The Overlooked Challenge of Hybrid Work: The Social Infrastructure of Organizations

Photo by Matthieu Joannon on Unsplash

The discussion about hybrid work focuses primarily on productivity, office occupancy, and remote work policies. Much less attention is paid to the social infrastructure of organizations: the network of relationships, connections, and interactions that enables collaboration.

This is noteworthy. A recent study shows that employees in roles suitable for remote work spend, on average, more time alone and have fewer social interactions than employees who work primarily on-site (Emanuel, Harrington & Pallais, 2025). The discussion then often turns to loneliness and mental health.

However, the leap from reduced social contact with colleagues to loneliness is less straightforward than is often assumed. After all, work is not the only source of social relationships. For many people, their partner, family, friends, sports clubs, or neighborhood communities are more important to their well-being than their colleagues. Moreover, not all social interactions are equal. A chat at the coffee machine serves a different purpose than a meaningful relationship outside of work. The debate about working from home and loneliness therefore deserves more nuance than it currently receives.

At the same time, the discussion is often wrongly presented as a choice between working from home and social connectedness. For many employees, hybrid work actually creates space for social connections outside of work. Less commute time means more time for family, friends, volunteer work, sports, or neighborhood activities. The question, therefore, is not whether working from home makes social connection impossible, but which forms of connection are disappearing, which are replacing them, and what significance they have for the functioning of organizations.

A more interesting question is what role daily interactions play in how organizations function. Traditional offices were primarily designed for production, coordination, supervision, and control. At the same time, the physical concentration of employees gave rise to social processes that organizations have long taken for granted. Informal networks, knowledge exchange, mutual trust, shared norms, and organizational identity developed largely as a side effect of people meeting regularly.

Hybrid work fundamentally changes these dynamics. As physical proximity decreases, organizations lose a mechanism they have long been able to rely on implicitly. This need not be a problem for individual employees, but it does raise questions about how new employees are socialized, how knowledge is transferred, how collaboration between teams emerges, and how a shared frame of reference develops.

“The transition from reduced social interaction with colleagues to loneliness is less straightforward than is often assumed.

It is important not to confuse social infrastructure with physical presence. An office is, at most, a means to an end—not an end in itself. Connection does not arise automatically simply because people are in the same building. Nor does it automatically disappear when employees work remotely. The relevant question is not how many days people are present in the office, but whether organizations create sufficient opportunities for meeting, knowledge exchange, collaboration, and relationship-building.

"Hybrid work brings to light social processes that organizations have long taken for granted.”

Research on community building shows that sustainable social bonds do not arise on their own. They require, among other things, a shared purpose, regular interaction, trust, reciprocity, a shared identity, and a social infrastructure in which relationships can develop (Wenger, 1998; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This presents an important challenge for organizations and leaders. The focus is not only on organizing work, but also on creating conditions in which trust, knowledge sharing, and collaboration can flourish. In a hybrid context, the focus thus shifts from supervision and presence to strengthening relationships, networks, and connections among employees.

Social cohesion is not an end in itself. Research shows that a sense of connectedness is associated with higher engagement, greater motivation, increased job satisfaction, and a lower intention to leave among employees (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Gallup, 2024). For organizations, however, it is primarily the indirect effects that are relevant. Social networks serve as vehicles for knowledge exchange, informal coordination, social integration, and the creation of collective meaning. It is precisely these processes that become more important as work becomes less dependent on physical proximity and is organized in ways that are increasingly independent of time and place (Wenger, 1998; Van der Wielen, 2010).

"The biggest challenge of hybrid work is not productivity or office occupancy, but the deliberate organization of an organization's social infrastructure.”

Ultimately, the future of hybrid work isn’t about where people work, but about how connection is organized. The need for community hasn’t disappeared; it has simply shifted. Some people find that sense of community in their neighborhood, at a sports club, through volunteer work, or in an online network. Others find it partly within their organization. Organizations that want to make hybrid work a success would therefore be wise to focus not on physical presence, but on the quality of the relationships employees build with one another.

The biggest challenge of hybrid work is therefore likely not productivity, technology, or office occupancy. The biggest challenge is that organizations are, for the first time, becoming aware of social processes that for years seemed self-evident, but which are now proving to be crucial for collaboration, knowledge sharing, and organizational commitment.

References

• Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

• Emanuel, N., Harrington, E., & Pallais, A. (2025). The Rise of Remote Work: Evidence on Loneliness, Mental Health and Social Connection. Science.

• Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace 2024.

• McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press.