Blended, not hybrid, work is the future, if organizations rethink tech, trust and time

The researchers argue that most companies continue to treat hybrid work as a simple matter of scheduling or location, rather than a profound shift in the infrastructure of collaboration. Many hybrid arrangements center on individual choice without accounting for team cohesion, organizational rhythms, or power dynamics. This fragmented approach leaves workers either isolated or excessively monitored, especially when technology is repurposed to maintain outdated models of productivity.

A new study upends conventional assumptions about remote and hybrid work, advocating for a deeper rethinking of workplace flexibility through the lens of “blended work.” The study, titled “The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid,” reveals that what many companies label as hybrid work often fails to deliver true flexibility, equitable participation, or long-term sustainability. Instead, the authors argue for a model where temporal, spatial, and digital boundaries are actively negotiated and technologically supported, enabling a more intentional and humane future of work.

Based on a 30-month longitudinal project involving remote workers, industry stakeholders, technologists, and researchers, the study identifies three key tensions: visibility, synchronization, and boundaries, that persistently undermine current hybrid work models. These tensions, if unaddressed, leave workers overwhelmed, over-surveilled, and digitally fatigued. The authors propose that only through a systemic reconfiguration, termed "blended work", can organizations fully realize the potential of flexible work environments.

Their work will be presented at CHIWORK ’25: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK ’25), June 23–25, 2025, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Why is the hybrid model falling short for workers and organizations?

The researchers argue that most companies continue to treat hybrid work as a simple matter of scheduling or location, rather than a profound shift in the infrastructure of collaboration. Many hybrid arrangements center on individual choice without accounting for team cohesion, organizational rhythms, or power dynamics. This fragmented approach leaves workers either isolated or excessively monitored, especially when technology is repurposed to maintain outdated models of productivity.

A core problem is the emphasis on visibility - where being “seen” online or in meetings becomes a proxy for engagement. Remote workers feel pressure to prove presence through status indicators or constant communication, fostering presenteeism rather than productivity. The study highlights how this obsession with visibility erodes trust, leads to burnout, and reinforces hierarchical control rather than supporting autonomy.

Synchronization is another major pain point. Many workers are locked into rigid schedules designed for co-located teams, despite the asynchronous potential of remote collaboration. Meetings dominate workdays, with little regard for time zones, caregiving responsibilities, or focus time. The result is a lack of flow, diminished innovation, and increasing stress.

Finally, boundaries between work and personal life continue to blur. Digital tools meant to offer freedom have become tethering devices, making it harder for workers to disconnect. This is especially problematic in home settings, where spatial boundaries are already compromised. The illusion of flexibility becomes a trap when workers are always available but never truly off-duty.

What defines blended work, and how does it offer a better path forward?

The study defines blended work as a model that integrates digital, temporal, and spatial practices in ways that are negotiated, context-aware, and co-designed with workers. Rather than defaulting to either office presence or home-based routines, blended work reimagines workflows, technologies, and policies to support dynamic configurations of collaboration.

A key feature of blended work is technological intentionality. This includes designing systems that support asynchronous updates, boundary management, and equitable participation, rather than merely replicating in-person workflows online. For instance, instead of defaulting to Zoom meetings, blended systems might offer multimodal tools that accommodate text, video, and interactive summaries, giving workers greater control over how and when they engage.

Blended work also requires organizations to shift from surveillance to support. This means using technology not to track keystrokes or screen time, but to enable rest, focus, and creativity. Companies that adopt blended models invest in wellness dashboards, workload balancing tools, and opt-in visibility features that respect autonomy and promote mental health.

Another principle of blended work is collective flexibility. Instead of individuals fending for themselves in chaotic hybrid systems, blended work involves team-level agreements about communication norms, availability expectations, and shared rhythms. These practices foster psychological safety and shared accountability, enabling teams to function cohesively even when physically apart.

Importantly, blended work embraces boundaries as necessary and healthy. Organizations are encouraged to implement digital quiet hours, enforce meeting-free zones, and provide physical or virtual cues that help workers transition between roles. These boundary protections are essential for long-term sustainability and equitable participation, particularly for caregivers, neurodivergent workers, and those in marginalized roles.

How can organizations transition from hybrid to blended work effectively?

The study outlines a roadmap for organizations seeking to move from ad hoc hybrid policies to truly blended work cultures. First, leadership must recognize that flexibility is not just a perk but a structural redesign. It requires examining workflows, power hierarchies, and technological assumptions with a critical lens.

Second, organizations should invest in co-design processes that include diverse employee voices. The study emphasizes that no one-size-fits-all model exists; instead, teams should develop shared agreements and iterate on them through regular feedback loops. This participatory approach not only enhances buy-in but ensures that solutions reflect real-world constraints and preferences.

Third, metrics for success must evolve. Rather than focusing on presence or productivity outputs, blended work favors indicators of wellbeing, collaboration quality, and innovation capacity. These qualitative metrics better capture the complex dynamics of knowledge work and support more humane performance evaluations.

Lastly, organizations must rethink their digital toolkits. Instead of layering more apps onto already fragmented tech stacks, blended work calls for interoperability, customization, and accessibility. Tools should facilitate context-aware interactions, support documentation over repetition, and prioritize user agency.