Hybrid can also come with a greater risk of digital presenteeism, compared to fully remote jobs which imply employer trust from the get-go. If an employer sets up hybrid without trusting their workforce, it can become little more than a token gesture: workers feel pressure to show their boss they’re not taking advantage of home working.

That could lead to overwork and burnout, the effects of which can be devastating but take a long time to show up.

For some workers, frustrations with hybrid mean they’re gravitating towards jobs that allow them full control over their schedules. It comes down to what organisations mean by ‘hybrid’.

It’s a broad definition that can be interpreted in many ways: from going into the office three days a week, to once a month. Hybrid can still be the future of work and represent the best of both worlds – but it still needs refining.

• Hybrid can be successful when managers liaise with staff, likely on an individualised basis, about how the set-up would work best for them. It’s both employer and employee who need to set boundaries, but there needs to be autonomy for the worker to self-manage their schedule – flexibility needs to be dictated by the individual, not the boss.
• If workers are allowed a degree of choice and control over their working patterns, the rewards could pay dividends. Both people and organisations claim they want hybrid, so there is a great opportunity to change how we work. But it has to go further than the hours the bosses set – it has to be a mindset that works for both employer and employee.