as a catalyst for further change, proving that many jobs could successfully be performed remotely.

Our upcoming article in the New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations addresses the pros and cons of remote work. We highlight how a hybrid model – mixing days in the office with days working from home – can improve wellbeing, engagement and productivity.

We found embracing a hybrid approach may lead to better outcomes as society shifts with technology and employment expectations. And, despite the prime minister’s demands on public service workers, it may be too late to go back.

Embracing flexibility

Under current rules, employees can request flexible working arrangements. Employers must provide valid reasons if they decline the request.

According to a 2023 survey from Human Resources New Zealand, 40% of HR professionals noted productivity gains as a critical advantage of WFH arrangements.

And some professional organisations have embraced work from home or hybrid work arrangements.

The New Zealand Law Association, for example, has emphasised the significant benefits of flexible work for their members, including increased employee engagement, productivity, and overall wellbeing.

A report from Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission noted the public service’s success in delivering quality services during the pandemic while working remotely.

The commission’s current guidance on hybrid work arrangements supports flexibility that allows working from home to focus and working together when necessary.

Does WFH reduce efficiency?

Luxon argues forcing workers back to the office will promote efficiency. But there is little evidence suggesting New Zealand’s productivity has significantly declined with WFH or hybrid arrangements.

Instead, we found office-only arrangements risked introducing new inefficiencies for the government. These included new layers of permissions and reporting on arrangements that have already been agreed to.

The assumption that office work suits everyone is also contradicted by experiences during and after COVID.

During the first year of the pandemic, many workers felt the void of casual interactions that once sparked creativity. They also struggled with isolation. This was especially pronounced for caregivers, often women, who had to juggle professional duties with increased childcare responsibilities.

Despite this, a University of Otago survey conducted during the pandemic noted 67% of participants preferred a hybrid work model.

Many expressed optimism regarding remote work’s continuation, with significant portions reporting stable or increased productivity, although some struggled with home distractions.

And our research found taking a hybrid approach to work – with one or more days at home – reduced the risks from professional and social isolation and improved collaboration.

Opportunities to work at home some of the time also allowed time for focused work, reduced commuting time and improved wellbeing.

Boosting productivity from home

Luxon’s assertion that working from home is “not an entitlement” aligns with traditional views on work. These include the belief that time at a desk is a measurement of productivity, rather than measuring the outcomes from work.

However, a growing body of evidence indicates remote work can elevate both productivity and employee satisfaction.

Eliminating daily commutes allows employees to redirect time toward focused work, positively impacting job satisfaction and mental wellbeing.

Moreover, remote work fosters inclusivity, enabling organisations to source talent from a broader geographic area, which in turn enhances diversity and innovation.

A report from McKinsey & Company found businesses adopting flexible work arrangements are better positioned to navigate future uncertainties, sustaining or even boosting productivity.

A survey by the Australian Council of Trade Unions exploring WFH revealed nearly 48% of participants experienced enhanced productivity, attributed in part to the elimination of commuting.

However, it also highlighted challenges. Some 40% of respondents said they were facing longer work hours, which can lead to burnout. Addressing these issues is essential to maintaining employee wellbeing.

The future of work

Instead of enforcing strict office attendance, leaders should adapt to the changing work landscape.

Promoting flexible arrangements can foster a more productive and engaged workforce, ultimately benefiting New Zealand’s public service in today’s dynamic environment.

Balancing both office and remote work presents the most promising path forward.The Conversation


*Stephen Blumenfeld, Director, Centre for Labour, Employment and Work, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Chris Peace, Lecturer in Occupational Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Joanne Crawford, Worksafe New Zealand Chair in Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington, and Roya Gorjifard, Doctoral Candidate, School of Health, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

11 Comments

IMO which is rather experienced as 100% WFH, I would say there is a balance of at least 2 days in the office (on average).

There is a lot to be gain from chatting in the office and there is a lot to be gained from being left alone to get the work done.

Personality and the type of work plays a massive part. 
 

Any blanket statement that one is better than the other without balance is just rubbish and seems to be led by people with other motives, mainly those with either Commercial Real Estate to trying to downsize a business. 

Up
7

Agreed.  There are so many scenarios/variables at play, that it's definitely not a one size fits all model.  

For me, my role requires very limited distractions (Estimator/QS), plus I'm introverted and don't want/need to be around people to engage in small talk.  An individual contributor does not need to be dragged into an office to "collaborate", we find group MS Teams chats/meetings more than adequate. 

People just hear WFH and (possibly due to jealousy) stigmatize it with their prejudiced assumptions that everyone who is WFH is skiving off and stacking jobs/incomes.  

Up
0

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

The ability to work from home part of the time is a huge drawcard for white collar employees.

Right now there is a lot of job insecurity, and not much upward mobility, so everyone will basically just have to accept it and comply.

When the economy eventually picks up, and talent is in demand, the public sector will really struggle to recruit decent talent if this policy persists.

Its not like they've been kicking it out of the park to start with...

Up
0

Future or work is whatever your employer tells you it is. It’s that simple.

if a business has a strategy that involves work in office, grouped in teams, WFH, hybrid, whatever arrangement they will know what system works best for them and they will implement that. Whatever the employee thinks, mostly doesn’t matter; as they are not privy to the statistics overall, or the financials.

In our situation right now, we have all our staff that don’t work in country, working from home. Everyone in NZ, except a few are in the office (as there is not office to go to, so it makes sense and they are not in a team based role) The few that are have been WFH have medical issues. The ones without medical issues we need because of their knowledge. We are going through a knowledge transfer process right now so we will no longer require those WFH people that insist they are not coming back to office. When the process is complete, their roles will be disestablished. There are many I know in the same boat, doing similar things.

Up
0

It's good to see a much more balanced comment from you on this topic.  100% an arrangement afforded by the employer based on what works for the type of business activity and what they may have to lose.  The employee is always secondary, if it's not in their employment agreement then they're welcome to find another employer who will give them that flexibility.  

My WFH arrangement was given to me as a means of retainment as I used to commute 3+ hours every day.  My choice to live where I do of course, but I had a similar job lined up much closer to home.  The company did not want me to leave, so negotiated WFH.  

Up
2

For a national organisation, WFH widens the labour pool away from Wgtn and Akl, and even widens it outside of NZ. Wider labour pool results in better staff.  

In person means limiting labour pool to one city or requiring expensive regional offices, and those people are also far away from central management's gaze. 

Up
2

Having worked a lot in this space (in terms of analysing impacts etc...) there are some clear patterns that emerge.

  1. 2x days WFH and 3x days in office tends to offer the best benefits in terms of productivity, culture, and performance.
  2. WFH Mon/Fri leads to the second lowest Productivity, but the highest employee satisfaction.
  3. WFH Tue/Wed is best for productivity purposes.
  4. WFH on a thu regardless of the other WFH day leads the friday in the office tends to be a right off. Uuptick in leave, and motivation is low, seen more as a "social" day rather than a "work" day
  5. WFH on a Fri is always the least productive as it is often viewed as a 4 day week.

The biggest issue with Hybrid is the failure to sync everyone to the same days. For it to work everyone needs to be in the office on the same days. Otherwise you lose any of the on-site benefits.

Up
4

Yeah trouble is syncing everyone on the same day negates the advantage of less office space. I guess sync teams if the company is big enough.

Up
0

Hi there,

Are these patterns published anywhere? They make a lot of sense and I would like to direct some people in my organisation to them.

Thanks

Up
0

Have worked fully remote for large banks, insurance and super annuation companies since covid, delivered CRMs, Knowledge Management systems, EQC changes, regulatory change etc. in my personal experience there is absolutely no difference to productivity in a fully remote environment, it’s the team that makes or breaks it. Connection is important, is what you make of it, and comes in many forms, including regular phone calls and video calls. You don’t need to see someone face to face to feel connected to them, especially if you’re both going through the same thing together anyhow.  

Up
1

Whatever the answer to this question, I don't think likelihood of greater cafe or restaurant patronage is a good enough reason for sending WFHs back to the office.

Up
0