Organisational Support of Sustainable Hybrid Work: Between Homely Workspace and the Need for Live Cooperation

Abstract

(1) Background: The objective of this study is to obtain insights and analyse hybrid work (HW) arrangements implemented after the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia. We first define the concept of HW. We focus on organisational support of HW within the work requirements and resources model framework and are interested in the following aspects: The extent and the effects of HW on the quality of work, work/life balance, and workers’ well-being; ways in which HW is supported by the organisation; and key organisational challenges of HW. (2) Methods: Structured interviews with 75 workers and managers of hybrid work in Slovenia. (3): Results: HW is formalised and organisationally supported. The initiative for it lies primarily with the employees and is based on a high level of trust. The smooth implementation of the HW process requires mutual concern from employees and employers, an active role from leaders, and frequent live face-to-face collaboration. (4) Conclusions: Identifying HW practices, challenges, and the recommendations for work environments, will help individuals, HR managers, organisational leaders and businesses to optimise their HW arrangements.

1. Introduction

The facilitation and proliferation of work from a distance, or its sub-terms such as homeworking, teleworking, ICT-enabled work, and others, and the rise of digital offices, is one of the most visible consequences of the organisation and design of work during and after the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. According to various estimates, 30–50% of the population in Western economies teleworked during the pandemic [1,2,3]. The introduction of teleworking was neither an individual nor an organisational choice but rather was mandated by, or derived from, normative provisions and guidelines from decision makers and governments, to prevent the spread of infection or ensuring occupational safety and health. As a consequence, the widespread use of homeworking has occurred ad hoc, hastily, “organically”, in many cases without a predefined structure and analysis of the organisational and individual resources needed to carry out the work, and it was not actively monitored in organisations during the initial period of introduction.

Working from home during the pandemic has revealed specificities and challenges [4] that were not perceived or highlighted in research conducted before the pandemic [5]. This is largely because the teleworkers analysed in previous studies typically had a home office, adequate digital devices, and internet connectivity, and they did not need to share digital devices with other family members. Even if they regularly teleworked, they could still be able to go to the office and efficiently complete certain tasks that they could not do at home. In addition, they did not have to look after their children while working. At the same time, previous research has also confirmed that the choice to work from home (rather than the coercion that characterised the pandemic) has a positive impact on motivation and performance [6]. Therefore, teleworking in the pandemic remains a large-scale experiment, in which several employees, who had never teleworked before or had very limited prior experience with this mode of working, worked from home for the entirety of their normal working hours.

This paper aims to analyse the hybrid working arrangements implemented in organisations in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on structured interviews with workers and managers. We are interested in the following aspects: 1. The scope of hybrid work and workloads; 2. The effects of hybrid work on the quality of work, work/life balance, and workers’ well-being; 3. Organisational support modalities for hybrid work, including support from managers, choice of work design, an adaptation of working arrangements and working time, communication, voice and involvement in collaborative work, development of necessary competencies for the work, remote access to data, necessary ICT, etc.; 4. Key organisational challenges of hybrid work; 5. Identification of the main organisational challenges of hybrid work. These aspects are analysed with empirical findings and recommendations for work environments and further research.

Our analysis first highlights the characteristics of hybrid work in the post-pandemic period from the perspective of workers and managers, which is still rare in the existing literature. Second, we provide an analysis of hybrid work in terms of workload, workload volume, worker well-being, and work–family balance. Third, we highlight the importance of organisational support for workers in hybrid work processes to reduce the negative effects on workers’ well-being and commitment, and we identify good working practices that organisations could use in the future. The paper is structured as follows: First, mainly foreign sources on telework and hybrid working and their characteristics are analysed to define concepts. Next, we highlight the concept of perceived organisational support (in the context of the work requirements and resources model), which constitutes the theoretical framework of our empirical research. In the next part of the chapter, we present the key results of our research work conducted in 2022 and 2023 in Slovenia. Based on the analysis of the empirical data obtained, we present the state of the art of hybrid working in Slovenian organisations (effects on work, workers, and managers, organisational support practices used, and challenges in implementing hybrid working). Finally, we provide recommendations for practitioners, workers, organisations, and for further research.

2. Working from Home and Home(ly) Workspace

Working from home is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, the home has been a key location for work in the skilled trades and in agriculture [7]. The institutional arrangements associated with the Industrial Revolution helped to spatialise economic activity and the division of labour between home and work [8]. The deindustrialisation that followed was marked by a shift towards services in Western societies [9]. The digital age, however, has led to further changes in location, increased flexibility and job diversity [10,11], and (has) blurred the distinction between home and work or paid work [12].

Organisations have adapted to these changes. On the one hand, organisations are working to create homely workspaces [13] and to this end are using different methods of workspace redesign that include narratives of community, relaxation, fun, and play within work. These activities aim to foster creativity and innovation in the work process, to identify with the organisation, and to enhance a sense of connectedness and belonging. The domestic workspace attempts to break down the boundaries between public and private space and life in a way that allows workers to identify more positively with the organisation through the freedom of domesticity. In this context, Fleming and Spicer [14] critically point to the unilateral, organisationally injected, blurring of boundaries and spillover of work into private time and space. Others are organisations that have realised that significant cost savings can be achieved if the home of their workers becomes the primary place of production or service. As a result, the costs of heating, electricity, broadband, printing, paper, and renting space have to some extent been shifted out of the corporation and into workers’ homes [15].

The emergence of homeworking in the digital age is also linked to various societal factors, such as demographic change, shortages of skilled workers in certain regions or occupations, the individualisation of needs and lifestyles as a result of changing values, and above all the digitalisation of work [16].

2.1. Spatial Flexibility of Work

Teleworking is a broad and complex phenomenon that has no universally accepted definition and includes teleworking, virtual working, teleworking at home, mobile teleworking, distributed teleworking, etc. It is often defined as work performed by a worker, in his or her own home or at premises of his or her own choice, which are outside the employer’s premises using information technology [17,18]. The ILO also points out that it is often a form of organising and performing work using information technology [19], offering permanent connectivity and virtual independent work within the context of an employment or contractual relationship. Here, work that could also be performed on the employer’s premises is performed off the premises and is less spatially and temporally defined [20]. Being dislocated from the employer’s premises is considered an alternative way of organising work. In the traditional way of working, employees work on the employer’s premises, and their work tasks and working hours are tied to this location. The location allows them to coordinate their work, share experiences, give instructions, seek information, observe and influence work behaviour, and strengthen internal communication and organisational culture [21]. Teleworking, on the other hand, creates a ‘digital workplace’ or ‘digital office’, which is not bound to a single workspace and geographical location, but through ICT and access to the internet, enables workers who perform their work tasks virtually to experience the physical workplace and to build relationships and interactions outside the physical work environment [22,23].

As Madsen points out, the concept of teleworking depends on different characteristics of work and can be defined according to [24]: (a) The intensity of teleworking (how much?), which refers to the extent to which an employee works outside the traditional workspace (full-time, part-time, ad hoc) [25,26]; (b) time of teleworking (when?), which refers to whether or not the teleworker teleworks during normal or traditional working hours or non-traditional working hours [27]; (c) place of teleworking (where) focuses on whether teleworking is carried out in several places, for example, partly at home and partly in the office, entirely from home or mobile, or in different places [28].

2.2. Hybrid Work

Hybrid working is a combination of (virtual) teleworking and working in the traditional workspace of the employer [29,30,31,32]. It allows the worker to combine work from a remote location (e.g., home, café, coworking space, etc.) and from the employer’s premises (e.g., company office), or to split work between home and the employer’s premises [33].

Lake [33] divides hybrid work into four categories: unreconstructed work, which is not hybrid at its core and refers to a process of work in which workers who worked hybridlike during the pandemic have returned to their traditional way of working after the pandemic. Hybrid work is no longer practised but has been replaced by traditional forms of work. Controlled hybrid work focuses on the rules, practices, and roles that apply in the traditional workplace as the basis for the implementation of remote working. In this form of work, the days of the week when it is possible to work from home and the days when it is mandatory to work on the employer’s premises are most often defined. Flexible hybrid work focuses on tasks in the work process rather than on rules and roles and offers workers more autonomy and choice.

Smart mature hybrid work is like flexible hybrid work, but with a strong focus on transformation and innovation. The central principles of this hybrid way of working are as follows: (a) virtual first, (b) redesigning workplaces in a way that allows workers maximum flexibility and choice, (c) optimal interaction between workers who work in traditional ways on the employer’s premises and workers who work elsewhere, and (d) a focus on outcomes and a culture of trust, rather than work practices based on presence or place of work.

Similarly, Hopkins [34] discusses the following three models of work: the office-centred way of working (identically unreconstructed), the hybrid split weekly model, and the split weekly model. The split model by week (same flexible hybrid model) and fully flexible hybrid model (same smart mature hybrid work) can be implemented as occasional teleworking from anywhere, in the form of shared space (including on the employer’s premises) or as more or less occasional teleworking from home or remotely, outside the employer’s traditional workspace. In this paper, we will focus on the combination of working in the employer’s office and working from home.

In deciding which model of hybrid working is best suited for an organisation to successfully carry out the job, the following factors are key: the need for the worker to be physically present at a particular location; the extent and complexity of interactions with workers; and the use of location-determined work tools, machines, and equipment [35]. Information on how many workers want to work from home and how often they would like to work from home is also helpful for employers to establish the most appropriate model [36]. The decision to hybrid work should consider the needs of workers as much as organisational needs.

Halford [37] points out that hybrid work changes the nature and organisation of work while at the same time changing tasks and roles in the domestic space, in the organisational space, and in the virtual space. In this regard, Golden and Gajendran [38] point out that office work on the employer’s premises enhances interactions, networking, and connectedness between workers and groups, contributes to more creative solutions, helps newcomers to fit into the organisation, and draws the boundary between work and other areas of life more sharply. On the other hand, working from home can offer workers the opportunity to care for family and home at the same time, which (can) contribute to greater work–life flexibility, reduce commuting time and costs, and may (or may not) provide a source of peace, comfort, and concentration for work. Gratton [35] highlights the importance of organisational and individual energy, focus on work, good relationships, collaboration, and well-being in the workplace when deciding on hybrid or traditional office work. Predotova and Vargas Llave [39] add that the virtual world cannot fully replace the bonds forged in person, and it is also true that with less frequent physical contact, it is more difficult to maintain cohesiveness and identification with the work group [40]. More on the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid and teleworking from an individual and organisational perspective is presented in the following section.

2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Hybrid Working for Workers and Employers

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, various authors have studied the relationship between teleworking and its consequences for organisations and individuals. Nakrošiené et al. [41] found that communication with workers, trust, and support from the manager, and the suitability of the workplace at home are the most important factors influencing the success of teleworking. The same study also points out that productivity increased when working from home because workers spent less time in informal conversations with other workers when working from home, because the home environment was suitable for work, and because they had the opportunity to take care of family members at the same time. Other reasons for higher productivity in teleworking are that workers work when it suits them best and are less distracted from their work by other workers [28,42]. However, Makarius and Larsen [43], based on a review of the literature, highlighted the importance of individual skills as a key success factor for virtual and teleworking. Work behaviour guidelines, high levels of trust between workers, mutual coordination of information, the use of shared communication media, organisational support, and management processes can support workers in this regard. Studies to date have revealed a variety of advantages, disadvantages, and contradictions of teleworking and hybrid working for both workers and employers/organisations. These are presented in

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of teleworking and hybrid working.

Advantages for Workers	Disadvantages for Workers
More family and leisure time [24,44,45] Freedom to plan time [46,47] Lower stress [48] Right to disconnect [49] Increased autonomy [50] Less dependence on and greater choice of workplace location [51,52] More informal virtual communication [53] Improved productivity [18,28,48,54,55,56] Increased job and life satisfaction among highly skilled workers [57,58,59] Reduced commuting [60] Lower travel and other costs [47] Better employment opportunities for women with children, students and disabled people [47] Reduced traffic congestion and air pollution [61]	Blurred spatial and temporal boundaries between work and non-work and work–life imbalance [62,63] Difficulties in creating boundaries between work and the rest of life [58,64,65] Inability to disconnect from work [66] The size and quality of the home workspace determines job satisfaction [59] Lack of control over work and increased likelihood of communication noise [64] Lower recognition of achievements and lower chances of promotion [24,38,53,64] Professional isolation [55] Loss of professional and social networks [67] Feelings of loneliness and isolation [64,67] Difficulty in making informal contacts in virtual meetings [55] Lower job and life satisfaction among part-time and self-employed homeworkers [57,58,59] Stress and burnout due to increased workload and longer working hours [18,45,68] Technostress [69] Information overload [70] Higher levels of insecurity and precariousness [7,71] Mental health problems and depression among those who work alone [72] Higher rates of unpaid overtime [67] Increased opportunities for IT-based (technical) supervision (Wight) [15,73]
Advantages for the organisation	Disadvantages for the organisation
Increased performance [43] Fewer sick days [20,74] Higher staff retention (less turnover) [75] Savings in office, real estate and commuting costs [75] Reduced transaction/fixed costs [76] More diverse talent pool [76] Growth in service employment and ICT development increases the potential for homeworking [77]	Shirking from home [74] Weakening interpersonal communication and interactions with workers [44,78,79,80] Lower organisational identification [81] Videoconference/Zoom fatigue [82] Less effective team and group collaboration [83,84,85] Fewer interactions between managers and workers [83] More complex relational, operational and team leadership [86] Problems with knowledge sharing [83] Reduced creativity [83,84] Concurrent work-family balance has a negative impact on job satisfaction and productivity [18,45]

Author’s analysis of literature.

.

3. The Role of Perceived Organisational Support

Organisational support is an important resource for teleworkers and homeworkers. Perceived organisational support is one of the constitutive elements of the theory of demands and resources [87] and refers to the extent to which organisations reward workers for their efforts, help them when they need it, make their work interesting and provide them with appropriate working conditions [88]. Workers interpret organisational support as a tangible manifestation of appreciation on the part of the organisation for their contribution and as a concern for their well-being. According to social exchange theory [89], workers in an exchange relationship with an organisation want to obtain the most favourable conditions in return for their help in achieving organisational goals [90,91].

Perceived organisational support is derived from social support theory [92] and assumes that workers develop general beliefs about how much the organisation values their contribution and cares about their well-being. It is particularly important in terms of meeting the socio-emotional needs of the worker and the willingness of the organisation to value and reward increased engagement at work. Perceived manager support comprises both instrumental and socio-emotional support and represents the degree to which the manager values workers’ contributions and cares about their well-being [93]. It does this by helping them to obtain the resources they need to do their work, deciding on the appropriate allocation of resources and setting priorities.

Employees who receive organisational support take pride in the organisation, which is reflected in their loyalty, job satisfaction [94], job performance, lower turnover [91,95], higher positive mood, increased enthusiasm, a desire to help others [90], and the creation of a stock of resources that can neutralise workplace stressors [95].

In an organisation, support for workers is provided through human resource management policies [96,97], top management initiatives, and the extent to which workers are supported by managers [88].

Organisational support is not limited to traditional jobs in the organisation. It is also extremely important in the context of teleworking, as it improves workers’ job satisfaction, reduces their psychological strain [98] and fear of isolation, and increases their identification with the organisation [99]. Bartel and colleagues [100] also found in a pre-pandemic study that teleworkers valued organisational support more than workers in a traditional workplace in an organisation.

Authors who have studied organisational support related to hybrid work in the post-pandemic context emphasise the role of HR managers, leaders, and IT professionals in providing this support. On the one hand, the research reports that effective HR leadership is essential to bridge the perception gap between employees and managers, emphasising clear communication and equitable policies. According to senior HR managers in Australia [34], the five pillars of successful hybrid work support include the following: (1) Aligning work arrangements with organisational goals and customer value. (2) Creating and maintaining an inclusive workplace culture and fostering a sense of connection and belonging. Ensuring equality between on-site and remote workers is crucial to avoid issues such as proximity bias, where those who are physically present in the office may receive more attention or opportunities than their remote colleagues. Therefore, organisations must actively work to create an inclusive environment that values the contributions of all employees, regardless of where they work. (3) Utilising appropriate tools and processes for effective communication. Creating a culture of psychological safety is critical to fostering open communication and collaboration. Ensuring that all employees have access to the same information and opportunities to collaborate is essential to maintaining productivity and engagement. (4) Focusing on the health and well-being of employees to avoid feelings of isolation and ensure that workloads are evenly distributed, that employees have time to switch off and revitalise, as well as for activities in other areas of life. (5) Developing new skills and leadership styles for hybrid working. In a hybrid work environment, there is a growing need for sensitive leaders [101] who must be able to build trusting relationships, foster team engagement, manage knowledge, innovate organisational culture, introduce inclusive practises, adapt to new work modalities, and balance the life–work continuum. In the Indian context [102], in addition to the above, the need to develop certain leadership competencies, especially coaching, is emphasised. Also, androgynous leadership that combines masculine and feminine traits promotes a psychologically fulfilling workplace, empathetic supervision, and enhances employee well-being. Besides HR, managers and leaders of ICT also play a crucial role in supporting hybrid working, including desk booking apps, workflow management tools, cloud-based file management systems, and well-being apps [34].

4. Research Methodology

Hybrid work is still largely unexplored in the EU and Slovenia. Therefore, we decided to conduct our research through interviews with workers and managers engaged in hybrid work in order to gain an explanatory, broad, diverse perspective on the topic and to identify some of the key characteristics and differences between the two groups of interviewees. In the empirical part, we are interested in the following questions: (1) What is the extent of hybrid work and what are the workload pressures faced by workers in hybrid work? (2) How does hybrid work affect the quality of work, the work–life balance, and the well-being of workers? (3) What organisational support arrangements for hybrid work (if any) are in place in organisations? How, in what ways are managers, peers and peer workers involved in providing organisational support? (4) Which organisational challenges to hybrid working do organisations face and how (successfully) do they address them?

4.1. Method and Sample

The characteristics of hybrid work in Slovenia are based on the results of 75 structured interviews with workers and managers engaged in hybrid work. We used a non-random sample and invited respondents to the survey via LinkedIn and using a snowball method. For each of the participants, we identified the age group, gender, education, sector, company size, and management role. The interviews were conducted between November 2022 and January 2023. The sample of interviewees is composed of 71% females and 29% males. In total, 83% work in the private sector, with 41% of them in large companies. In total, 31% of the interviewees are managers. In total, 53% are in the 36–55 age bracket and have mainly higher or university education. Although the results cannot be generalised, they identify some of the key characteristics and differences among workers and managers regarding hybrid work.

4.2. Data and Analysis

Interviews were conducted via Teams, Zoom, or Meet and lasted on average 1 h. Each interview followed the same semi-structured format to ensure response comparability. In cases where explanations were needed because of unclear or general answers, further questions were added. The content of the interviews was transcribed, and the transcripts were analysed using iterative content analysis to identify similarities and differences in the responses. The interview transcripts were then coded. In the first set of coding, we used the axial (open) coding technique [103], which involves linking qualitative data in a way to create codes, categories, and subcategories. First, we created provisional categories and first-order codes, which were divided into thematic clusters using a focused coding procedure [104]. In this way, we identified a total of 48 codes (see list of key codes) and 268 subcategories.

List of Key Codes:

• HW implementation before COVID-19
• HW adaptation
• Childcare
• Care for the elderly
• Challenges in HW
• Challenges of governance
• IT needed
• Differences between traditional and HW
• Workload
• Efforts
• Flexibility
• Responsiveness
• Instructions received from the employer
• The most common employer instructions
• Working information channels
• New communication channels introduced
• Communication with workers
• Communication with managers
• Required competences
• Tools for competence development
• Support for competency development
• Support from leaders
• His/her support
• Leadership assessment
• Lack of personal contacts
• Organisational support
• Access to information
• Access to data—problems
• Access to data—good practices
• Evidence of work done
• Timeframe of work carried out
• Timeframe of work—good practices
• Timeframe of work-bad practice
• Right of disconnection
• Reconciling work and leisure
• Personal resources
• Understanding partners
• Exhaustion
• Lack of free time
• Anxiety
• Stress
• Inconsistency of work commitments
• Demanding management
• Challenges for HW in the future
• HW readiness
• Benefits of HW
• Against HW
• Good practices of HW

4.3. Limitations

The survey has some limitations. Since the interviews were conducted in Slovenian, we were unable to analyse them using text analysis software, which is more suitable for analysing English texts. To overcome this limitation, we wanted to translate the text into English using MS Translate and Instatext tools before analysing it, but we found so many inconsistencies and semantic differences that we abandoned the original intention and opted for axial coding instead.

In classical text analysis and axial (open) coding [101,102], we are limited in our coding by our own involvement in the research process due to our individual perspective on the content in question.

Another limitation is that we used a non-random sample to obtain as broad an overview of the topic as possible. In this way, we did recruit many interested respondents and conducted a large number of interviews. However, after we had conducted our research, the data from the European Quality of Life Survey in the EU in 2024 [105] was published. It shows that 48.51% of men and 42% of women in Slovenia have a hybrid job and that among men, those who work in the IT sector predominate. In future studies, we will use these results to adjust the structure of the respondents and the sample.

The study is based on research conducted in Slovenia, which limits the generalisability of the results to other countries with different organisational cultures, labour markets and technological infrastructures. The effects of hybrid work may differ significantly in other cultural or economic contexts, which could limit the external validity of the conclusions.

The approach we used also did not allow us to focus on the specific contextual characteristics of the organisations from which the interviewees came. These could significantly influence the characteristics of hybrid work, its scope and the modalities of organisational support. This provides an opportunity for further investigation through in-depth case studies of organisations.

Another limitation is that the theoretical framework of the study is based on the concept of perceived organisational support, which is a subjective measure and relies on the individual’s perception of support. The study included managers’ and employees’ views of organisational support, but it would be beneficial for future research to include other perspectives based on triangulating data sources.

5. Results

The results are presented in relation to the research questions and the key content areas of organisational support discussed with the interviewees. Statements from the interviews and common codes from the analyses are presented in italics to illustrate key findings. In addition, in some parts of the presentation of the results, we use percentages (although the analysis is qualitative) to present more clearly the distribution of responses among interviewees. The presentation of the results is structured around three themes: (1) The extent of hybrid working and the effects of hybrid working on the quality of work, work/life balance and workers’ well-being; (2) the ways in which hybrid working is supported by the organisation; and (3) key organisational challenges of hybrid working.

5.1. Scope and Consequences of Hybrid Work

Interviewees reported that the majority (90%) of the organisations in which they work did not use hybrid working before the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, more than half (52%) of them work hybrid two days a week, and a good quarter (27%) work hybrid three days a week.

Most organisations have a work-from-home policy. They record work activities through daily work reports and by logging in or out of the attendance system. Most interviewees have an agreed time of expected availability. They are predominantly available during the same hours as they would be if they were working on the employer’s premises. This is recommended in most organisations, but if the work process allows other arrangements for availability can be made. The interviewees say that in these cases they work according to the motto “the work must be done” and share the work individually or in teams. However, if the work falls outside the regular schedule or if the employee is unavailable, they are obliged to inform their line manager in advance.

Most respondents (55%) say that the initiative and desire for hybrid working is mainly on their side. Among the key reasons for their organisation to allow hybrid working, respondents point out that they became used to this way of working in the pandemic and would not want to work any other way. This is particularly emphasised by younger interviewees as a condition for employment. The interviewees reported the following positive aspects of hybrid work: it is more relaxed, it allows workers to adjust their working hours, thus, facilitating work–life balance, it gives them more time to spend with their families, or it makes it easier for them to balance training and studying alongside their work.

“Work is more relaxed this way, you organise yourself in the way that suits you, there’s less stress, it’s calmer. There’s also less unplanned work and conversations that happen in the office, so work runs more smoothly, without distractions” (Interviewee: finance, 34 years old).

They point out that the hybrid way of working is based on a high level of mutual trust between the worker and the employer, and on the concern of both for the smooth functioning of the work process. Equality of working conditions at the employer’s premises and at home plays a key role in this. Interviewees report that the choice of hybrid working contributes to their job satisfaction and good work performance, as it gives them peace of mind to work when they need it and allows them to concentrate more on certain types of tasks (“working with data, editing procedures, entering calculations, designing teaching preparations”, etc.): “Working from home makes me feel more concentrated, as it is done without distractions from outside influences, such as several people in one office or visiting clients in the office. This makes me work more efficiently as there are no distractions” (Interviewee: retail, 52 years old). At the same time, homeworkers have more convenience to work, save commuting time and reduce car use and transport costs.

5.2. Ways to Support Hybrid Work Organisationally

Respondents report different forms of support for hybrid work. Organisations have written instructions for working from home, group and individual weekly and monthly activity plans, and a system of reporting on activities carried out at home and on the employer’s premises. Online coordination meetings are held for daily and weekly tasks (“Every morning, team meetings are held to coordinate the work and tasks of individuals”.), while face-to-face meetings are held on specific days and times, and always in a hybrid format.

The employers have mostly provided all the technical support to ensure the smooth running of the work (“purchase of laptops and accessories such as screens, docking stations, office telephones and headsets, set up of 3cx telephony systems, collaboration tools such as SharePoint, Teams, Webex, Slack, etc.”) a system is in place to pay allowances for the use of own resources (ICT equipment, electricity, internet) and, in some cases, annual allowances for the furnishing of the home office.

There are different ways of organising work in organisations, depending on the nature of the work processes or tasks: (a) Employees are free to adjust their working hours, i.e., when they work from home and when they work on the employer’s premises. (b) Working from home requires an agreement with the manager, “which is recorded in the attendance table, the only condition being that we do not have any meetings on that day at which we have to be physically present”. It is also expected that the colleague is available during the agreed working hours and that any interruption in his availability is communicated in advance.

In the vast majority of cases (only one respondent did not answer the question in the affirmative), employers take great care to reconcile work and family commitments, and so employees manage to combine these without too much difficulty: “If at any time I have a private commitment within working hours, I just announce that I will be unavailable, and if there is something important to do at that time, I arrange for someone to take over the work. I have never had a problem with this arrangement. The only time I have had a challenge is when the person who is covering for me does not know something and needs me when I cannot answer. If it is not an urgent matter, no problem, otherwise I try to answer her as quickly as possible, even during my duties” (Interviewee: manufacturing, 41 years old).

Managers play an important role in organising work and communicating with workers. Interviewees report that they are in daily contact with their manager when working from home and on the employer’s premises, while on the other hand managers have constant contact with their team and organise hybrid team meetings (if possible) at pre-arranged times and in a hybrid way. “Managers monitor the work of the team and are also kept up to date if any of the workers have problems and we adapt accordingly. Most of the time we hear from each other towards the end of the working day… In hybrid work, the manager follows me, encourages me, helps me with advice. However, he also leaves his hands open at work, because in the end it is only the results that matter, and if they are good, he is happy” (Interviewee: electricity supply business, 46 years old).

Another important area of organisational support for (hybrid) work is the development of competences for the job, mentoring, knowledge transfer, and the possibility of collaborative work and exchange of ideas. Respondents report that, despite the introduction of hybrid working, most of these activities take place face-to-face. Mentoring of the newcomer is usually undertaken by a colleague who is on the employer’s premises at the time of the newcomer’s induction. However, hybrid workers are available to assist newcomers via calls and e-media. Also, various team activities and meetings (e.g., team building and team goal follow-ups) are conducted in person to share ideas and knowledge, develop individuals and foster teamwork and collaboration. Organisations also often restrict access to hybrid work for junior workers in the early stages of their career and expect them to be on the employer’s premises for longer periods of time. However, they tend to move towards face-to-face knowledge transfer, mainly based on their own experience, which confirms that remote knowledge transfer is inferior. “It is difficult and inefficient to transfer knowledge comprehensively at a distance. In the case of on-site work, knowledge is also transferred through informal conversations with workers during lunch or over morning coffee, and there is also the sharing of knowledge with people who are not part of your primary team”. (Interviewee: Professional, scientific and technical activities, 39 years old).

5.3. Key Organisational Challenges of Hybrid Working

Most respondents do not perceive any major problems with hybrid working. They have largely the same access to all data and applications in the cloud as at work. Occasional technical problems (such as slow running applications and connections to corporate networks due to congestion) do occur, but these are solved remotely. Other problems are resolved while on the employer’s premises (not all documents are available from home, either in physical form at work or within reach of team members).

Among the challenges, interviewees point out that contact with workers and finding solutions through communication tools cannot fully replace face-to-face contact. They also overwhelmingly agree that agreeing on the scope of the hybrid work contributes to strengthening contact, inclusion and equality for all. (Better and faster solutions are found in face-to-face contact. However, since we are working hybrid, only up to two days a week, we are much more in touch with the workers, so we don’t feel a big lack of contact). At the same time, they note that coordinating with other departments remotely can be more tiring and time-consuming than face-to-face. (Compared to working on-site, on-line there is noise in communication, delays in decision making and shifting of responsibilities).

Among the challenges of hybrid work, interviewees also point to the poorer conditions of working at home (smaller screen, smaller desk, no dedicated workspace), as it requires more improvisation if remote access to documents is not arranged.

Interviewees also report that working from home sometimes results in longer working hours, as they also work after the official end of the working day, throughout the day, which greatly interferes with their private time and makes it impossible to reconcile work and private life. In this area, large differences between managers and employees also emerge. In a hybrid environment, managers need to be even more responsive to employees’ needs (the literature we cited at the beginning uses the term “sensitive leadership”), which on the other hand increases the individual focus and scope of leadership. This can lead to a greater volume of work, stress, and an imbalance between leaders’ work and life.

Some people experience disturbances in concentration related to monotonous work (I work 8 h at home on the computer and after a while I am less focused. In the company my work is more varied, and I spend less time just with the computer) or they are under more pressure because they have to report at the end of the day and have a constant feeling that they are not working efficiently enough. As a result, they take fewer breaks, which adds to their stress and workload.

Among the individual challenges, respondents also report increased self-organisation and self-control when working remotely. In some cases, their concentration and focus are impaired by home tasks that they have to do at the same time as work (during meetings when working from home, it often happens that you have to take care of an urgent matter at home, so you are not focused on the content of the meeting).

For some people, it is a challenge to establish boundaries between work and private life and it takes time to disconnect from work (one of the aspects of work–life balance is the physical boundaries of a person’s work environment. The fact that mentally one never disconnects from the challenges of work is often overlooked at the expense of “greater comfort”. Convenience should not outweigh the fact that even locational demarcation means a great deal).

Many interviewees emphasise the need for face-to-face conversation. Especially when it comes to resolving more complex issues or the need for coordinated teamwork, discussion, and rapid response. (In a normal workplace, I can ask a worker for advice at any time, which is a great advantage…). The advantage of working in an office is that when we are setting up new projects, we are all present and can sit down together quickly and discuss the things we need to do… in the case of teamwork, the disadvantage of working remotely is that it is easier to communicate face to face. According to the interviewees, face-to-face communication helps to build relationships between team members or workers, to exchange ideas and to reduce the response time of the workers “it is difficult to get the person I need, because of the many things to do, they don’t have time to write back to Slack or mail, or to get on the phone. Also, when I work from home I don’t have as much up-to-date information to talk about as the workers within the company.”.

Most believe that the challenges of hybrid working can be adequately addressed by individual choice and by limiting teleworking to two to three days a week. At the same time, they also highlight the issues of (lack of) equal access to or inability to choose hybrid working for all workers, the need to involve everyone in common gatherings and to build team commitment and organisational culture. Despite the challenges presented, the vast majority (72 interviewees) would continue to work hybrid.

6. Conclusions

The widespread emergence of teleworking in the COVID-19 pandemic and the accelerated digitisation of work processes have changed the nature, delivery, and organisation of work. In the aftermath of the pandemic, hybrid working, where the work process allows it, has become a common organisational practice.

If working from home in the pandemic was seen to have blurred the boundaries between work and leisure enormously, its volume and intensity increased enormously due to inadequate or missing working resources and the establishment of ad hoc, co-ordinating work, and care roles due to the closure of kindergartens and schools and the absence of institutional support, while at the same time the expectation of clients and many employers was for constant availability, while the institutional labour law framework is slowly responding to the new situation, for example, by providing for the right to disconnect and more detailed teleworking arrangements, it seems that, in the aftermath of the pandemic, organisational work processes, the organisation of hybrid work, and the types of support that contribute to its successful and efficient implementation have been optimised.

Most respondents in our survey do hybrid work two days a week, and most of them choose to work this way on their own initiative. They also report that they are adequately trained to work remotely and are provided with appropriate organisational support, both in the form of appropriate information and communication technology, as well as professional, technical, collegial, and managerial support and formalised rules in the form of policies and agreements on access times.

Organisations allow hybrid working for several reasons. On the one hand, because workers have become accustomed to it in the pandemic and are comfortable with it, because it successfully creates a value proposition that responds to workers’ needs for time flexibility, for focus on specific work tasks, especially those that require concentration and the absence of distractions, for commodity, and for balancing work and other areas of life. Finally, the introduction of hybrid work processes has also been successful in reducing the costs of transport, workspaces, and other related services.

The results of our research also confirm that an organisational culture based on trust between the employer (manager) and the worker, and organisational support that ensures equality of working conditions on the employer’s premises and at home, are key to the quality of hybrid work. For their successful implementation, a proactive role of experts or the human resource management department is crucial [106], which on the one hand must offer support to managers and workers, and on the other hand, by scoping the hybrid work appropriate to the organisational context, must create the conditions that will ensure successful knowledge sharing, creative solutions, teamwork, and foster a collaborative and cohesive organisational culture in the organisation.

Among the interesting and successful ways of supporting hybrid working highlighted by our respondents that can help organisations, workers, and leaders, it is worth highlighting: instructional films on the use of different forms of ICT and applications, continuous internal and external training that contributes to the development of the necessary competences for hybrid work, mentoring processes, collegial knowledge transfer, collaborative working, idea sharing, and team building are predominantly face-to-face in most organisations, new recruits are restricted from hybrid working by the organisation in the initial phases of their induction, written instructions for working from home are in place, face-to-face meetings are organised on specific days and times, online coordination meetings are in place, and announcement systems are in place. There are systems in place for forecasting, coordinating, and recording hybrid work; various systems for reporting or recording activities, group, and individual weekly and monthly activity plans; ongoing technical support and remote access to data are organised and secured; an efficient purchasing system for the necessary ICT equipment and a system for monitoring the need for new working resources; an adequate reimbursement system for the use of own and home office equipment resources; and communication channels at the worker and manager level are established and agreed to ensure adequate support, decision making, and responsiveness.

The review of foreign research findings on the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid work for employees and organisations, which we have presented in the table in the first part of the paper, as well as interviews with Slovenian respondents, confirm that the hybrid model must be introduced and implemented carefully, both organisationally and individually, considering the characteristics of the organisational and private environment. It also emphasises the contradictory nature of the research findings. Like us, the available research comes to contradictory conclusions (for example, hybrid work contributes to work–life balance on the one hand but can lead to stress and overwork on the other). As we emphasise, the key to overcoming these mutually exclusive outcomes lies in appropriate organisational support, which must consider both the potential negative and positive effects of hybrid working. Only on this basis will it provide employees with an environment in which the positive aspects are reinforced and the negative ones limited.

Most respondents in the survey do not report any major problems with hybrid work, but they point out that the common or the group search for live solutions cannot fully replace the search for these via remote communication tools from the comfort of a home armchair. At the organisational level, the challenge with the hybrid way of working is interdepartmental coordination and the search for consensus, which, according to the interviewees, is more tiring and time-consuming in this way. The need for live communication and group discussion is also crucial when solving more complex matters and when it comes to tasks that require a quick, coordinated reaction or a quick individual response of an individual worker.

Among the more exposed challenges at the individual level are the need for greater self-organisation and self-control at work. Some respondents also report worse working conditions at home and, as a result, the need for greater improvisation, longer working hours at home, impaired concentration resulting from monotonous and individual work, stress stemming from the need to report daily on completed activities, homesickness, and the blurred boundary between work and other areas of life in the home environment makes it harder for some respondents to “disconnect” from work or takes longer to do so. In this and in the context of thinking about the appropriate scope of hybrid work, it is also worth recalling the results of the research on working from home during the pandemic [5], and it showed that the self-organisation ability of workers when working from home is weakened over time due to monotony, isolation, and working within the same four walls leads to discouragement and lower productivity.

Respondents are very keen to keep the option of hybrid work in the future. At the same time, they point out that the key to successful hybrid work is individual choice, while at the same time limiting hybrid work to two to three days a week, which strengthens equal access to hybrid work for all workers. Both confirm that the hybrid work model needs to be introduced thoughtfully, considering the characteristics of the organisational culture, the specifics of the work process, the needs of workers, and by creating context-specific methods of organisational support.