By David Nilssen, CEO of DOXA Talent
Why the Middle Ground Is the Most Expensive Place to Stand
Most companies didn’t adopt hybrid work because it’s the optimal model. They adopted it because it felt safer than committing.
Everyone in an office became outdated. Fully remote felt risky. Hybrid appeared to offer balance. But “balanced” and “strategic” are not the same thing. In many cases, hybrid is simply the compromise leaders land on when they are uncomfortable choosing a clear direction. And compromise, when it comes to operating models, is expensive.
The Economic Reality of Hybrid
Hybrid organizations quietly carry three structural costs at the same time.
First, they maintain the full cost structure of an office-based organization. Leases, utilities, parking, and maintenance don’t disappear simply because employees come in fewer days per week.
Second, they also fund the full infrastructure required for remote work. Cloud platforms, collaboration tools, security systems, device management, and distributed communication layers all become necessary. And if they don’t invest here, it only exacerbates the challenges I will point out later.
Finally, hybrid introduces a third and often overlooked cost: cultural complexity.
Teams begin operating under two sets of expectations. Some interactions happen in person, others digitally. Visibility becomes uneven. Decision-making can fragment between those physically present and those joining remotely.
The result is that organizations pay for two operating models simultaneously without becoming best in class (or even proficient in some cases).
Commercial real estate data illustrates this inefficiency clearly. Many hybrid offices now operate at roughly 30–50% physical occupancy, yet companies continue paying 100% of the lease. That means a significant amount of capital is tied up in optionality rather than invested in growth.
The Cultural Fracture: Proximity Bias
The deeper problem with hybrid isn’t just financial. It’s structural.
Hybrid environments tend to create two classes of employees: the people in the room and the people on the screen.
No leader sets out to design inequality. Yet behavioral patterns make it almost inevitable.
Research from Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom has shown that hybrid employees are often promoted at lower rates when managers unconsciously favor in-person visibility.
This isn’t necessarily intentional bias. It’s human nature.
People build familiarity with those they see more often. Informal hallway conversations create access. Access increases perceived contribution. And perceived contribution influences promotion decisions.
Over time, proximity becomes opportunity.
Hybrid doesn’t intend to divide teams. It slowly drifts into that outcome.
The Caregiver Illusion
Hybrid policies are frequently marketed as flexible. In reality, they often create logistical friction.
Two required office days still demand five days of planning for someone balancing caregiving responsibilities. Childcare must be arranged. Commutes must be coordinated. Schedules must remain fluid enough to accommodate both in-person and remote expectations.
What leaders intend as flexibility can instead introduce unpredictability. And predictability is what allows professionals to perform consistently.
Hybrid doesn’t eliminate the burden of commuting or scheduling. It simply reshapes it.
That’s not flexibility. It’s compromise.
The Psychology Behind Hybrid
The reason hybrid persists has less to do with performance and more to do with leadership psychology. Hybrid reduces anxiety.
It preserves familiarity with the traditional office while acknowledging the realities of remote work. It allows leaders to avoid backlash from either extreme.
But comfort is not a scaling strategy. Clarity is.
Operating models function best when they are intentionally designed around how work actually gets done.
The Capacity Framework
If you step back, there are really only three sustainable workforce architectures.
Some companies remain fully in-office. These organizations optimize for speed, in-person collaboration, and proximity-based decision-making.
Others operate fully remote. These teams rely heavily on documentation, asynchronous workflows, and objective performance metrics to equalize visibility and accountability.
Both models can work well when intentionally designed.
Hybrid, by contrast, often optimizes for compromise. It introduces cultural drift, visibility imbalances, and duplicated cost structures that require constant negotiation.
Two of these models scale cleanly. One requires ongoing tension management.
What We Learned the Hard Way
As CEO of Guidant Financial, we learned this lesson firsthand when we opened a second office in Boise while maintaining operations in Seattle. The intent was simple: expand capacity. The outcome was more complicated.
Small differences in equipment created resentment. Informal proximity began shaping access to information. Team members in different locations experienced the organization differently. It wasn’t a catastrophic fracture, but it was noticeable.
Then COVID forced us fully remote.
Something unexpected happened: engagement scores increased.
Why?
Because everyone suddenly operated on the same playing field. Communication became more intentional. Visibility became more equal. Systems replaced informal access.
What hybrid had created quietly, full commitment resolved…and we never looked back. It’s also why when we launched DOXA Talent, we started as a fully-remote organization.
The Leadership Question
Hybrid can function. Many companies operate this way today. But the real question isn’t whether it works. The question is whether it creates structural advantage.
- Does it strengthen margins?
- Does it improve cultural cohesion?
- Does it increase promotion fairness?
- Does it scale cleanly as the organization grows?
- Or does it preserve comfort while introducing complexity?
Leaders who want clarity must make a choice. Because hesitation is expensive. And hybrid, in many cases, is simply hesitation with a policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is hybrid work more expensive than remote?
Often yes. Hybrid organizations carry both office overhead and remote infrastructure costs simultaneously.
What is proximity bias in hybrid environments?
Proximity bias refers to leaders unintentionally favoring employees who are physically present, influencing visibility and promotion outcomes.
Does hybrid work impact promotions?
Research suggests that in-office employees may experience higher visibility, which can affect promotion patterns if not intentionally managed.
Why do companies choose hybrid models?
Hybrid often feels like a compromise between remote and in-office work, reducing perceived risk for leadership.
What workforce model scales best?
Organizations that intentionally optimize either fully in-office or fully remote models typically experience less friction and greater structural clarity.
