Faced with often dogmatic positions, it becomes crucial to measure the maturity of companies on the subject of hybrid work, to compare their performances and to draw lessons, without preconceptions. The Hybrid Work Index (HWI subsequently), a study carried out among more than 60 French companies, offers valuable insight. This panel covers a wide spectrum of sectors of activity and company sizes: Allianz, BlaBlaCar, Covea, Orange and YouSign.
The results are revealing: only 36% of companies are taking full advantage of hybrid working, reaching “pioneer” or “confirmed” status. The majority (64%) are still in less advanced phases, described as “emerging” or “observer.” »
The diversity of hybrid work worlds
First observation, there are considerable differences between organizations in the freedom given (or not) to employees, as well as in maturity on this issue. From 100% office to 100% teleworking, there is a gradient of hybrid organizations with more or less flexible or strict frameworks.
By pushing the intensity of teleworking and the distribution of teams in France or around the world very far, start-ups, consulting companies but also some more traditional companies or administrations have shown that a new world of work is possible. . But have they created a new replicable standard?
Nothing is less certain. The apparent modernity that emerges from the panel is contrasted by very different practices. Some organizations are going back and limiting teleworking, promoting “community” against what they perceive as individualistic hypertrophy, and reaffirming the power and pivotal role of head office as a place of mixing, learning and acculturation.
These practices are not, however, synonymous with economic failure. Companies that are part of the 100% office trend, such as SAMSE and XEFI in two very different businesses, maintain their financial performance. They assume their choice of a 100% face-to-face work policy in a market where the expectations of talents have evolved, as well as the associated costs: XEFI thus recognizes losing around a third of potential candidates due to this policy, while other companies must offer salaries 20% higher than the market.
Worlds of work already coexist and will therefore continue to move together, with their respective advantages and disadvantages. The employees will do their “market”, at least if they have this form of power.
In other words, it is no more relevant to celebrate the hybrid king as a “winner takes all” than to vilify hybrid work as a source of degradation of the collective, of the feeling of belonging or even of productivity.
Is hybrid working a source of productivity?
On this last point, HWI data indicates that the vast majority of companies in the panel (95%) consider that hybrid working does not negatively impact team productivity, or even causes an increase – for 21% of them. . Only 5% observe a deterioration. These numbers suggest that hybrid working, when implemented well, can be an effective model.
This efficiency of hybrid work then seems to reside in the ability to adapt practices to the specific needs of each organization. To do this, it is essential to look at the key sub-themes of hybrid: the work environment, which notably integrates the work spaces which will be discussed in the following point, the organization and interactions , which we will also discuss in the coming paragraphs. The challenge is to ensure that on these aspects, the directions taken are consistent with each other and meaningful for managers and their teams.
Spaces adapted to hybrid work
Adapting places is part of this quest for efficiency in the practice of hybrid work: this model requires organizing the physical environment taking into account the diversity of uses. One of the authors thus formulated a matrix of uses which is broken down into six Cs: concentration, collaboration, contribution, connection, conviviality and cocoon. Six uses, therefore, which help to project teams into the notion of “dynamic” spaces: they outline the mobility of people within the different spaces which embody these different uses. Depending on my needs, throughout the day, I will be able to take a call in a phone box, collaborate with two colleagues in a suitable space, or even receive a client in a convivial space – before settling down within a concentration space to write an action plan…
Spaces adapted to hybrid work therefore respond to these different uses, with regard to the professions carried out – some needing more sedentary time and concentration (patent engineers) than others (a project team for example).
Experience shows that such projection is essential to support change: it helps to enrich the vision that we can have of “work”. In fact, 57% of the companies in the panel have undertaken a major transformation of their workspaces, adopting flex office as a lever to further develop areas dedicated to collaboration and collective life.
But what the HWI also reveals is this: if managerial activity does not move more in this direction, aided by spaces designed for this range of uses, it will not work. All forms of “interaction” are to be valued, and they must be able to take place in suitable spaces. Likewise, the organization of work, particularly in terms of what takes place face-to-face versus remotely, must be rethought, realigning itself with modus vivendi, the rules of “living together”.
Here we find the idea of a “new scenario of face-to-face days”. At MICHELIN, this is anchored in particular in the reflection around work rituals which is proposed to collectives of managers as part of the “Active Office” approach, with a view to making the most of co-presence time on site (“ Why do we go to the office? », by Rémi Mangin, Michel Ciucci and David Autissier, Eyrolles, 2021).
As we can see, the most mature HWI companies in terms of hybridization are therefore those which have really explored the “New Ways of Working” (NWoW subsequently) in connection with the transformation of their spaces, the latter having to in be a consequence.
Finally, it is important to emphasize here that this adaptation goes far beyond the scope of the head office to encompass a complete ecosystem of work environments: home, coworking spaces, satellite offices. The most mature companies in terms of hybridization have gone beyond the simple optimization of square meters to build real networks of flexible and diversified spaces.
The HWI reveals that 47% of companies now use flexible real estate spaces, demonstrating a real evolution of NWoW. The key to success therefore does not lie in the multiplication of constraints, but in the ability to offer the right space at the right time for the right activity, in a multi-site logic, while optimizing real estate costs.
The delicate balance between ritualization and flexibility
The HWI reveals another observation: only 52% of companies have formalized team rituals in the context of hybrid work. This relatively low figure demonstrates a lack of maturity in adapting to this new way of working. Yet creating rituals, whether physical or hybrid, is crucial to maintaining entrepreneurial spirit and team cohesion.
These highlights should be implemented at all levels of the organization, from the company as a whole to individual teams. The importance of these rituals is underlined by another revealing figure: in a hybrid work situation, 20% of companies note a drop in the perception of belonging to the company among their employees, compared to only 10% who observe an increase.
A particular challenge emerges in cross-team collaboration, identified by many hybrid pioneers as the model’s main difficulty. While rituals are generally well thought out at the company or team level, they are often overlooked in the cross-team context. The Chief People Officer of a scale-up of 200 employees says: “We had implemented effective rituals within each team, but we quickly noticed increasing compartmentalization between departments. We had to rethink our practices to include moments of cross-team collaboration, such as quarterly hackathons and regular cross-functional projects. »
However, it is crucial not to fall into excessive ritualization. A ritual implies a formal logic, marked times, a standardization in short: a relational process. However, the part of the informal, the conversations which escape any notice, count as much, if not more, than the first.
The challenge for managers is therefore to achieve the right balance between structure and spontaneity, between ritualization and conversation. On the latter, we can only subscribe here to the words of sociologist David Le Breton (“ The end of the conversation? », Métailié, 2024), as in the reading proposed by Ghislain Deslandes and Guillaume Mercier, respectively philosopher and researcher in governance, of “discretionary” benevolence: this part taken by “informal exchanges” around a coffee or a beer after work, and which “is beyond the control and regulation of the company”. Not prescribed, free, and therefore just as essential as the ritual (“ Formal and Informal Benevolence in a Profit-Oriented Context », Springer, 2020).
Each organization, each manager, will therefore have to find the right balance between the part of the informal and that of the established ritual. The most important thing is to make it a team subject, a subject of exchange between peers: no magic formula, but the interest of collective questioning on the ritualization of key moments, times of co-presence . Ultimately, what do we need to be one, all together?
