Curious to dive deeper into the findings? For a comprehensive analysis and detailed insights, read the full research paper.
By Raul Duarte
Is there an optimal hybrid work model that supports productivity without sacrificing well-being?
This study, written by CID Faculty Affiliate Tarun Khanna and co-authors Prithwiraj (Raj) Choudhury, Christos Makridis, and Kyle Schirmann, provides causal evidence on how varying intensities of hybrid work arrangements impact employee outcomes. Conducted as a randomized nine-week field experiment with 148 professional employees at BRAC, a major global NGO in Bangladesh, the authors test whether the number of required in-office days per week influences job satisfaction and employee performance.
Key Findings:
- Intermediate hybrid schedules improve employee well-being: Employees who worked from the office approximately two days per week reported significantly higher levels of job satisfaction, improved work-life balance, and reduced feelings of isolation compared to peers who were either mostly remote or mostly in-office.
- Performance is stable or enhanced under moderate hybrid work: Manager assessments indicated no decline in employee performance with intermediate hybrid schedules. In fact, modest gains were observed, especially among managers, in creativity and quality of work.
- Extremes in remote or on-site work fared worse: Employees working either almost entirely from home or entirely from the office experienced lower satisfaction and greater isolation, with no performance advantage over those in the moderate hybrid group.
- Robust experimental design strengthens validity: Daily office attendance was randomly assigned and kept undisclosed to participants, limiting behavioral bias. Compliance was high, and the organizational setting in a lower-income country enhances external validity.
Impact and Relevance:
This study offers rare experimental evidence on one of the most debated workplace questions in the post-pandemic era: how frequently should employees return to the office? It finds that a moderate hybrid model—around two in-person days per week—delivers an optimal balance between employee satisfaction and performance sustainability. For employers concerned with labor retention, morale, and innovation, this provides a concrete foundation for hybrid work policy design.
More broadly, the findings question rigid return-to-office mandates, especially in knowledge-based industries where measuring output is complex and collaboration is diffuse. That the research was conducted in a lower-middle-income country expands its global relevance, showing that hybrid work can support employee well-being even outside advanced economies.
Finally, the study contributes to a broader conversation about the future of work and organizational design. As distributed work becomes more prevalent, the roles of offices, urban spaces, and workplace norms will increasingly depend on effective hybrid arrangements. This research highlights that well-calibrated hybrid systems, not one-size-fits-all mandates, are better suited to fostering employee engagement and organizational resilience.
CID Faculty Affiliate Author
CID Faculty Affiliate Author
Tarun Khanna
Tarun Khanna
Tarun Khanna is the Jorge Paulo Lemann Professor at Harvard Business School. For almost three decades, he has studied entrepreneurship as a means to social and economic development in emerging markets. At HBS since 1993, after obtaining degrees from Princeton and Harvard, he has taught courses on strategy, international business, and economic development to undergraduate and graduate students and senior executives.
Image Credits
Photo by Salman Preeom on Unsplash
Read Next Post
View All Blog Posts
