In-Office Vs. Remote Vs. Hybrid Work Two Years Later: The Impact On Employee Efficiency

Back in April 2020, half the world's population found itself in lockdown. Organizations scrambled to accommodate remote work and, as it turned out to nobody's surprise, most white-collar jobs didn't need much else than a laptop and an internet connection. A large portion of the workforce rejoiced in the newfound flexibility of working remotely, whereas others struggled to acclimatize, sparking a heated global debate about the pros and cons of in-office vs. remote vs. hybrid work. 

Preference for a particular work environment quickly became a hill to die on. Companies that forced reluctant employees to return to the office saw talent abandon ship, which, in confluence with other factors, grew into the Great Resignation that still continues to ravage organizations worldwide.

Today, more than two years after the first lockdowns, the debate about which work model is the most effective has tapered. In a twist of fate, companies now find themselves offering remote and hybrid options as a strategy for retaining talent rather than for any performance considerations—after all, you can't boost employee efficiency if you don't have employees. 

That said, while the productivity differences between the work models have taken a backseat in popular discourse, they're still very much present in practice. Or, at least, that was my hypothesis as I set out to understand the impact of different work models on employee efficiency two years after most people got their first taste of remote work.