Hybrid work as a health lever

Hybrid working has become one of the most contested issues in the UK workplace. While business leaders and politicians argue over office mandates and company culture, new evidence suggests the real debate should be about health. Far from being a perk, hybrid models are emerging as a lever to manage sickness absence, wellbeing, and productivity.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s (CIPD) latest Health and wellbeing at work report puts sickness absence at its highest level in over a decade — 9.4 days per employee in the past year, up from 7.8 in 2023 and 5.8 before the pandemic. Yet the data tells a more complex story. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reports that overall hours lost to sickness have fallen since their 2022 peak, and that employees with the option to work remotely record the lowest sickness absence rates in the country, at just 1.4 per cent.

This divergence highlights a structural shift in how illness affects the workforce. Minor absences are declining, but longer, more serious conditions — particularly related to mental health and musculoskeletal issues — are keeping people out of work for extended periods. Hybrid work appears to mitigate some of the short-term impact, but the risk of digital presenteeism, working while unwell, is growing.

A 2023 CIPD survey found that 78 per cent of employers had observed staff working from home while sick. The phenomenon reduces headline absence but conceals a “health debt” — employees recovering less fully, storing up fatigue and stress that can manifest later as chronic conditions. Mental Health UK’s Burnout Report 2025 found nine in ten UK workers reported high or extreme stress levels in the past year, with younger employees particularly affected.

---

Shifting the debate on productivity and equity —

The productivity debate has been equally fraught. Some executives insist hybrid undermines collaboration and innovation. In one poll from the British Chambers of Commerce, 41 per cent of companies said hybrid had harmed productivity, rising to nearly half among manufacturers. That perception has fuelled return-to-office mandates at employers including John Lewis, Barclays, and Vodafone.

Yet measured evidence points to a more neutral outcome. A landmark trial by Stanford University with over 1,600 staff found that hybrid arrangements had no statistically significant impact on performance compared with full-time office work. In the UK, surveys by Cisco and the CIPD report that most employees and many managers feel productivity improves when staff have flexibility.

The more compelling evidence is found elsewhere. The same Stanford study showed hybrid schedules reduced staff attrition by 33 per cent — a major saving when recruitment, onboarding, and lost expertise are considered. Flexibility also broadens the talent pool, enabling companies to recruit beyond commuting distance and attract candidates who prioritise autonomy. Economists have suggested this reallocation of work to more suitable environments could deliver a five per cent productivity boost to the post-pandemic economy.

But the benefits are not evenly spread. Office-based professionals, often higher paid and university educated, are most likely to access hybrid arrangements. According to ONS data, 45 per cent of workers earning £50,000 or more engage in hybrid work, compared with just 8 per cent of those earning under £20,000. Disabled workers, who stand to benefit most, are also less likely to have access than their peers. This two-tier workforce divides those who enjoy the health and retention gains of flexibility from those in essential frontline sectors — health, retail, transport, construction — where absence is higher and workloads heavier.

Public sector absence rates remain significantly above private sector levels. NHS data for January 2025 shows a 5.7 per cent sickness rate, with anxiety, stress, and depression accounting for nearly a quarter of days lost. Civil service surveys suggest mandated in-office attendance has, in some cases, reduced personal productivity rather than improved it, as employees spend office days on virtual calls with colleagues working elsewhere.

These outcomes point to management capability as the decisive factor. Organisations with higher-quality management practices, ONS research shows, are more successful in making hybrid models work. That includes redesigning offices as hubs for collaboration, training managers to support remote teams, and ensuring workloads do not encourage digital presenteeism. Where hybrid is poorly implemented, it risks entrenching stress and inequality. Where it is done well, it supports health and helps retain skilled staff.

Internationally, the UK is at the forefront of this shift. Employees here average 1.8 days per week working from home, ahead of the global average of 1.3. At the same time, UK productivity remains around 20 per cent below the United States and lags behind Germany and France. The temptation to blame hybrid for this gap is strong, but misplaced. The UK’s sluggish productivity growth stretches back over a decade, long before homeworking was mainstream.

Hybrid work is neither a silver bullet nor a scapegoat. The evidence suggests it is best understood as a health lever — one that can reduce absence and support retention, provided it is designed with intent. The debate, then, is not whether employees should be in the office two or three days a week, but how organisations can use flexibility as part of a wider strategy for wellbeing and performance. That requires investment in managers, careful workload design, and inclusive access to flexibility across the workforce.

The question for leaders is less about presence, and more about trust.