What evidence was used?
- Stakeholder views: an international survey of over 1,000 employees with various working patterns and locations, including remote, on-site and hybrid working; in addition, roundtable discussions with HR directors of International SOS clients.
- Organisational data: interviews in six client organisations with HR professionals responsible for setting policies and practices to support different working patterns.
- Scientific literature: a systematic evidence review of academic literature and ‘grey’ (non-academic research) literature on how working patterns and locations (including hybrid working) are related to wellbeing (117 studies were selected for inclusion).
- Professional expertise: Affinity’s internal professional expertise in workplace wellbeing, discussions with experts from KPMG, and roundtable discussions with International SOS experts (client handlers, sales people and project leads).
What insights did the evidence provide?
The survey found that the strongest predictor for poor wellbeing was working hours and work pressure, regardless of hybrid working pattern. In itself, the hybrid working pattern (completely remote, completely on-site, or hybrid) made no difference in the range of outcomes of interest: burnout, loneliness, stress, performance, engagement, and so on. However, the flexibility to choose one’s work location (or have a degree of choice) was the most important thing for employees surveyed and the strongest contributor to wellbeing outcomes.
What action was taken?
The findings have directly contributed to how International SOS advises clients on wellbeing. It now highlights the importance of focusing on providing good working conditions to all workers, regardless of working pattern, and recognising the need for individual consideration and co-creation for positive outcomes.
At the time of writing, the findings were being disseminated to International SOS member organisations through webinars and a report.
How did an evidence-based approach help?
Rachel Lewis, Managing Partner at Affinity Health at Work, highlighted the value of blending the different sources of evidence, commenting:
“Sometimes I’m a bit cynical that the [label] ‘evidence-based practice’... can be used as a way to say academic data is the best... The big advantage of [the evidence-based practice approach of drawing on different sources of evidence] is that it gives us that nuance. It’s allowed us to ask questions that are really relevant and... organisational-led, that we would never have been able to do, if we’d just had the academic or even the practice data.”
Having applied an evidence-based approach for a number of years, her experience was that many stakeholders were initially unsure whether it was worthwhile, but eventually saw the value:
“There is sometimes some pushback about the length of time it would take us to answer questions, but we just don’t work in any other way... For instance, we produced a report for a client last week, and the client said that it was the most insightful data they’d ever had... [In addition], that methodology means that their report feels like their report: it’s owned by them, it’s in their voice, it feels relevant to them and therefore they’re more like to accept it.”
