Written by: Mark Mortensen and Henrik Bresman | Published by: c.2023 Harvard Business School Publishing Corp.
While the WHO has declared the pandemic officially over, one of its enduring effects is the increased prevalence of remote work. Much has been written about what the next normal in organizational life is (or should be), and anyone not living under a rock has seen people arguing passionately about the ideal mix of time spent working in the office vs. elsewhere.
A key reason for these ongoing debates is differing perspectives on how to prioritize necessary trade-offs. While we’ve seen much written about the different perspectives of leaders and employees, one dimension that has received relatively little attention is if and how perceptions of hybrid work differ across geographies — a critical issue for any leader of global teams.
In a survey of 651 managers from 50 countries across EMEA (61%), APAC (24%), and Americas (15%) conducted by the INSEAD Emerging Markets Institute and Universum, we found some important differences leaders of global teams need to be aware of and act on.
The Current Global Reality of Hybrid Work
The story emerging from our data is that work preferences differ depending on where that work is situated in the world. Some threads are common — for example, the proportion of employees working from home during the pandemic was similar across regions. We also weren’t surprised to find that a moderately positive impact on work-life balance was reported worldwide, and respondents uniformly recognized a positive effect on their organization’s carbon footprint. Notably, most respondents from all regions wanted their organizations to maintain employees’ ability to work from home at a level greater than before COVID.
Despite these similarities, one thing that did differ across regions within our sample was the desire to get people back to the physical office — generally greater in APAC than in EMEA and the Americas. This same pattern is visible in other recent data on return-to-office (RTO), which similarly showed Asia having the highest and the U.S. the lowest levels of RTO, with most European locations falling in the middle.
Designing Geographically Suited Hybris Work Policies
A key implication of the differences we’ve detected across regions, regardless of what those differences are, is that leaders need to take the time to understand the contexts in which they’re setting policies. Employees don’t care whether a given policy aligns with the prevailing wisdom at HQ 3,000 miles away or matches what a popular pundit tweets — they care whether it aligns with their experience and needs on the ground, where they are.
To design hybrid work policies that suit your organization’s different geographical and cultural contexts, take the following five steps.
STEP 1: DECIDE WHY YOU’RE OFFERING HYBRIDITY WHERE.
Not only are there differences between organizations with respect to why they offer flexibility; often, there are differences of opinion even within organizations. Therefore, the critical first step is to discuss why you offer flexibility or hybridity and examine whether those reasons apply across all your locations.
STEP 2: FIND OUT WHAT YOUR PEOPLE WANT (LOCALLY).
While this should go without saying, it needs to be said. Tempting as it may be for leaders to assume they know what employee preferences are, they’re often mistaken or see only part of the picture. For example, consider how local traffic conditions affect employee commutes. Just compare the experience of an employee who spends two hours each way in Mexico City gridlock with that of an employee pedaling along on the ubiquitous and well-designed bicycle lanes of Amsterdam or Copenhagen, and you’ll see how different their needs are.
When analyzing your data, pay particular attention to where employee needs don’t seem to match your own, as these are potential blind spots. Use those as a starting point for discussions to ensure you understand different locations’ preferences, and be sure to validate your understanding — all it takes is a simple “I understand your top priority is X. Is that right?” to quickly surface where you may have reached the wrong conclusion.
STEP 3: OFFER DIFFERENTIATED HYBRID OFFERINGS.
When it comes to hybrid working, one size fits none. Don’t look to set a single global policy, but use the data collected in step 2 to tailor offerings for different contexts. For example, if flexibility is a priority for employees in one location, you might allow them to choose any two WFH days each week, while in another location that prioritizes a tight-knit culture, you might limit WFH to specific days to maximize face-to-face team interaction.
You should use your own data to determine what level of granularity best helps you understand your organization. You may find that regional, national or even local differences provide the greatest insights. Make sure to set policy accordingly.
STEP 4: BE TRANSPARENT AND KEEP FAIRNESS IN MIND.
Employees increasingly view hybridity as a perk or even a right. As with compensation or bonuses, maintaining a sense of equity and fairness is critical. Be transparent about how policies differ by region and why.
Recognize as well that hybridity can be a source of inequity that doesn’t affect all groups equally. Mark ran across this in discussions with employees of a Japanese pharmaceutical company with subsidiary offices in the United States. In a workshop on global work, they discovered that video meetings at home had very different implications depending on where employees were based. The Americans on the team could take calls from comfortable home offices, while many of their Japanese colleagues living in small apartments opted to stay in the office so as not to disturb (or be disturbed by) their families. Even with the same policy, local contexts led to different outcomes.
STEP 5: KEEP UPDATING YOUR MAP.
The hybrid landscape continues to change as the post-pandemic demand for work from home has been tempered by increased recognition of what the office has to offer, all amid a changing economic climate and shifting labor market. When you add to this the fact that all of these factors are shaped by differing local contexts, it’s critical that leaders not only set policies but also plan to re-evaluate them periodically to ensure they remain appropriate. As with the other steps in the process, the timeline of that re-evaluation should be aligned with the local context, as labor markets and economic conditions may vary at different speeds across regions.
+++
With these steps in mind, leaders can design hybrid work policies that fit the diversity of contexts in which they operate — avoiding instituting policies that address the needs of one region while creating new headaches in another.
