Enhancing Workability and Work Inclusion Through Hybrid Work – A Qualitative Study of Norwegian Employees

Introduction

The significant shift to working from home (WFH) during the COVID-19 pandemic has brought continuous changes to professional life, introducing new and different approaches to work for employees in office-based jobs (Barrero, Bloom & Davis 2023). Today, there are high expectations for organizations to offer hybrid work arrangements – a combination of office-based and remote WFH. According to Bloom, Han & Liang (2022), hybrid work combines the ‘best of two worlds’; on the one hand, it offers the flexibility to adjust work to one’s personal life; on the other hand, it maintains social and professional interaction with colleagues at the office.

Research has shown that hybrid work has a dual impact on employees’ health and well-being, as elements of this work model, such as increased flexibility and autonomy, can serve as both stressors and motivators for employees (Charalampous et al. 2019; Dale, Wilson & Tucker 2024). Moreover, difficulties with drawing boundaries between work and personal life in a virtual work environment at home has changed employees’ health behavior in terms of, for instance, sickness presenteeism (working while ill) and absenteeism (Fiorini 2024; Nowrouzi-Kia et al. 2024) as well as employees’ perceptions of health at work (Ruhle & Schmoll 2021). These studies, however, were conducted in the context of the pandemic, and focused on employees who worked from home full-time. As organizations worldwide have endorsed hybrid work for their employees, updated knowledge about the potential of this flexible work arrangement for employees’ health and well-being is urgently needed.

Based on 59 qualitative interviews with hybrid workers in five Norwegian organizations, this study uses the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model introduced by Demerouti et al. (2001) as a theoretical point of departure. The article investigates how hybrid work may impact employees’ workability, and how the opportunity for hybrid work arrangements may contribute to a more sustainable working life for employees. Workability is conceptualized as the perceived balance between employees’ resources (including health, competencies, motivation) and demands (including private and work-related challenges) and how these might be affected by the context (Ilmarinen 2009). Thus, workability includes the individual’s health conditions, life phase, relational issues and caring for significant others, like dependent children or ill parents. Following Ilmarinen (2019), this holistic approach has an advantage over more specific outcome measures as it allows for an exploration of how hybrid work impacts workability in a dynamic process.

The concept of workability

The concept of workability was developed in the 1980s in Finland as a result of the aging work force and as a response to the overemphasis on work disability (Ilmarinen 2009). Starting out as a health-based concept, focusing on the fit between employees’ physical and mental resources to meet job demands, workability is increasingly recognized as affected by multiple factors (Cadiz et al. 2019). Workability is obtained by a sustainable balance between individual resources (health and functional capacities, skills and competence, values, attitudes and motivation), work conditions, content and demand of work within an environment where both proximal factors like family and social network, as well as distal, society factors play a role (Ilmarinen 2019). Thus, the holistic model of workability considers the interplay of factors across various levels that enable employees to function more effectively and sustainable at work over time (Maltby 2011).

Quantitative studies and systematic reviews have found a positive relationship between flexible work arrangements and work-related health outcomes (Fox et al. 2022; Shifrin & Michel 2021; Moen et al. 2016). For instance, employees working reduced-hours arrangements reported lower stress levels compared to their peers (Chandola et al. 2019). Findings also suggest that flexible work arrangements might function as a protective factor for those with health challenges or other life burdens. Workers with disabilities had lower absenteeism if they worked from home (Giovanis & Ozdamar 2019). However, few health outcomes (Fløvik et al. 2021) and consequences for well-being (Dale, Wilson & Tucker, 2024) have been investigated in high quality studies related to work from home and hybrid work (Lunde et al. 2022), and there is currently a lack of in-depth qualitative examinations of employees’ own experiences. Using ‘workability’ as an outcome, opens for a broader and more contextual debate about sustainable working life.

This article utilizes a qualitative design that aims to examine employees’ perceptions of their workability. Thus, the article expands the current knowledge from quantitative studies that examine objective assessments of workability to explore possible relationships between hybrid work and health. Furthermore, the impact of work and workplace policies on people’s workability is emphasized. By engaging with workability, the aim is to go beyond the mere positive or negative depiction of hybrid work and take into consideration the dynamic interaction between employees (across ages and life phases), job conditions and the wider environment in a more multifaceted manner (Ilmarinen 2009).

Theoretical background: Job Demands-Resources model

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, introduced by Demerouti et al. in 2001 (Bakker & Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001), forms the theoretical basis for the article. The model assumes that all types of job characteristics can be categorized as either demands or resources. Job demands consist of the physical, social, or organizational aspects of a job that require sustained physical or mental effort. Job resources consist of the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of a job that function either to achieve work goals, reduce job demands, or stimulate personal growth and development (Demerouti et al. 2001).

The JD-R model encapsulates the dual effects of flexible work (Ter Hoeven & Van Zoonen, 2015, p. 241). Flexible working can boost job resources such as autonomy (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Gajendran et al. 2024; Sardeshmukh, Sharma & Golden 2012). Autonomy can be a resource in two ways: through enabling employees to meet job demands and balance their work-life conflict as needed (Metselaar, Dulk & Vermeeren 2023), and by fostering motivation, work engagement and organizational commitment (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Schaufeli, Bakker & Van Rhenen 2009). Thus, flexible work arrangements function as a resource for the individual employee, as well as for the employers. People with health challenges or disabilities often find significant value in the flexibility of WFH (Klinksiek, Jammaers & Taskin 2023; Padkapayeva et al., 2017; Schur, Ameri, & Kruse 2020). Such flexibility has been linked to higher job satisfaction and productivity (Giovanis & Ozdamar 2019), and increased job retention (Holland & Clayton 2020). In addition, avoiding long and stressful daily commutes has a positive impact on employee well-being and commitment to the organization (Emre & De Spiegeleare 2021).

Another possibility of flexible work arrangements is that employees may choose to work even on days when they are slightly ill, a behavior conceptualized as ‘presenteeism’ (Miraglia & Johns 2016). WFH thus enables a form of presenteeism that could help mitigate future sick leaves by preventing the pile-up of work during periods of illness (Johns, 2008). A study by Karanika-Murray and Biron (2020) found that attending work during illness can be functional, and serve a therapeutic purpose, when it takes place in flexible work contexts with a high degree of self-determination and a supportive work environment. Moreover, presenteeism can have positive effects on employees’ health if the employees are able to adjust their work tasks to match their health condition (Lohaus et al. 2021) and if working is something they choose to do, rather than something they feel pressured into (Holland & Collins 2018).

However, autonomy is not only a job resource. The self-management required for flexible working can be experienced as increased job demands. Findings indicate that WFH can reduce the ability to psychologically detach from work, which in turn becomes a source of stress (Eddleston & Mulki 2017). When individuals struggle to detach from work and additionally experience reduced contact with colleagues and supervisors while WFH, they are more likely to engage in a dysfunctional form of presenteeism, where they push themselves beyond their work capacity (Karanika-Murray & Biron 2020; Schmitz, Bauer & Niehaus 2023). Such presenteeism can result in a range of negative long-term physical and mental health consequences and is linked to increased sickness absence (Bergström et al. 2009). Brosi and Gerpott (2023) refer to the phenomenon of WFH while ill as ‘workahomeism’, highlighting its distinction from traditional presenteeism. They note that is represents an alternative decision-making option compared to the conventional understanding of presenteeism. When employees engage in workahomeism instead of resting at home, they feel less guilty toward their colleagues. Thus, the ways in which employees manage their flexibility and autonomy, particularly in relation to presenteeism, may lead to detrimental health effects over the long term (Skagen & Collins 2016; Steidelmüller, Meyer & Müller 2020).

Previous studies have demonstrated that hybrid work is associated with both increased job resources and job demands. As Chung (2022, p. 131) states, flexible working is not used in a vacuum, and how individual employees handle and experience it differs according to a variety of factors, such as personal boundary preferences, life phases, gender patterns, organizational context and national context. In the subsequent section, certain aspects of Norwegian working life that offer context for the current study are outlined.

Hybrid work and workability in the Norwegian context

Norwegian work organizations are relatively democratic and characterized by openness, trust and autonomy due to a strong tradition for collective bargaining between trade unions and employers (Dølvik 2013). Compared to other European countries, Norwegian employees score high on job satisfaction and report high levels on autonomy and experienced fit between the work and home domain (Aagestad, Bjerkan & Gravseth 2017).

Norwegian working life is distinguished by extensive legislation and cooperation concerning individual worker rights, work conditions and working time (Heiret 2012), such as family-friendly workplace policies (Håpnes & Rasmussen 2011), opportunity of flexible hours (Nergaard et al. 2018) and work inclusion policies (Government of Norway, The IA-Agreement, 2019–2024). The Norwegian Agreement on a More Inclusive Working Life (the IA-Agreement) is a tripartite collaboration between the state, employers and unions that aims to decrease long-term health-related sick-leaves and facilitate labour market inclusion for citizens with reduced work ability (IA-Agreement, 2019–2024). In terms of inclusion, the IA-agreement emphasizes early workforce integration with concurrent training and workplace adaptation, in line with international trends (Corrigan & McCracken 2005). The workplace is considered the main prevention arena for work disability in Norway (IA-Agreement, 2019–2024). As shown in the results section, the increased opportunities for hybrid work align with this tradition of an inclusive working life.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, access to flexible work arrangements, such as hybrid work, has increasingly become a central subject for negotiation between employers and employees (Aksnes, Underthun & Hansen 2023). Whereas flexible work arrangements in Norway before the COVID-19 shutdowns in March 2020 were mostly associated with schedule flexibility, opportunities for WFH have become much more common, and today, as many as 53 percent of employees in Norway have access to hybrid work (Ingelsrud, Dahl & Nørgaard 2023).

Material and methods

Results: To what extent can hybrid work affect workability

The findings are divided into three parts: (1) Hybrid work as a resource to increase workability for employees with chronic illness concerns how hybrid work affects work and everyday life for interviewees with chronic illnesses, and their perceived ability to remain in work; (2) Hybrid work as a resource for enhanced sense of mastery and well-being shows how the heightened autonomy and flexibility rising from hybrid work policies serve as a resource for employees across life phases, enhancing their sense of mastery and well-being; and (3) Hybrid work as both a resource and a demand to work despite illness illustrates how WFH enables employees to continue working even when they are sick, an opportunity that can be perceived both positively and negatively by the interviewees.

Discussion

Ensuring longer and improved working lives is an ongoing challenge for society today. The current study examines the relationship between hybrid work and work-life mastery and well-being among employees with the option to work partially from home. Findings show that hybrid work can improve employees’ workability. Across ages and life phases, the interviewees reported that hybrid work has enhanced their work-life balance, well-being, motivation, and job satisfaction by providing valuable job resources. These results are consistent with previous studies of remote work which show that work engagement fostering well-being is evident in employees able to use the flexibility of remote work to optimize demands and practice job crafting (Mäkikangas el al. 2022; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach 2018). For interviewees with health challenges, WFH was a significant means of work accommodation that could help prevent sick leave and absenteeism, as revealed in previous studies (Shifrin & Michel 2021). Thus, hybrid work is more than just a work arrangement, as it is inherently connected to resources such as flexibility, autonomy, trust-based leadership, and the absence of micromanagement. In this way, the findings align well with the advantages described in the literature on flexible work arrangements (Bloom et al. 2015; Gajendran & Harrison 2007, Gajendran et al. 2024; Metselaar, Dulk & Vermeeren 2023). They also align with research showing that employees who can choose to WFH, as our interviewees may, fosters the well-documented health promotion and well-being benefits associated with greater flexibility and control over work time (Fox et al. 2022; Moen et al. 2016).

Meanwhile, the new technological possibilities that enable WFH have also blurred the boundaries between health and illness (Steidelmüller, Meyer & Müller 2020). In the data material this blurring is expressed in two ways: firstly, by allowing chronically ill individuals to WFH instead of taking sick leave, and secondly, by enabling people to WFH despite illness. Below, these two forms of blurring boundaries are discussed separately, since they potentially have different consequences for workability.

The findings emphasize that hybrid work can enhance work inclusion as it increases workability among interviewees with health challenges. WFH allows employees with health challenges to follow their own pace, rest during the working day, and thereby maintain health and job motivation. Thus, the findings are in line with studies that see flexible work and WFH as an important measure for people with health challenges to avoid sickness absence or early retirement (Giovanis & Ozdamar, 2019; Holland & Clayton, 2020; Padkapayeva et al., 2017; Schur, Ameri, & Kruse 2020). WFH has been revealed to reduce physical symptoms (Shifrin & Michel 2022), as well as stress and burnout, and promote well-being (Fox et al. 2022; Moen et al. 2016). For employees with health challenges, these positive outcomes of WFH might be even more important to sustain work. This seems to be the case in our findings. Simultaneously, the literature points to potential downsides with WFH for people with health challenges, such as the risk of social isolation and career-growth limitations (Schur, Ameri, & Kruse 2020). These downsides are not evident among the interviewees, however, which might be because they are hybrid workers rather than full-time teleworkers.

The extensive period of WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic, gave the interviewees the understanding that they could continue to work despite illness, a change in approach that has seemingly continued after the pandemic. This finding taps into recent studies showing that remote workers report more presenteeism than office workers (Fiorini 2024; Ruhle & Schmoll 2021; Schmitz, Bauer & Niehaus 2023; Steidelmüller, Meyer & Müller 2020). Whereas most studies have measured presenteeism in remote work quantitatively and highlighted various factors contributing to both functional and dysfunctional presenteeism, our study contributes to the presenteeism debate by exploring people’s experiences of- and reflections on working despite illness. Most of the interviewees found it relieving to work when they are mildly ill, both because they had task-based jobs where work would pile up if they were absent, and because of the satisfaction derived from their work as such. Importantly, the interviewees emphasized that they did not feel pressured by their managers to work and that the decision to work while ill was entirely their own. Hence, our study adds to existing research on positive aspects of presenteeism, highlighting a voluntary and health-promoting form where the employees adjust their work performance to their health condition (Karanika-Murray & Biron, 2020; Schmitz, Bauer & Niehaus 2023). This might pave the way for new forms of presenteeism to arise in the context of WFH.

However, even when presenteeism is functional as it occurs in flexible work contexts with high degree of self-determination (Karanika-Murray & Biron, 2020), where employees can adjust work tasks to their health condition (Lohaus et al., 2021), and where they do not feel pressured to work (Holland & Collins, 2018), working while ill can be a slippery slope. The digital ‘always-on’ availability connected to hybrid work can create implicit expectations to work while ill and give rise to an unarticulated norm of presenteeism in organizations, as employees observe and mimic their colleagues’ and managers’ behavior. The desire and motivation to work while ill can coexist with a sense of pressure to attend work, placing the responsibility on each individual employee to determine when they are well enough to work and when they are too ill to do so. For some, working while ill poses no problem, while for others it might be a self-endangering behavior (Schmitz, Bauer & Niehaus 2023; Steidelmüller, Meyer & Müller 2020). As Karanika-Murray and Biron (2020, p. 245) points out: presenteeism suggests different stories for different presentees. If presenteeism at home is to remain a sustainable alternative to absenteeism (cf. Ruhle & Schmoll 2021), it requires individuals to balance the resources provided by hybrid work (flexibility, autonomy, job control, and adjustment to health status) against its demands (‘always-on’ availability, implicit attendance expectations, and reduced ability to detach from work). This shows a potential ‘workability dilemma’: WFH while ill can offer an immediate sense of accomplishment and stress relief in the moment (resource), yet over time, it may impair people’s workability (demand).

The workability dilemma can be added to the array of various dilemmas and paradoxes described in the literature of flexible working, such as the ‘autonomy paradox’ (Mazmanian, Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates 2013), the ‘flexibility paradox’ (Chung 2022) and the ‘connectivity paradox’ (Leonardi, Treem & Jackson 2010). One issue that these paradoxes have in common is that they all point to advantages and disadvantages of flexible working life, stemming from an individualization of work practices (Tavares et al. 2020). WFH during the pandemic intensified individualization processes as it forced employees into a high level of self-management. The findings presented in this article can thus be interpreted against this backdrop of increased individualization of work; it has become the responsibility of the individual to manage their own hybrid work life sustainably.

Implications and recommendations for practice

Adopting a workability approach can augment the proactive and preventative aspects of organizational and national policies (Ilmarinen 2019). The findings presented in this article have several implications for all actors in the working life – policymakers, unions, employers, human resource management, and employees, as well as for future research. Policymakers should be aware of how flexible work arrangements, such as hybrid work, can generally enhance workability, addressing both health and life-phase related challenges. For employers, developing and implementing hybrid work policies and arrangements can serve as a valuable tool for fostering a more inclusive work environment.

Our findings show that the flexibility to work hybrid opens new possibilities for the prevention of disability. As such, hybrid work enriches and nuances debates on sickness absence and early retirement concerns, facilitating the development of more accurate measures. Even though the facilitation for, and the expectation of employees to work despite health problems or illness already has been changing the last centuries (Corrigan & McCracken 2005; Pransky, Loisel & Anema 2011), the new flexibility that technology offers are blurring the lines even more. Hybrid work has increased the threshold for when it feels acceptable to ‘call in sick’ and refrain from working. This needs to be taken into consideration. WFH brings the boundaries between health and sickness to the fore. There is a risk that the flexibility offered by hybrid work could heighten expectations and establish norms wherein employees are presumed willing and capable of WFH, even when unwell. We encourage policymakers, employers, and unions to discuss expectations and guidelines for presenteeism and be attentive of situations where blurred boundaries could pose a challenge, such as for newly hired employees, for employees with young children, or for older workers.

Moreover, trade unions must critically engage with the potential individualizing effects of responsibilities, rights and regulatory frameworks that may emerge alongside flexibility driven workability. Employees may be inclined to continue working while ill, perceiving this as a personal cost they are willing to bear in exchange for the perceived privilege of flexibility. Such dynamics reflect a broader individualization of choice and responsibility in which the burden of safeguarding employee health and well-being is shifted from the employer to the employees. Moreover, this also reflects the individualization of rights, where the right to flexible work arrangements for the employees are being transformed into each individual’s right to self-exploit as a price willingly paid for the flexibility. These developments have important implications for the future of union work. For unions, the collective is central to the fight for rights, with negotiations and agreements designed to prevent exploitation, such as ensuring employees can call in sick rather than work while ill. While unions would support the resource aspect of workability, such as flexibility, autonomy, job control, and adjustment to health status, the individualization tied to flexibility driven workability might weaken the collective dimension of organizing in the long run.

Drawing on the results of this study, we have identified several key recommendations for practice:

1. Employers should engage in dialogue-based exploration with employees to understand why they chose to WFH and if it is an appropriate solution. This can help uncover contextual factors that make WFH attractive for employees, such as health challenges, life phase, or other issues.

2. As WFH is a valuable workplace accommodation that can prevent long-term sickness absence and enable individuals to work despite health challenges or disabilities, it should be considered by involved stakeholders in office-based workplaces.

3. Recognizing the advantages and therapeutic effect of working despite illness, employers, HR and policymakers should make it clear that taking sick leave is completely acceptable and ensure that no unwritten rules at the workplace create pressure for employees to work while ill.

4. Employers and HR should raise awareness and encourage open discussion in the workplace about the consequences – both positive and negative – of working while ill.

5. Acknowledge the impact employers and employees’ own decisions and work habits regarding working while ill have on coworkers.

Limitations and directions for future research

The current study provides an in-depth exploration of the dynamic interplay between hybrid work, health and well-being, yielding a complex and nuanced understanding of workability. Nevertheless, there are limitations that need to be discussed.

First, both the organizations and interviewees joined voluntarily. Thus, there is a risk that the employees most satisfied with hybrid working arrangements volunteered to be interviewed. Less satisfied employees might have been reluctant to volunteer as their employer collaborates with the research project, which might lead to less pronounced negative perspectives and attitudes in our findings. However, some employees did express criticisms about their work environment, such as office layout or lack of interaction with colleagues and managers who often WFH.

Second, the organizations in the current study practiced a hybrid work arrangement, typically allowing to WFH for up to two days. Hence, it is challenging to generalize the advantages that these findings yield for employees with even more liberal WFH arrangements. Former studies have suggested that two days are seen as most optional for employee outcomes (de Macêdo et al. 2020; las Heras & Barraza 2020). However, as these studies were conducted before 2020, there is a need for updated research on the appropriate WFH intensity in a post-pandemic context.

Third, we examined workability in a sample consisting of a privileged part of the workforce; with the majority having higher education, working in jobs with low physical demands and a high degree of autonomy and flexibility. Subsequent studies should broaden this scope to include and compare employee groups from a more diverse population, going beyond the most privileged ones.

Fourth, caution is needed when generalizing findings from Norway’s heavily regulated context, where flexible work arrangements are widely used (Ingelsrud, Dahl & Nørgaard 2023), to other settings. However, hybrid work is not unique to Norway and the dynamics identified in our study may have broader relevance. For instance, Bloom, Dahl & Rooth (2024) reported that the possibility to WFH likely have increased the proportion of workers with disabilities in the US, suggesting similar dynamics in other countries. To better understand the implications of hybrid work for workability, future research should investigate diverse worker groups, life stages, and circumstances (e.g., individuals living alone or older workers) both within and beyond the Nordic welfare state context.

Conclusion

According to Ilmarinen (2019), implementing successful interventions to enhance workability is a challenging endeavour. The COVID-19 outbreak created an ‘enforced intervention’ through the widespread adoption of hybrid work, offering a unique opportunity from which workers can continue to derive ongoing benefits. Our findings show that a benefit of hybrid work is increased workability among interviewees with health or life stage challenges, as WFH provides them with the flexibility they need to work while maintaining health and job motivation. However, while WFH when sick may provide immediate accomplishment and stress relief (a resource), this might gradually establish norms that expect employees to WFH, even when unwell (demand). This may in turn impair employees’ workability. Herein lies the ‘workability dilemma’, of which all working life actors need to be aware. To safeguard the positive impact of hybrid work for workability, discussions about expectations and guidelines for digital presenteeism are needed.

Workability functions as a crucial resource not only for sustaining labour force participation but also for supporting senior workers in maintaining autonomy and independence in daily life. Given the global concerns about the aging population and shrinking labor force due to proportionally smaller younger (OECD 2023; OECD 2019), hybrid work arrangements may offer a particularly effective means of promoting continued labor marked engagement among senior workers and mitigate sickness absence and early retirement. The societal benefits of enhancing workability and promoting workplace wellbeing therefore extends beyond the immediate benefit of individual employment outcomes, potentially contributing to a broader public health and economic sustainability.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.