Managing Where Employees Work in a Post-Pandemic World
Molly Wasko, Alissa Dickey
This study examines how a large manufacturing company navigated the challenges of remote and hybrid work following the COVID-19 pandemic. Through an 18-month case study, the research explores the impacts on different employee groups (virtual, hybrid, and on-site) and provides recommendations for managing a blended workforce. The goal is to help organizations, particularly those with significant physical operations, balance new employee expectations with business needs.
Problem
The widespread shift to remote work during the pandemic created a major challenge for businesses deciding on their long-term workplace strategy. Companies are grappling with whether to mandate a full return to the office, go fully remote, or adopt a hybrid model. This problem is especially complex for industries like manufacturing that rely on physical operations and cannot fully digitize their entire workforce.
Outcome
- Employees successfully adapted information and communication technology (ICT) to perform many tasks remotely, effectively separating their work from a physical location. - Contrary to expectations, on-site workers who remained at the physical workplace throughout the pandemic reported feeling the most isolated, least valued, and dissatisfied. - Despite demonstrated high productivity and employee desire for flexibility, business leaders still strongly prefer having employees co-located in the office, believing it is crucial for building and maintaining the company's core values. - A 'Digital-Physical Intensity' framework was developed to help organizations classify jobs and make objective decisions about which roles are best suited for on-site, hybrid, or virtual work.
Host: Welcome to A.I.S. Insights, the podcast where we connect academic research to real-world business strategy. I’m your host, Anna Ivy Summers. Host: Today, we’re diving into a challenge every leader is facing: where should our employees work? We’re looking at a fascinating study from MIS Quarterly Executive titled, "Managing Where Employees Work in a Post-Pandemic World". Host: It’s an 18-month case study of a large manufacturing company, exploring the impacts of virtual, hybrid, and on-site work to help businesses balance new employee expectations with their operational needs. Host: To help us unpack this, we have our expert analyst, Alex Ian Sutherland. Alex, welcome back to the show. Expert: Great to be here, Anna. Host: Alex, let's start with the big picture. The study highlights a problem that I know keeps executives up at night. What’s the core tension they identified? Expert: The core tension is a fundamental disconnect. On one hand, employees have experienced the flexibility of remote work and productivity has remained high. They don't want to give that up. Expert: On the other hand, many business leaders are pushing for a full return to the office. They believe that having everyone physically together is essential for building and maintaining the company's culture and values. Expert: This is especially complicated for industries like manufacturing that the study focused on, because you have some roles that can be done from anywhere and others that absolutely require someone to be on a factory floor. Host: So how did the researchers get inside this problem to really understand it? Expert: They did a deep dive into a 100-year-old company they call "IMC," a global manufacturer of heavy-duty vehicles. Over 18 months, they surveyed and spoke with employees from every part of the business—from HR and accounting who went fully virtual, to engineers on a hybrid schedule, to the production staff who never left the facility. Expert: This gave them a 360-degree view of how technology was adopted and how each group experienced the shift. Host: That sounds incredibly thorough. Let's get to the findings. What was the most surprising thing they discovered? Expert: By far the most surprising finding was who felt the most disconnected. The company’s leadership was worried about the virtual workers feeling isolated at home. Expert: But the study found the exact opposite. It was the on-site workers—the ones who came in every day—who reported feeling the most isolated, the least valued, and the most dissatisfied. Host: Wow. That is completely counter-intuitive. Why was that? Expert: Think about their experience. They were coming into a workplace with constant, visible reminders of the risks—masks, safety protocols, social distancing. Their normal face-to-face interactions were severely limited. Expert: They would see empty offices and parking lots, a daily reminder that their colleagues in virtual roles had a flexibility and safety they didn't. One worker described it as feeling like they were "hit by a bulldozer mentally." They felt left behind. Host: That’s a powerful insight. And while this was happening, what did the study find about leadership's perspective? Expert: Despite seeing that productivity and customer satisfaction remained high, the leadership at IMC still had a strong preference for co-location. They felt that the company’s powerful culture was, in their words, "inextricably linked" to having people together in person. This created that disconnect we talked about. Host: This brings us to the most important question for our listeners: what do we do about it? How can businesses navigate this without alienating one group or another? Expert: This is the study's key contribution. They developed a practical tool called the 'Digital-Physical Intensity' framework. Expert: Instead of creating policies based on job titles or departments, this framework helps you classify work based on two simple questions: First, how much of the job involves processing digital information? And second, how much of it involves interacting with physical objects or locations? Host: So it's a more objective way to decide which roles are best suited for on-site, hybrid, or virtual work. Expert: Exactly. A role in HR or accounting is high in information intensity but low in physical intensity, making it a great candidate for virtual work. A role on the assembly line is the opposite. Engineering and design roles often fall in the middle, making them perfect for a hybrid model. Expert: Using a framework like this makes decisions transparent and justifiable, which reduces that feeling of unfairness that was so damaging to the on-site workers' morale. Host: So the first takeaway is to use an objective framework. What’s the second big takeaway for leaders? Expert: The second is to actively challenge the assumption that culture only happens in the office. This study suggests the bigger risk isn't losing culture with remote workers, it's demoralizing the essential employees who have to be on-site. Expert: Leaders need to find new ways to support them. That could mean repurposing empty office space to improve their facilities, offering more scheduling flexibility, or re-evaluating compensation to acknowledge the extra costs and risks they take on. Host: This has been incredibly enlightening, Alex. So, to summarize for our audience: Host: First, the feelings of inequity between employee groups are a huge risk, and contrary to popular belief, it's often your on-site teams who feel the most isolated. Host: Second, leaders must challenge their own deeply-held beliefs about the necessity of co-location for building a strong company culture. Host: And finally, using an objective tool like the Digital-Physical Intensity framework can help you create fair, transparent policies that build trust across your entire blended workforce. Host: Alex Ian Sutherland, thank you for making this research so clear and actionable for us. Expert: My pleasure, Anna. Host: And thank you for tuning into A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge. Join us next time for more data-driven strategies for your business.
