As large organizations continue to go public with their workforce approaches, those that haven’t made long-term strategy decisions surrounding their workforce policy will soon need to do so. The result is many business leaders ask us if there is a consensus when it comes to designing an optimal hybrid/remote workforce strategy. The only consensus is there is no consensus.
Global workforce approaches
Before designing and executing an optimal hybrid workforce strategy, it’s helpful context to examine various approaches being used in the marketplace to understand the range of options available and their prevalence, given the competition for talent is intense.
Post-pandemic workforce policies have largely coalesced into three categories: full in-person, fully remote, and hybrid.
is typically adopted by smaller/regional firms, those whose jobs require them to be on-premise (e.g. manufacturing), or those with influential leaders that feel in-person is critical to success. They’re typically continuing to hire in local markets and relocating individuals to their office/HQ where required.
A fully remote
approach is common for digital-first companies or companies that have already been utilizing remote workers or teams spread across locations and time zones prior to the pandemic. Regular business travel and short-term assignments may play an important role here for certain roles, team building, or important project work.
are emerging as the most prevalent. This approach attempts to take the best of both models and blend them together. Organizations adopting the hybrid approach may be location agnostic when it comes to hiring and staffing, willing to hire across dispersed markets. But they may also choose to relocate individuals when necessary for business objectives or allow individuals to choose relocation.
As for how organizations are selecting which model to adopt, four organizational mindsets are determining workforce strategy:
Which workforce model is best?
- Decisive -- These organizations are taking a strong stance on workforce policy, whether that be 100% remote or 100% in-person, and don’t want to play in the gray area in between. Those organizations who choose 100% in-person tend to be more traditional-minded and prefer a single model to quickly chart a path ahead and construct policies to drive employee compliance.
- Highly reactive -- These orgs are hyper-focused on what the employees want and/or what everyone else is doing. This can lead to organizational schizophrenia as policies shift and flip based on changing market conditions, the trajectory of the pandemic, and current employee sentiment.
- Hesitant -- These organizations are reluctant to announce big and/or permanent changes in policy. They choose the “wait and see” approach as the pandemic evolves.
- Innovative -- These organizations view this shift as an opportunity to improve efficiency and scale in a hybrid/remote world. They’re looking at the potential benefits of new workforce types including expanded talent pools, new opportunities to engage with employees and customers, and/or redefining definitions for employee efficiency and effectiveness.
No one model has emerged as better or more efficient than the rest. In fact, one can find examples of success and failure within each approach to workforce strategy. And while certain data has shown that employees can be just as, if not more productive while working from home, it’s unclear if that will persist long-term as employees move to different roles, projects, or companies.
Perhaps what’s most important to note is that all models can create employee turnover– as every employee has a model preference and those preferences will almost certainly diverge across employee segments. This might be concerning to hear during the Great Resignation, but there is no way to fully optimize across the board for retention.
The best approach for any organization is 1) to be intentional and strategic with the design of the workforce model and 2) once a decision is made, roll it out in a thoughtful, employee-centric way.
Designing an optimal remote/hybrid workforce model
T are three key factors that go into designing a successful hybrid workforce model.
Executing your new workforce model
- Assess your company. It’s important to consider your current and aspirational organizational culture. Will that culture be enabled or hindered by your workforce policy? For example, if you aspire to be an innovative, digital-first company, mandating that people come into the office five days a week may feel jarring and inauthentic to your employees.
- Know your business goals and metrics and consider how the workforce model will impact them. Efficiency, quality, customer experience and engagement, cost to serve, cybersecurity, innovation, employee training and development, etc. can all be impacted by your workforce approach. Too often organizations over-index on employee preference while losing sight of overall business objectives. Employees are the most important asset at an organization, but balance is the key here.
- Know whom you’re solving for. Remember, it’s impossible to please all employees, so know which segments are most critical to organizational success. Consider how your policy will impact those employees and how to mitigate any negative impact or perceptions.
Implementing a new workforce policy will involve the whole gamut of a business’s operating model: people, processes and technology. But there are a few key factors for implementing a successful remote / hybrid workforce model to keep in mind.
- Be proactive with efforts to retain your employees. The current job market is incredibly hot so it’s safe to assume that just about everyone is a flight risk. Developing a good understanding of what motivates your key people will be essential to ensure your workforce model is aligned with those motivations. It’s also helpful to bake in some “sense and respond” capabilities into your plan so that if the model isn’t working how you expected, you can find out and adjust before people start leaving.
- Ground your decisions in facts. There have been plenty of organizations in the headlines because they have a vociferous leader that mandates a certain policy that a significant portion of employees feels is unjustified. Take the time to really consider what is best for the organization and then make that clear during the implementation, but be sure to have facts to support that decision. For example, is your company hesitant to go fully remote because of cybersecurity concerns? Provide incident reports showing that attacks and threats have increased while folks were working from home during the pandemic. Businesses need to own these facts and make sure they’re part of your communication strategy.
- Ensure you have the right tools to execute your strategy. How do you intend to track who is approved to work remotely, where employees are actually working, and for how long? Do you have the systems in place to pay employees and withhold taxes in new locations? As your strategy is developed and deployed, where employees are working will have a significant impact on the amount of risk your organization takes on. You will need the right tools to monitor if employees are working where you think they are (or have been approved to work) and flag potential issues before they arrive.
- Decide who owns this new type of employee category. Hybrid workforces have the potential to create a vast new population of mobile employees and with that comes new processes and concerns. Having a strategy in place for who will tend to the various new responsibilities that come with hybrid workforces is key. For example, who approves employees to work remotely in each location for a given amount of time, and is that approver the same person who ensures that the employee has returned after their time is up?
When it comes to hybrid workforces, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. For years people were talking about the “future of work,” but due to the COVID-19 pandemic it’s become clear that the future of work is here – and it is one with more remote and distributed workers. Making the shift to a hybrid workforce model won’t be easy for many organizations, but it is a necessary endeavor as employees look for more flexibility and are willing to move companies to get it. By following the guidance above, organizations can develop a workforce strategy that not only meets their needs and goals but also positions them to compete for talent successfully and conduct business in an agile and fluid manner.
Global Mobility Services
+1 212 542 9750
+1 855 704 8034
+1 312 602 8367
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.