“`html

The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an unparalleled transition to remote employment. Now, as companies revert to in-person operations, hybrid work has surfaced as a favored alternative.

Hybrid work purports to deliver the advantages of both environments — employees benefit from in-person interaction at the office while also being able to concentrate on focused, individual tasks at home — yet recent findings from the University of Washington indicate this setup may be overly optimistic.

Over 50% of U.S. organizations with hybrid work practices now stipulate that staff be present in the office three days a week. The findings, published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, reveal that moderate office attendance requirements foster optimal conditions for the establishment of workplace subgroups.

When employees adhere to a three-day office schedule but select different days to attend, particular team members naturally collaborate more frequently. Researchers discovered that, as time progresses, these dynamics create “co-location imbalance,” leading to the division of teams into subgroups with strengthened internal ties.

Michael Johnson, co-author of the research and management professor at the UW Foster School of Business, discussed hybrid archetypes and their implications for the workplace with UW News.

Can you elaborate on how hybrid work fosters subgroup formation?

Subgroup formation has been extensively studied, particularly concerning demographic divisions within teams. For instance, in a team of five where there are three older Caucasian males and two younger Latina females, these demographic factors could align to form a divide, creating distinct subgroups. Research indicates that subgroups typically hinder team performance, as individuals tend to collaborate more with those within their subgroup rather than those across the demographic divide.

My co-authors and I began to explore how hybrid work might influence subgroup formation. We specifically considered how individuals select which days to work in the office. Could the imbalance in daily co-location affect subgroup development?

Extensive social psychological research indicates that when we engage face-to-face with others, we often form stronger relationships compared to remote interactions. We hypothesized that if some employees co-locate frequently with specific individuals while others do not, those who share space might form subgroups due to their frequent interactions and shared informal experiences. In contrast, those remote miss out on significant social exchanges. Even with technological connections, they lose much by being absent on certain days. This was how we began to link hybrid work to subgroup formation.

The study discusses various hybrid archetypes that have differing impacts. Can you clarify some of these archetypes and their distinctions?

The most apparent subgroup archetype presented in the study is “divide to conquer,” where on a theoretical five-person team, three members frequently co-locate. The remaining two also co-locate together but not with the first group. Another noteworthy archetype is “us vs. them,” wherein three individuals are present in the office daily while the other two work entirely remotely. This scenario is typical of virtual or partially distributed teams, where some members are in remote locations and cannot participate in person. In the “power dyad” archetype, two team members co-locate often while the other members do not interact with one another very much. Here, one dominant subgroup makes most work-related decisions and may delegate tasks to those on the periphery, who operate in isolation.

The only archetype we identify in our study that appears beneficial is “all for one and one for all,” where all members co-locate on the same days. For instance, if workers are present in the office two days a week, they agree to be in on Tuesdays and Thursdays, working remotely on other days.

Many organizations implementing hybrid work are adopting three-day in-office, two-day remote policies. According to our analysis, there are over 200,000 possible co-location patterns for a team of five within any given week. While this policy may offer certain advantages, it also poses risks regarding teams splintering into ineffective subgroups.

What occurs in the workplace when these subgroups form?

GitLab discovered that in-office employees often create tightly-knit groups that inadvertently exclude remote workers. Office staff frequently grab coffee together, engage in hallway chats, and hold spontaneous meetings. Remote employees miss these interactions. Such “two-tier work environments” develop naturally when some coworkers share physical space while others do not. The issue escalates over time, as in-person teams cultivate unique communication styles that remote colleagues remain unaware of, rendering advancements made in these casual dialogues invisible to those working remotely and deepening the divide.

Members within the same subgroup create a virtuous cycle, enjoying increased collaboration and a stronger sense of group identity. Conversely, a vicious cycle emerges, characterized by reduced collaboration and diminished identity among those in different subgroups. As these subgroups maintain co-location over time, they may develop rigid preferences about whom they wish to collaborate with, possibly fostering suspicion toward other subgroups, believing they may seek to undermine or sabotage their efforts.

However, subgroup formation isn’t always detrimental. In scenarios where time is of the essence and workers need to deliver a product quickly, there may not be sufficient time for everyone to gather and discuss collectively. It becomes necessary to divide the workload: one group may handle certain tasks while another addresses different ones. In such instances, organizations may find it beneficial to encourage an imbalance in co-location to tackle time-sensitive issues effectively.

What insights can organizations glean from this research in shaping their hybrid work policies?

Hybrid work provides significant advantages regarding employee satisfaction and retention. However, organizations mandating two or three days in the office without thoughtful scheduling risks exacerbating team fragmentation into unproductive subgroups. Our study indicates that effective hybrid models must extend beyond mere attendance policies. Organizations should implement deliberate strategies that take into account co-location patterns instead of just the total number of office days. Companies that neglect these dynamics risk developing perpetually divided teams where information, opportunities, and relationships are unequally fostered between in-office and remote employees. To ensure the success of hybrid work, leaders must acknowledge that the workspace is not only physical but also social.

Other co-authors are
“““html

Lisa Handke from Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Patrícia Costa from ISCTE Business School, María Ximena Hincapié representing Universidad de los Andes.

For further details, reach out to Michael Johnson at [email protected].

“`