Research Reveals Gaps in Hybrid Work Decisions for Public Servants

The Canadian government is facing scrutiny over its hybrid work policies for public servants, as Prime Minister Mark Carney hinted at a forthcoming, clearer plan regarding a potential full-time return to office work. This situation has sparked widespread speculation, particularly concerning the rationale behind the government’s consideration of a five-day in-office requirement.

Last year, the Treasury Board indicated that it did not conduct any studies on productivity before enforcing a mandate that requires most public servants to work in the office three days a week. Although a task force was formed to address productivity, its report, released on December 12, 2022, did not include hybrid work in its scope. Among its 19 recommendations was a call for improved data collection to measure productivity, a suggestion that the Treasury Board has decided not to follow, drawing criticism from various observers.

The core question arises: what can existing research genuinely reveal about the impact of hybrid work on public servants? According to Linda Duxbury, a management professor at Carleton University, large corporations like Microsoft have accumulated extensive research on the differences between remote and in-office work. In contrast, the public sector lacks similar data. “The public sector is taking all kinds of actions, with no data,” she noted, emphasizing the disparity in research efforts between the two sectors.

Étienne Charbonneau, a professor at the National School of Public Administration, highlighted that private enterprises typically have built-in performance indicators. For the government, the focus is often on maximizing output with available resources. While research in the private sector frequently compares productivity levels between remote and office settings, often finding comparable results, the public sector primarily relies on self-reported data from surveys.

In these studies, public servants frequently indicate a rise in personal productivity when working from home. Maria Gintova, a political science professor at McMaster University, reported that many public servants prefer hybrid work arrangements, although there is no universally accepted ideal number of in-office days. “It’s kind of a best of both worlds for them,” Gintova remarked, noting that some employees perform specific tasks more effectively at home.

However, self-reported data has its limitations. Charbonneau criticized the reliance on self-assessment for productivity evaluations, arguing that traditional supervisory methods are more effective. Duxbury echoed this sentiment, labeling self-reported productivity as a “lousy measure.” She pointed out that the Government of Canada is failing its role as an employer by not collecting comprehensive productivity data, which is essential for enhancing operational efficiency, particularly with the integration of artificial intelligence.

The need for accurate productivity metrics becomes even more pressing as the government considers its hybrid work strategy. Charbonneau revealed that he submitted over 150 access-to-information requests to various government departments and found that less than 15 percent analyzed employee productivity or effectiveness before implementing their telework policies post-pandemic.

Despite the lack of concrete productivity data, hybrid work arrangements appear to enhance quality of life for many public servants. According to the 2022 Public Service Employee Survey, 80 percent of respondents agreed that flexible work options improved their work-life balance. Charbonneau noted that the flexibility allowed employees to manage personal responsibilities better, reducing stress levels.

Nevertheless, not all employees benefit equally from hybrid arrangements. Some workers report increased stress levels when working from home, feeling unable to disconnect from their jobs. Gintova warned that forcing all employees back to the office could adversely affect morale, as many do not understand the rationale behind such decisions.

Concerns also arise regarding the condition of the office spaces to which public servants may return. Charbonneau pointed out that the work environments are likely not in the same condition as they were before the COVID-19 pandemic. He described potential office conditions as “miserable,” with inadequate amenities and overcrowding due to workforce growth and downsizing of federal office space.

While hybrid work offers several advantages, Duxbury cautioned that it also has drawbacks, particularly for roles requiring creativity, conflict resolution, or cultural development. She noted that many private-sector employees working in hybrid setups report feelings of isolation and reduced camaraderie, which can hinder career advancement opportunities for younger workers. Gintova added that disparities exist, with Black and Indigenous workers less likely to benefit from hybrid work arrangements compared to their peers.

As the government explores its hybrid work policies, Duxbury emphasized the importance of recognizing the differences between public and private sectors. “They have to take care not to extrapolate,” she cautioned, highlighting the complexities of the public service environment.

In conclusion, substantial uncertainty remains regarding the effects of hybrid work on public servants. As government officials contemplate significant changes to work arrangements, the need for rigorous research and data collection is paramount. “We know it’s pretty complicated,” Duxbury stated, encapsulating the challenges ahead for the Canadian government as it navigates the evolving landscape of work.