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

ORGANIZATION	SECTOR	NO. OF EMPLOYEES	NO. OF INTERVIEWEES	HYBRID WORK BEFORE PANDEMIC TO AFTER PANDEMIC
Labour and welfare office	Public	200	19	Seldom to fixed arrangement
Municipal agency	Public	550	17	Never to fixed arrangement
Law firm	Private	150	5	Seldom to full flexibility
Media enterprise	Private	260	7	Seldom to fixed flexibility
State directorate	Public	235	11	Seldom to fixed flexibility

Table 2

Overview of Sample.

INTERVIEWEE NO.	SECTOR	ORGANIZATION	GENDER/AGE	LIFE SITUATION
1	Private	Media	M/64	Single
2	Private	Media	F/53	Partner
3	Private	Media	M/52	Partner, 1 child
4	Private	Media	M/55	Partner, 1 child
5	Private	Media	M/58	Partner
6	Private	Media	F/32	Partner, 2 children
7	Private	Media	M/57	Partner
8	Public	Welfare office	F/32	Partner, 3 children
9	Public	Welfare office	F/55	Partner
10	Public	Welfare office	F/50	Partner
11	Public	Welfare office	M/40	Single
12	Public	Welfare office	F/57	Single
13	Public	Welfare office	F/32	Single, 1 child
14	Public	Welfare office	F/64	Single
15	Public	Welfare office	F/60	Single
16	Public	Welfare office	M/65	Partner
17	Public	Welfare office	F/41	Partner, 2 children
18	Public	Welfare office	F/50	Partner
19	Public	Welfare office	F/29	Partner
20	Public	Welfare office	F/35	Partner, 2 children
21	Public	Welfare office	M/63	Partner
22	Public	Welfare office	F/45	Single, 1 child
23	Public	Welfare office	F/33	Partner, 2 children
24	Public	Welfare office	M/61	Partner
25	Public	Welfare office	F/46	Partner
26	Public	Welfare office	M/59	Partner
27	Private	Law firm	F/27	Partner
28	Private	Law firm	F/41	Partner, 3 children
29	Private	Law firm	F/33	Single
30	Private	Law firm	F/42	Partner, 3 children
31	Private	Law firm	F/40	Partner, 3 children
32	Public	State directorate	F/61	Partner
33	Public	State directorate	F/45	Partner
34	Public	State directorate	M/58	Single
35	Public	State directorate	F/40	Single
36	Public	State directorate	M/60	Partner
37	Public	State directorate	M/50	Single, 2 children
38	Public	State directorate	F/50	Single, 1 child
39	Public	State directorate	M/34	Partner, 1 child
40	Public	State directorate	F/38	Partner, 2 children
41	Public	State directorate	F/52	Single, 1 child
42	Public	State directorate	F/40	Partner, 2 children
43	Public	Municipal agency	F/35	Partner, 2 children
44	Public	Municipal agency	F/58	Partner, 1 child
45	Public	Municipal agency	F/57	Partner, 1 child
46	Public	Municipal agency	M/61	Partner
47	Public	Municipal agency	F/52	Partner
48	Public	Municipal agency	F/49	Partner, 1 child
49	Public	Municipal agency	F/35	Partner, 1 child
50	Public	Municipal agency	M/49	Partner, 2 children
51	Public	Municipal agency	M/46	Single, 2 children
52	Public	Municipal agency	F/48	Single, 1 child
53	Public	Municipal agency	M/55	Partner
54	Public	Municipal agency	F/46	Partner, 3 children
55	Public	Municipal agency	M/31	Partner
56	Public	Municipal agency	F/50	Partner, 2 children
57	Public	Municipal agency	F/33	Single
58	Public	Municipal agency	F/48	Partner, 3 children
59	Public	Municipal agency	M/30	Partner

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.361 | Journal eISSN: 2002-2867

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 3 - 3

Submitted on: Nov 4, 2024

Accepted on: Feb 2, 2026

Published on: Feb 16, 2026

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

© 2026 Siri Yde Aksnes, Cathrine Egeland, Tanja H. Nordberg, Lisebet Skeie Skarpaas, Wendy Nilsen, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 11 (2026): Issue 1