1.1 This submission draws on our experience at Advanced Workplace Associates (AWA), where we have supported a wide range of organisations navigating the shift to hybrid and remote working. It expands on the oral evidence I gave to the Committee on 24 March 2025.
Our argument is that the performance of home-based and hybrid teams is heavily influenced by the quality of leadership and management—rather than where work is done—and that structured, evidence-based training in these areas delivers measurable improvements in outcomes such as collaboration, cohesion, motivation and productivity.
Since the pandemic, hybrid working has become the dominant model across many sectors. While this brings significant benefits, such as improved time management, increased work capacity, reductions in travel, greater work-life balance, improved well-being and broader adoption of technology, it also introduces new challenges, including reduced spontaneous communication, increased risk of misunderstanding, and difficulties in maintaining social cohesion and trust across dispersed teams.
Where leadership skills were poor and perhaps hidden pre-pandemic, hybrid working has tended to expose these skills’ weaknesses.
Organisations that thrive in this environment invest in equipping managers and team leaders with the skills to lead hybrid teams effectively. Our work at AWA shows that simple, practical frameworks—such as the “six factors” of hybrid effective teamwork—can help leaders foster trust, support, shared vision, and effective communication within their teams. Moreover, when people feel consulted and empowered—rather than mandated—they are more likely to commit to shared goals and collaborative ways of working.
The evidence presented in this submission also explores the organisational and national-level productivity implications of hybrid working, the growing mismatch between office supply and usage, and the need for a policy approach that encourages innovation, equity and long-term capability building.
We make one core recommendation: the UK Government should promote the widespread adoption of evidence-based leadership and management training for hybrid working. This would enhance business and UK productivity, improve employee experience and support broader policy goals, including regional rebalancing, inclusion, and economic growth.
I am submitting this written evidence in my capacity as Director of Consulting with Advanced Workplace Associates (AWA), a UK-based management consultancy that works globally with organisations to improve performance through evidence-based approaches to workplace strategy, change, and leadership. I appeared before the Committee on 24 March 2025 to provide oral evidence on the theme of leadership and management in a hybrid working context.
My professional background includes over 30 years of experience in business and HR. I was previously Director of People, OD and Workplace for the CIPD (the professional body for HR and L&D professionals in the UK), Director of HR and Workplace Experience for CIMA, and I held various HR and business-related roles with Barclays plc. I have seen first-hand how workplace culture and leadership capability influence performance. In recent years, my focus has been on supporting clients of different sizes, such as BP, Microsoft, Amnesty International, the NHS, charities and Citi Group, to effectively lead distributed, hybrid teams—particularly through applying behavioural science and evidence-based practices developed at AWA.
This submission expands on the key points I shared with the Committee, drawing from both academic research and our practical experience at AWA. It addresses several of the Committee’s questions, particularly those relating to the challenges and opportunities for workers and employers, the role of leadership and management, and the impact of hybrid working on productivity and national competitiveness.
At the heart of our argument lies a simple premise: effective hybrid working is not solely about policies or technologies—it revolves around how people are led. When managers are equipped to foster trust, maintain cohesion, inspire teams through a shared vision and clear goals, and facilitate effective communication, hybrid teams can thrive. Conversely, lacking these skills, organisations risk falling into patterns of miscommunication, disengagement, and underperformance.
The Committee has a unique opportunity to influence a forward-looking, evidence-informed policy approach that supports long-term success for individuals, organisations and the UK economy. We hope this submission contributes meaningfully to that goal.
The shift to hybrid working has created both opportunities and challenges for individual workers. Our experience at AWA, supported by research and client engagement across sectors, suggests that while many people benefit from greater flexibility and autonomy, new demands are placed on communication, collaboration and self-management.
One of the clearest benefits of hybrid working is improved time management. By eliminating the need for daily commutes, individuals have gained back significant time—often reinvesting it into productive work, family life, or personal well-being. Furthermore, they have experienced economic benefits as well due to a decrease in the cost of their commute. Many knowledge workers discuss a greater sense of control over their time, which contributes to higher levels of satisfaction and focus.
We have also observed an increased capacity for people to take on a broader range of work, particularly when the working environment is conducive to focused effort. Remote settings, when safe and well-structured, can support deeper concentration, leading to higher-quality outputs. This is especially true for individuals with roles that require independent analysis, writing or problem-solving.
Hybrid working has also prompted people to be more intentional in their collaboration. Because informal, in-person communication is less frequent, team members are placing a greater emphasis on clarity, planning and inclusive participation. This shift has the potential to support better decision-making and more equitable team dynamics, especially when supported by effective leadership.
A further opportunity lies in the wider adoption of digital tools. Video conferencing, collaborative platforms, and shared digital workspaces have become standard, increasing overall technological fluency across organisations. In many cases, this has enabled better knowledge sharing and allowed geographically dispersed teams to function more effectively than before.
Finally, hybrid working has made it easier for people to blend work and personal responsibilities. While this can be a double-edged sword, many employees—especially parents and carers—have benefited from greater flexibility, enabling them to participate more fully in the workforce.
However, hybrid working also brings significant risks that need to be recognised and actively managed. One of the most pressing is the challenge of maintaining safe and healthy working environments at home. Not all employees have access to appropriate workspaces, which can negatively affect physical health and long-term productivity.
Another major challenge is the blurred boundary between work and home life. While flexibility can be empowering, it can also result in work extending into personal time, contributing to burnout and a sense of always being “on.” This is especially pronounced among employees who lack strong management support or clear workload expectations.
From a collaboration perspective, hybrid teams may experience a reduction in informal, spontaneous interactions. These casual conversations—often overlooked in traditional productivity metrics—are vital for team cohesion, innovation, and mutual understanding. When they are absent, misunderstandings and silos can increase.
In particular, hybrid working can disadvantage individuals who are newer to the organisation or to the workforce. Without strong induction processes or in-person mentoring opportunities, younger employees may struggle to build networks and gain exposure to learning opportunities.
Gender and caregiving responsibilities also play a role. While hybrid work can support greater participation for women, especially those with caring responsibilities, there is a risk that reduced visibility in the workplace can impact career progression if organisations are not proactively managing for equality of opportunity.
Overall, hybrid working has created the conditions for more personalised, productive and inclusive working lives, but only when the right structures, behaviours and leadership practices are in place. The transition requires organisations to pay close attention to individual differences and to proactively manage risks, especially in relation to team cohesion, wellbeing and inclusion.
The success of hybrid working heavily depends on the capability and behaviour of leaders and managers. Our work at AWA has consistently shown that when leaders are equipped to lead hybrid teams effectively, performance, engagement and collaboration all improve significantly. Conversely, without targeted development, many managers struggle to adapt to the demands of a distributed workforce—leading to communication breakdowns, reduced trust, and lower cohesion.
Our evidence-based approach to team development is centred around six critical factors that determine the effectiveness of knowledge worker teams, particularly in hybrid environments: trust, social cohesion, perceived supervisory support, vision and goal clarity, internal communication (communication within the team), and external communication (team communication with other teams).
These six factors are derived from robust academic research with the Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa) and validated in our practical consulting work. When these elements are present, teams perform more effectively, regardless of whether they are physically co-located or working remotely. When they are absent, dysfunction and disengagement follow.
Building trust and cohesion requires intentional effort in hybrid settings. Managers can no longer rely on proximity or informal visibility; instead, they must adopt new behaviours and routines to stay connected with their teams. That includes setting clear expectations, holding regular check-ins, and creating psychological safety in virtual interactions.
Supervisory support is especially vital in hybrid teams. Employees need to feel that their manager is accessible, responsive and invested in their success. Our experience shows that when people perceive high levels of support from their manager, they are more likely to report high engagement and commitment—even when working remotely.
Clarity of vision and goals helps teams prioritise effectively, avoid duplication of effort and stay aligned. In the absence of informal reinforcement (e.g., corridor conversations), managers must take extra steps to ensure everyone understands what success looks like, how work connects to strategic objectives and how to resolve competing priorities.
Effective internal and external communication underpins all of this. Hybrid leaders need to be deliberate about how information flows across the team, what is shared asynchronously and how external stakeholders are engaged. Without clear communication strategies, misunderstandings and frustration can arise quickly.
We believe that leadership development for hybrid working must start early and be grounded in evidence, not assumptions or tradition. Many organisations still rely on outdated management models that assume physical visibility and proximity are prerequisites for performance. These assumptions not only fail in hybrid environments, but they actively cause harm by fostering micromanagement, mistrust and unnecessary mandates.
Our clients have achieved positive results through targeted interventions that introduce the six factors of team effectiveness, create space for team leaders to explore what works in their team context, provide practical tools for building trust and communicating clearly, support team members across locations and offer coaching and peer learning opportunities to reinforce development over time.
One of the most transformative areas we focus on is enabling managers to have difficult conversations skilfully. These conversations—about performance, well-being, expectations or conflict—are often avoided in remote contexts, yet they are more essential than ever. When managers are confident and capable in this area, they help prevent misunderstandings from escalating and ensure people feel heard, valued and supported.
A recurring theme in our evidence is the difference between mandates and empowerment. While some employers have introduced blanket rules about office attendance, we know from feedback from Workplace Leaders that this top-down approach often creates more resistance than alignment. When people feel decisions are imposed on them without consultation, trust is eroded and defensive behaviours take hold.
Instead, we recommend a team-based approach to hybrid working, where teams co-create “working together agreements” that define how, when and where they collaborate. This fosters accountability, buy-in and a sense of shared purpose. It also acknowledges that different teams have different needs, and that flexibility can coexist with structure when managed well.
Several studies support the importance of good management in hybrid contexts. For example, a 2017 meta-analysis by Desmond McEwan[1] et al. found that teamwork training significantly improves both team behaviours and performance, reducing miscommunication and dysfunctional conflict. Our 2020 research with CEBMa on Managing the Virtual Workforce[2] found that well-led virtual teams can perform as well—or better—than office-based teams, provided trust, cohesion and communication are actively supported. A Stanford study led by economist Nicholas Bloom[3] (2024) showed that employees who work from home two days per week are just as productive, more likely to stay with their employer and no less likely to be promoted than their in-office peers.
Taken together, this evidence confirms our position: when leadership and management practices are adapted for hybrid contexts, organisations can unlock higher levels of performance, well-being and retention.
One of the central challenges in the hybrid era is finding a sustainable balance between organisational priorities and the preferences of individual workers. Our experience at AWA suggests that the most successful organisations take a thoughtful, consultative approach—grounded in clarity, trust, and shared principles—rather than imposing rigid mandates or relying on assumptions.
During the pandemic, the dominant narrative was rightly focused on well-being. However, as hybrid working has become a long-term feature of working life, organisations now face a more complex task: balancing individual well-being with organisational health. This includes considerations such as culture, team cohesion, talent retention, innovation, and performance.
Our argument is that employers must define the “why” behind their approach to hybrid working. Is the goal to increase collaboration? To improve onboarding and integration for new hires? To ensure teams remain aligned to strategic goals? Without a clear and shared rationale, hybrid policies often lack credibility and are more likely to provoke resistance.
Equally, workers are more likely to support in-office collaboration when they understand the purpose behind it and are given a voice in shaping how it works. Consultation and trust are essential. We consistently find that organisations that engage employees in meaningful dialogue about hybrid working experience fewer compliance issues, higher engagement and stronger team dynamics.
One of the barriers to progress in this area is the persistence of “command and control” management styles, often inherited from earlier eras and reinforced by unconscious bias. For example, many senior leaders from Generation X (born 1965–1980) have spent most of their careers in office-centric cultures and may be inclined to recreate the environments in which they felt most successful. This is understandable, but it risks undermining the more flexible, trust-based approaches required in this new hybrid era.
A study by Golden et al. (2009)[4] reinforces this point. It found that, for high-performing workers, performance information received virtually was evaluated more extremely—both positively and negatively—than performance observed in person. This suggests a potential bias in how remote work is perceived and assessed, which may influence decisions around promotions, recognition, or trust. We believe that addressing these unconscious biases and promoting evidence-based approaches to performance and management is critical to creating a level playing field for hybrid workers.
One of the most effective tools we use with clients is the development of clear hybrid working principles. These are not detailed policies but shared beliefs that guide decision-making. For example, “we value in-person collaboration for complex problem solving” or “we empower teams to decide what works best for them.”
Building on these principles, we help teams develop working together agreements that define areas such as how frequently they will meet in person, what types of work are best done face-to-face vs remotely and how they will communicate and collaborate across locations.
These agreements give people a voice, foster ownership and ensure that hybrid working is not left to chance or vague expectations of “common sense”. They also help manage perceptions of fairness, which is especially important when some teams or roles require more on-site presence than others. Ultimately, to work at the organisational level, fairness should be perceived as the consistent application of the organisation’s hybrid working principles rather than unrealistic expectations of the same outcome for every team and individual.
The question of whether office attendance should be mandated or left to teams is an ongoing debate. Our latest AWA Hybrid Working Index (October 2024)[5] shows that only 18% of organisations now require a set number of office days, with most leaving decisions to individual teams. This suggests a gradual shift away from top-down mandates toward more decentralised approaches.
In our view, aspirational norms, co-created with teams, are more sustainable than blanket rules. When expectations are flexible but clear, and when people understand the rationale behind them, they are more likely to comply voluntarily and contribute positively to team culture.
That said, organisations must also be clear about the difference between hybrid working (employee choice of work location within an agreed structure) and flexible working (employer-approved arrangements regarding working time). Confusion between the two can lead to inconsistent practices and frustration.
Finally, we recognise that contractual issues are becoming more prominent in the hybrid landscape. Some organisations are revisiting the distinction between office-based and home-based contracts, particularly in relation to travel expenses, allowances, and tax implications. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here, but we recommend that employers approach these questions transparently and consistently, with a focus on fairness and clear communication. A model that works well is to provide hybrid working employees within a reasonable commute time to the office (as defined by the employer) with an office-based contract that permits occasional working from home as part of a hybrid working model. For employees outside of this commute time, a home working contract should be applied. This means that those with an office-based contract will not incur unreasonable travel costs for the employer when they work from the office.
Hybrid working has prompted many organisations to reassess how productivity is defined, measured and supported. Contrary to longstanding concerns, the widespread shift to home-based and hybrid working during and after the pandemic has shown that productivity can be maintained—or even improved—when work is well-managed, and outcomes are clearly defined.
Our observations at AWA show that productivity concerns in hybrid environments are most often rooted in management discomfort with reduced visibility. This can lead to a tendency to monitor inputs, such as attendance or activity levels, rather than focusing on results.
At both the organisational and national levels, the key to unlocking the productivity potential of hybrid working lies in moving away from input-based models of performance management (e.g., checking up on employee activities and time spent at the computer) and embracing outcomes-oriented management of objectives supported by an effective coaching and mentoring style of leadership.
When organisations adopt outcomes-based performance management, they enable individuals to work in ways that suit their role, personality and home environment while maintaining accountability for deliverables. Managers must articulate expectations more clearly, provide regular feedback and assess performance based on delivered outputs—not assumptions. This approach not only aligns better with hybrid working, but it also fosters higher trust, autonomy and motivation.
A more nuanced understanding of productivity recognises that different environments are better suited to different types of work. For example, home environments (where conditions are suitable) support deep, focused work that requires concentration and minimal interruption. Office environments are better for fast-moving, collaborative work that benefits from real-time exchange, energy and shared physical presence.
Successful organisations help individuals and teams make informed decisions about where to work based on task, not tradition. This flexibility enhances productivity and improves employee satisfaction. In our work, we’ve seen particular gains when teams explicitly discuss the types of tasks they need to complete and align their working arrangements accordingly. This reduces frustration, duplication and miscommunication and increases the effectiveness of both individual and group work.
As outlined in Section 3, leadership capability is a decisive factor in the performance of hybrid teams. Our 2020 research with CEBMa confirmed that virtual teams can perform as well as or better than co-located teams—but only when trust, cohesion, psychological safety, and communication are actively managed. The strength of a team’s social and cognitive states has a direct impact on how well they coordinate, innovate and deliver. This underscores the importance of leadership training that focuses not only on technical tools but also on relational dynamics.
McEwan’s 2017 meta-analysis on teamwork training found that targeted development has a statistically significant impact on team behaviours and performance, particularly in reducing miscommunication and conflict. These findings remain highly relevant in the hybrid context, where informal cues and shared physical space are less available to buffer against misunderstandings.
The productivity benefits of hybrid working are not limited to day-to-day output—they also contribute to longer-term organisational resilience and international competitiveness. A key piece of evidence comes from the aforementioned 2024 study by Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom, which found that employees who work from home two days a week are just as productive, more likely to stay with their employer and no less likely to be promoted than their office-based counterparts. These findings are based on the largest dataset to date of remote-working professionals and reinforce what we have observed across our client base: hybrid working, when well-managed, improves retention without compromising performance.
This matters in a competitive labour market. Talented employees increasingly expect flexibility and autonomy. Organisations that fail to provide these may struggle to attract and retain the people they need, especially in knowledge-based sectors.
From a national perspective, the UK’s competitiveness will depend in part on how quickly it can adapt to these new norms. Countries that equip their workforces and leaders for hybrid working will benefit from greater agility, more inclusive labour participation and stronger innovation ecosystems.
Hybrid and remote working are not just workplace trends—they are reshaping patterns of living, learning, commuting and community engagement. The long-term societal consequences of these shifts are still emerging, but several implications are already clear. Our work at AWA suggests that hybrid working offers a range of potential benefits at the local, regional and national levels. Realising these benefits depends on thoughtful leadership and policy support.
One of the most visible effects of hybrid working is the underutilisation of office space. Many organisations report average usage of just three days per week, resulting in large, centrally located assets sitting idle for significant periods. While this reduces operating costs in some cases, it also creates strategic and environmental challenges.
Organisations are increasingly asking how to reconfigure office space to support new ways of working—shifting from rows of desks to more collaborative, purpose-driven environments. However, progress is uneven, and many buildings remain poorly suited to hybrid work patterns. From a sustainability perspective, low office utilisation represents a missed opportunity. Running large buildings with minimal occupancy is environmentally inefficient. We believe that better alignment between working patterns and office design, including shared hubs, bookable space, and more distributed workplace networks, can help reduce waste and increase value.
The challenge is to spread office usage more evenly across the week, which requires coordinated team planning, strong leadership and a break from legacy norms such as the Tuesday-to-Thursday 'peak' pattern. This could also help reduce congestion and improve public transport usage outside traditional rush hours.
One of the more positive effects of hybrid working is the significant reduction in commuting-related emissions. Fewer journeys to city centres, particularly by car or long-distance rail, contribute to lower carbon footprints and improved air quality. However, these gains are not automatic. Where workers are travelling longer distances but fewer times per week, the net benefit may be reduced. There is a case for further research to better understand the true environmental impact of hybrid working and for promoting sustainable transport solutions, such as cycling, car sharing and regional hubs.
We also note that digital infrastructure has become a key enabler of sustainability. Reliable broadband and home IT setups reduce the need for travel while ensuring that employees can remain productive and connected. This has implications for investment policy and digital inclusion.
Hybrid working offers the potential to rebalance economic activity across the UK, reducing dependence on major cities and allowing people to work from more affordable or underserved locations. This is particularly relevant in the context of the Government’s levelling up agenda. When employers support hybrid working without requiring a full-time presence in high-cost areas, they open up access to roles for people who may not otherwise have been able to relocate or commute due to cost, disability or caring responsibilities.
We believe this flexibility can expand the labour market, draw in previously economically inactive individuals, and help retain skilled workers in regions that have historically experienced outmigration. In turn, this can stimulate local economies, reduce regional inequalities and contribute to a more geographically distributed workforce. However, these benefits will not happen by accident. They require investment in regional infrastructure, including digital connectivity, coworking space and public services. They also require employers to take a more flexible view of where talent can be located and how performance can be measured.
Finally, hybrid working is influencing social habits in ways that are not yet fully understood. Reduced time in city centres has affected sectors such as retail, hospitality and transport. At the same time, more people are engaging with their local communities during the week, which may have long-term effects on civic participation and well-being.
Some remote workers, particularly those living alone, are neurodiverse or lacking local support networks, risk social isolation. Organisations must be mindful of this and take proactive steps to maintain connection not just through work tasks but also through team culture, social cohesion and informal support structures. This reinforces our view that hybrid working must be actively designed and led, not passively allowed to emerge. When employers take responsibility for the social dimensions of work, they help individuals stay engaged, healthy and resilient.
Hybrid working is now a structural feature of the UK economy. The challenge for the Government is not whether to support it but how to ensure it contributes positively to productivity, inclusion and long-term national resilience.
Our work with a wide range of organisations suggests that the most important role for public policy is to equip employers and leaders with the tools, knowledge and confidence to lead hybrid teams effectively.
Our principal recommendation is that the UK Government should support the widespread adoption of evidence-based training for managers and leaders of hybrid teams. This training should focus on building trust and social cohesion in distributed teams, improving internal and external team communication, enabling clear goal setting and a shared vision, supporting team psychological safety and supervisory presence and developing the capability to hold difficult, remote conversations skilfully.
These are the six factors we have found to be most predictive of hybrid team success. Embedding them through leadership development will not only improve team and organisational performance but also reduce friction, increase retention and support inclusive workplace cultures.
We recommend that the Government incentivise or co-fund development programmes by drawing on partnerships with credible professional bodies, business schools and independent providers.
The Government can also use its platform to encourage consultative, team-based approaches to hybrid working rather than top-down mandates. Research and experience show that people are more committed and productive when they feel they have a voice in shaping how they work. The concept of working together agreements should be promoted as a practical and adaptable tool for teams to define their own norms within broad organisational frameworks. This approach helps balance consistency with local flexibility and avoids the one-size-fits-all trap. This is especially important in the public sector, where rigid return-to-office policies can undermine morale and reduce trust at a time when the sector is already under pressure.
Hybrid working relies on robust digital infrastructure, especially outside major cities. We recommend continued investment in broadband and cloud-based systems. This supports both productivity and equity, ensuring that workers in currently less-connected areas are not left behind.
We also encourage the Government to explore ways to support local work hubs—shared spaces that allow people to work closer to home without working alone. This model can help bridge the gap between remote and office-based work, reduce commuting and support local economies.
Finally, hybrid working is not an isolated issue. It serves as a lever that can support multiple government objectives, including economic growth, by enabling more productive and agile ways of working, integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into organisational operating models, levelling up by allowing more people to participate in high-value work from across the UK, and reducing economic inactivity through flexible models that accommodate carers, disabled workers, and others who are excluded by traditional frameworks. Additionally, hybrid working can support net zero targets by minimising unnecessary commuting and promoting more sustainable use of office space and infrastructure.
To realise these benefits, we recommend that hybrid working be integrated into cross-departmental policy strategies, particularly those relating to employment, innovation, regional development, and sustainability.
Hybrid working is not a temporary trend but a permanent feature of modern working life afforded by perpetually more powerful, affordable technology. It offers the potential to improve productivity, inclusion and employee satisfaction while supporting wider economic, social and environmental goals. But these benefits are not automatic—they depend on how hybrid working is led, structured and supported. AWA was formed in 1992 when this ‘movement’ was in its early stages. Future technology developments will simply make Hybrid Working more possible.
Our experience at AWA shows that the single most important success factor is the quality of leadership and management. Hybrid teams thrive when managers are trained to build trust, foster cohesion, communicate clearly and support their people across locations. These behaviours are learnable, measurable and grounded in evidence.
Organisations that invest in these skills see better performance, lower attrition and greater adaptability. Those that rely on outdated assumptions, top-down mandates or unstructured flexibility are more likely to experience disengagement, miscommunication and underperformance.
Our submission calls on the UK Government to promote evidence-based leadership development, support consultative approaches to hybrid working, invest in infrastructure and research and integrate hybrid working into broader policy initiatives. By doing so, the Government can help employers unlock the full potential of hybrid teams and build a more resilient, inclusive and competitive workforce for the future.
We would be pleased to provide further evidence or collaborate on future initiatives to support this goal.
7 April 2025
[1]https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5234826/pdf/pone.0169604.pdf
[2] https://www.advanced-workplace.com/hybrid-working-strategy/managing-the-virtual-workforce/
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07500-2
[4]https://www.academia.edu/24787915/Implications_of_Virtual_Management_for_Subordinate_Performance_Appraisals_A_Pair_of_Simulation_Studies?f_ri=66056
[5] https://www.advanced-workplace.com/hybrid-working-strategy/awa-hybrid-working-index-4