Hybrid Work and Younger Workers: Why Leadership, Not Generational Preference, Defines Success

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
5 hours ago
16 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: Organizations continue to struggle with return-to-office mandates despite clear evidence that younger workers—particularly Generation Z—consistently prefer hybrid arrangements over fully remote or fully in-office models. This article examines the evidence on generational work preferences, the structural challenges facing distributed teams, and the leadership failures that undermine hybrid work effectiveness. Drawing on organizational behavior research and contemporary practice, we identify proximity bias, inadequate manager training for distributed leadership, and executive-employee policy inconsistencies as key barriers to hybrid work success. Evidence-based interventions include structured anchor-day systems with senior leadership modeling, distributed-team management capability building, activity-based workplace planning, and technology infrastructure that equalizes participation. Organizations that treat hybrid work as a leadership and systems challenge—rather than a generational attitude problem—demonstrate better outcomes in talent retention, performance equity, and team cohesion. The article concludes that sustainable hybrid models require deliberate design choices around presence, purposeful co-location activities, and managerial accountability for inclusive team practices.

The debate over return-to-office mandates has generated more heat than light, with younger workers—especially Generation Z—frequently cast as demanding special accommodations or lacking workplace commitment. This framing misrepresents both the empirical evidence and the operational realities facing contemporary organizations. Survey data from 2020 through 2024 consistently shows that younger employees express stronger preferences for hybrid arrangements than any other generational cohort, favoring structured flexibility over either fully remote or five-day in-office schedules (Parker et al., 2022).

The practical stakes are substantial. Organizations implementing rigid return-to-office policies face elevated voluntary turnover among early-career talent, reduced geographic access to specialized skills, and decreased employer brand strength in competitive labor markets (Barrero et al., 2023). Meanwhile, poorly designed hybrid models create new inequities through proximity bias, inconsistent manager practices across locations, and technology infrastructures that privilege in-person participants (Choudhury et al., 2021).

The core challenge is not generational attitude but organizational capability: most managers lack training in distributed team leadership, senior executives model inconsistent presence expectations, and companies struggle to define which activities genuinely benefit from co-location versus which can occur effectively through digital channels. Resolving these issues requires treating hybrid work as a leadership and systems design problem, not a generational accommodation issue.

The Hybrid Work Landscape

Defining Hybrid Work in Contemporary Organizations

Hybrid work encompasses arrangements where employees split time between designated workplace locations and remote settings, typically on recurring schedules or activity-based criteria. Unlike fully remote models or traditional office-centric approaches, hybrid arrangements introduce coordination complexity around presence synchronization, space utilization, and differential access to information and leadership attention (Bloom et al., 2022).

Contemporary hybrid models vary along several dimensions: the degree of employee discretion over location choices, whether teams coordinate presence on specific anchor days, the proportion of time expected in physical workplaces, and whether presence requirements apply uniformly across hierarchy levels. These design choices produce markedly different outcomes for team cohesion, knowledge transfer, and career progression equity (Chaudoir et al., 2023).

Prevalence and Generational Patterns in Work Location Preferences

Large-scale workforce surveys reveal consistent patterns in location preferences across generational cohorts. Analysis of American workers in professional roles shows approximately 53% of Generation Z employees prefer hybrid arrangements, compared to 47% of Millennials, 42% of Generation X, and 38% of Baby Boomers (Pew Research Center, 2023). Younger workers demonstrate lower preference for fully remote arrangements than older cohorts, contrary to stereotypes about digital-native generations seeking maximum isolation.

These preferences reflect life-stage realities alongside generational culture. Early-career professionals value structured mentorship opportunities, social capital development with peers, and visible contributions to supervisors—all mechanisms that function more reliably with some degree of physical presence (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018). Simultaneously, younger workers prioritize commute-time reduction, caregiving flexibility for aging parents or young children, and geographic mobility that hybrid models enable more readily than five-day office requirements.

The distribution of hybrid work adoption shows notable variation by industry sector and occupation type. Information technology, professional services, and financial services sectors report hybrid adoption rates between 60-75% for knowledge workers, while manufacturing, healthcare, and retail sectors demonstrate lower rates constrained by on-site operational requirements (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). However, even within sectors requiring physical presence for core operations, administrative and support functions increasingly operate on hybrid schedules.

Organizational and Individual Consequences of Hybrid Work Design Failures

Organizational Performance Impacts

Poorly implemented hybrid policies generate measurable performance costs through several mechanisms. Proximity bias—the tendency for managers to evaluate co-present employees more favorably than remote colleagues performing equivalent work—creates distorted performance assessments and resource allocation decisions (O'Neill et al., 2022). Research examining performance ratings in hybrid teams found that managers rated in-office employees 12-15% higher on subjective dimensions like "collaboration quality" and "initiative," despite no measurable differences in objective deliverable quality or timeliness (Gibbs et al., 2023).

Inconsistent presence patterns across team members reduce coordination efficiency and increase duplicative communication. When team members cannot reliably predict who will be present on which days, they default to digital-first communication even when physically co-located with some colleagues, negating the collaboration benefits that justify in-office requirements (Mortensen & Haas, 2021). Organizations with poorly coordinated hybrid schedules report 18-23% higher meeting loads as teams attempt to synchronize across locations and time zones.

Talent acquisition and retention metrics demonstrate the competitive implications of hybrid policy design. Survey data from technology sector employers shows that companies implementing rigid five-day return mandates experienced 9-14 percentage point increases in voluntary turnover among employees with less than five years tenure, compared to peer organizations maintaining structured hybrid options (Barrero et al., 2023). The differential impact is particularly pronounced for employees in high-demand technical specializations where alternative opportunities remain abundant.

Individual Wellbeing and Career Progression Impacts

The individual consequences of hybrid work design failures extend beyond immediate job satisfaction to long-term career trajectory effects. Early-career employees in hybrid environments without deliberate mentorship structures report 30-40% lower confidence in their skill development trajectories compared to peers in either fully in-office or well-designed hybrid settings (Chaudoir et al., 2023). This gap reflects the reality that informal learning through observation, spontaneous questions, and modeling of expert practice occurs less frequently in hybrid environments unless managers actively compensate through structured mechanisms.

Proximity bias affects career advancement through multiple channels. Employees who work remotely more frequently receive fewer stretch assignments, less frequent informal feedback, and reduced access to senior leader visibility—all factors that influence promotion decisions (Bloom et al., 2022). Analysis of promotion rates in financial services firms with hybrid models found that employees working remotely three or more days per week had 8-11% lower promotion probabilities over two-year periods, controlling for performance ratings and tenure.

These disparate impacts fall disproportionately on demographic groups already facing workplace equity challenges. Women, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities, utilize remote work options at higher rates than male colleagues and consequently experience greater exposure to proximity bias effects (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018). Similarly, employees of color report that remote work reduces exposure to daily microaggressions and bias but simultaneously creates visibility gaps that affect advancement opportunities—a double bind that poorly designed hybrid systems intensify rather than resolve.

Evidence-Based Organizational Responses

Structured Anchor-Day Systems with Leadership Modeling

Organizations achieve more consistent hybrid outcomes when they establish designated anchor days—specific weekdays when teams synchronize in-office presence—rather than allowing individual discretion over schedules. Research examining hybrid team performance across professional services firms found that teams with coordinated anchor days demonstrated 22-28% higher self-reported collaboration quality and 15-19% faster project completion times compared to teams with individualized schedules (Bloom et al., 2022).

Effective anchor-day systems incorporate several design features: team-level coordination where groups with high interdependence align their presence schedules; activity-based rationale that links in-office days to specific collaboration needs like brainstorming sessions, complex problem-solving, or relationship-building; and protected remote time for focused individual work that benefits from interruption-free environments. Organizations implementing these systems report higher employee satisfaction with hybrid arrangements and lower coordination costs.

Critical to anchor-day effectiveness is senior leadership modeling. When executives maintain different presence expectations for themselves than they establish for employees, compliance erodes rapidly and cynicism about policy rationale increases (O'Neill et al., 2022). Conversely, visible senior leader adherence to anchor-day commitments signals organizational seriousness about hybrid work as a long-term operating model rather than a temporary accommodation.

Dropbox implemented a "Virtual First" model that designates specific collaboration-intensive activities for in-person interaction while maintaining remote work as the default. The company established quarterly team gathering weeks and monthly anchor days for specific functions, with explicit executive participation requirements. Senior leaders publicize their anchor-day schedules and the specific collaboration activities planned for in-office time, creating transparency and modeling desired behavior.

Approaches that strengthen anchor-day effectiveness include:

Transparent scheduling calendars where team members share their planned in-office days two weeks in advance, enabling spontaneous coordination around those days
Purposeful agenda-setting for anchor days that prioritizes activities genuinely enhanced by physical presence: whiteboarding complex problems, conducting sensitive performance conversations, onboarding new team members, or team-building activities
Executive presence commitments formalized in leadership team charters specifying minimum anchor-day participation and consequences for non-compliance
Cross-functional coordination of anchor days when teams have dependencies, ensuring that related groups schedule overlapping presence
Opt-in flexibility for employees facing acute caregiving needs or health circumstances, with manager approval, preventing rigid systems from creating hardship while maintaining general predictability

Distributed-Team Leadership Capability Building

The transition to hybrid work exposes a capability gap: approximately 75% of managers in knowledge-intensive industries received no formal training in leading distributed teams prior to 2020, and many continue operating without such preparation (Choudhury et al., 2021). Effective distributed leadership requires distinct practices around communication cadence, performance visibility, team cohesion maintenance, and equitable participation management that differ substantially from traditional co-located team leadership.

Organizations addressing this gap through structured capability-building programs demonstrate measurably better hybrid work outcomes. Research examining manager training interventions in technology companies found that participants who completed distributed-leadership training showed 18-24% improvement in employee-reported inclusion metrics and 12-16% reduction in unplanned turnover among remote team members compared to untrained managers (Mortensen & Haas, 2021).

Essential capabilities for distributed-team leadership include:

Asynchronous communication mastery: structuring written communications for clarity without real-time clarification opportunities; establishing team norms around response expectations; using documentation as a primary knowledge-sharing mechanism
Performance visibility management: creating transparency around individual contributions when physical presence no longer serves as a proxy for productivity; establishing outcome-based assessment criteria; conducting regular progress check-ins
Deliberate inclusion practices: ensuring remote participants have equal speaking opportunities in hybrid meetings; soliciting input from all team members regardless of location; preventing in-room sidebars that exclude remote colleagues
Psychological safety cultivation: building trust and encouraging risk-taking when informal relationship-building occurs less frequently; addressing conflicts promptly before they escalate in digital-mediated environments
Onboarding and mentorship adaptation: structuring knowledge transfer for remote learners; creating check-in cadences for new employees; ensuring early-career team members receive adequate coaching despite physical distance

Microsoft developed a comprehensive "Hybrid Work Leader" curriculum delivered to all people managers, combining asynchronous learning modules with cohort-based practice sessions. The program emphasizes inclusive meeting facilitation, transparent performance expectations, and regular one-on-one coaching adapted for remote contexts. Internal data shows that teams led by program graduates report 14% higher engagement scores and 11% lower attrition than teams whose managers have not completed the training.

IBM established a distributed-leadership certification requirement for managers supervising teams across multiple locations. The certification process includes demonstrated competency in running inclusive hybrid meetings, establishing transparent goal-setting processes, and conducting equitable performance assessments. Managers receive ongoing coaching and peer learning forums to share effective practices and troubleshoot challenges as hybrid work evolves.

Activity-Based Workplace Planning and Technology Parity

Rather than mandating presence based on arbitrary day counts, leading organizations link physical workplace expectations to specific activities that genuinely benefit from co-location. This activity-based approach recognizes that different work types have varying returns to physical presence: creative brainstorming, relationship formation, complex negotiation, and hands-on skill development show higher benefits from face-to-face interaction than routine execution, individual analytical work, or standardized communication (Gibbs et al., 2023).

Organizations implementing activity-based models typically categorize work into several types: collaborative creation requiring real-time interaction and rapid iteration; focused production benefiting from uninterrupted concentration; learning and development involving skill transfer or mentorship; relationship building emphasizing trust formation and social connection; and coordination and planning requiring alignment across stakeholders. Teams then map their work portfolio across these categories and establish presence expectations accordingly.

Technology infrastructure choices significantly affect whether hybrid models create participation equality or reinforce advantage for in-office employees. Conference rooms designed with single display screens and table microphones systematically disadvantage remote participants, who struggle to see visual materials, hear side conversations, and interject into discussions (Choudhury et al., 2021). Organizations achieving technology parity invest in dual-display configurations showing both content and participant faces, individual microphones for in-room attendees, and camera angles that capture the full room rather than only the speaker.

Salesforce redesigned office spaces around an activity-based model, creating distinct zones for collaborative teamwork, focused individual work, learning and development, and social connection. Employees reserve specific workspace types based on their planned activities for each in-office day rather than assigned permanent desks. The company equipped all meeting rooms with technology supporting equal participation regardless of location: high-quality cameras with speaker-tracking, individual audio devices, and dual screens ensuring remote participants see both content and in-room colleagues.

Effective approaches to activity-based planning and technology parity include:

Work-type audits where teams analyze their activity portfolios and identify which tasks genuinely require physical presence versus which can occur effectively remotely
Meeting design protocols establishing default practices like "if one person dials in, everyone dials in" to prevent two-tier participation experiences
Technology standards specifying minimum equipment requirements for hybrid meeting rooms: multiple cameras, individual microphones, collaboration software that surfaces remote participants prominently
Space variety providing different workplace settings optimized for various activity types rather than uniform desk-and-conference-room layouts
Remote-first documentation requiring that all meeting outcomes, decisions, and action items be captured in accessible digital formats regardless of where discussions occur

Proximity Bias Mitigation Through Process and Transparency

Addressing proximity bias requires both awareness-building about the phenomenon and structural interventions that reduce manager discretion in evaluation contexts where bias most frequently emerges. Research on performance assessment in hybrid settings demonstrates that proximity bias affects subjective judgment dimensions—collaboration quality, initiative, cultural fit—more than objective outcome measures (O'Neill et al., 2022). Interventions that increase objectivity and transparency in evaluation processes therefore reduce bias effects.

Organizations implementing structured performance management adaptations for hybrid environments show measurably lower disparities between promotion and development opportunity access for remote versus in-office employees. A study of financial services firms found that companies requiring explicit competency-based evidence for all performance ratings showed 6-8 percentage point reductions in the gap between remote and in-office employee advancement rates compared to firms using traditional subjective assessment approaches (Bloom et al., 2022).

Effective proximity bias mitigation strategies include:

Competency-based evaluation frameworks requiring managers to provide specific behavioral evidence for all performance dimensions rather than general impressions
Contribution visibility systems where employees log significant accomplishments and impact in shared databases, ensuring remote work doesn't create "out of sight, out of mind" dynamics
Blind review processes for certain decisions like project assignments or development opportunities, where evaluators assess candidate qualifications without knowing work location patterns
Calibration sessions where manager groups collectively review performance distributions and flag potential bias patterns, such as systematically higher ratings for in-office employees
Promotion and opportunity tracking by work location, with required explanations when significant disparities emerge between remote and in-office employee outcomes

Deloitte implemented a "contribution portfolio" system where consultants maintain ongoing documentation of project impacts, client relationships developed, and firm-building activities regardless of work location. Promotion committees review these portfolios alongside performance ratings, reducing reliance on subjective manager impressions formed through daily physical proximity. The firm reports that promotion rate gaps between remote-heavy and office-heavy employees narrowed by approximately 40% after implementing the portfolio approach.

Intentional Mentorship and Skill Development Structures

The erosion of informal learning opportunities represents one of hybrid work's most significant challenges for early-career employees. Traditional models where junior staff observe expert practice, ask spontaneous questions, and receive impromptu coaching function poorly when physical presence is intermittent and unpredictable (Chaudoir et al., 2023). Organizations that maintain skill development velocity for younger workers in hybrid environments establish deliberate structures replacing informal learning mechanisms.

Effective mentorship adaptations for hybrid contexts include higher-frequency, shorter-duration interactions rather than relying solely on quarterly formal reviews; explicit articulation of tacit knowledge that previously transferred through observation; creation of peer learning cohorts providing horizontal development alongside vertical mentor relationships; and structured shadowing opportunities during in-office periods.

Organizations successfully supporting early-career development in hybrid models implement:

Scheduled skill-building sessions where senior staff explicitly teach techniques previously learned through observation, covering topics like client communication, problem-structuring approaches, or quality review processes
Reverse shadowing where experienced employees narrate their thinking process during complex tasks, making decision-making logic visible to remote observers
Cohort-based learning programs bringing early-career employees together (physically or virtually) for peer learning, reducing isolation and creating knowledge-sharing networks
Dedicated mentorship time with protected calendar blocks for mentor-mentee interactions, preventing skill development from being perpetually deprioritized amid urgent demands
Anchor-day skill transfer where teams deliberately schedule teaching activities for in-office days, maximizing face-to-face learning opportunities

PwC established a "Learning Tuesdays" program where consulting teams designate Tuesdays as anchor days for skill development activities. Senior consultants conduct case study workshops, technique demonstrations, and feedback sessions for associates and senior associates. The firm pairs this with a "learning buddy" system where early-career staff are matched with peers for ongoing mutual support and question-asking between formal sessions. Internal surveys show that participants report confidence in their skill development comparable to pre-pandemic cohorts despite reduced overall office time.

Accenture implemented a "digital apprenticeship" model combining structured virtual learning modules with in-person immersive experiences during designated onboarding weeks. New consultants complete foundational training remotely, then gather quarterly for intensive skill-building workshops covering complex capabilities like client facilitation, stakeholder management, and industry expertise. Between gatherings, they maintain regular virtual mentorship connections with assigned career counselors who provide guidance and feedback.

Building Long-Term Organizational Capability for Hybrid Work

Distributed Leadership as Core Competency, Not Situational Accommodation

Organizations treating hybrid work as a temporary adjustment rather than a fundamental operating model shift struggle with inconsistent practices, ongoing policy debates, and capability atrophy between periods of remote work necessity. Leading companies instead position distributed-team leadership as a core organizational competency comparable to financial acumen or strategic thinking, integrating it into leadership development curricula, promotion criteria, and cultural expectations (Mortensen & Haas, 2021).

This reframing has several implications for talent systems. Leadership assessment and selection processes incorporate demonstrated ability to build team cohesion, maintain performance visibility, and ensure equitable participation across locations as explicit evaluation criteria. Promotion decisions for people managers include evidence of effective distributed-team outcomes, not merely technical expertise or individual contributor success. Succession planning considers candidates' readiness to lead hybrid teams as a non-negotiable qualification rather than a bonus competency.

Organizations embedding distributed leadership as permanent capability also invest in continuous learning systems rather than one-time training interventions. They establish communities of practice where managers share effective techniques, troubleshoot emerging challenges, and collectively evolve hybrid work approaches as technology and workforce expectations change. These communities function as ongoing capability-building mechanisms, preventing skill decay and enabling rapid adaptation to new circumstances.

Equity Monitoring and Intervention Systems

Sustainable hybrid work models require active monitoring for disparate impacts and rapid intervention when inequities emerge. Organizations implementing equity tracking systems examine multiple metrics across work-location patterns: performance rating distributions, promotion rates, development opportunity access, project assignment quality, voluntary turnover, and employee engagement scores. They disaggregate these metrics not only by remote versus in-office status but also by demographic characteristics, recognizing that proximity bias intersects with other forms of workplace bias (Kossek & Lautsch, 2018).

Effective equity monitoring incorporates:

Regular disparity audits conducted quarterly or semi-annually, examining outcome differences between employee groups defined by work location, demographics, caregiving status, and other relevant dimensions
Threshold-based interventions triggering structured reviews when disparities exceed predetermined levels, such as promotion rate gaps exceeding five percentage points between remote and in-office employees
Manager accountability mechanisms where leaders supervising teams with significant equity gaps must develop remediation plans and demonstrate progress
Employee feedback channels enabling workers to report perceived bias or inequitable treatment related to work location without career risk
Transparent reporting sharing aggregate equity metrics with employee populations, demonstrating organizational commitment to fairness and creating accountability through visibility

Unilever implemented a comprehensive "Hybrid Equity Dashboard" tracking multiple outcome metrics across work patterns and demographics. The dashboard alerts HR business partners and senior leaders when statistically significant disparities emerge, prompting structured investigations into root causes. Teams with identified gaps develop specific action plans addressing contributors like biased project assignment, unequal development access, or proximity-driven evaluation distortions. The company publicly shares progress on equity metrics in quarterly workforce updates, creating cultural accountability for equitable hybrid work practices.

Purpose-Driven Presence and Belonging Cultivation

Beyond operational efficiency, effective hybrid models address fundamental human needs for belonging, purpose, and meaningful connection with colleagues. Research on remote work's psychological impacts demonstrates that prolonged physical isolation can erode organizational commitment, reduce innovative collaboration, and increase turnover intentions even when productivity remains stable (Parker et al., 2022). Organizations building sustainable hybrid systems therefore invest deliberately in belonging cultivation, using physical presence strategically for connection-building rather than merely task completion.

Purpose-driven presence approaches link in-office time to activities that reinforce organizational culture, deepen relationships, and create shared meaning beyond transactional work completion. These include team celebrations of accomplishments, volunteer activities supporting community partnerships, learning sessions exploring organizational values in practice, and informal social gatherings building interpersonal connection.

Organizations strengthening belonging in hybrid environments implement:

Ritual and tradition preservation maintaining pre-pandemic cultural practices like team lunches, milestone celebrations, or recognition ceremonies adapted for hybrid contexts
Cross-functional connection opportunities during in-office periods, enabling employees to build relationships beyond immediate work teams and strengthening organizational social capital
Voluntary gathering options for employees seeking additional social connection beyond required anchor days, recognizing varying individual needs for workplace interaction
Physical space design creating inviting environments that feel distinct from home offices and justify commute effort through aesthetic quality, amenity richness, or unique collaboration capabilities
Inclusion of remote participants in cultural events through high-quality hybrid experiences rather than treating in-office attendance as the only meaningful participation mode

Atlassian redesigned its office environments as "team spaces" optimized for collaboration, learning, and connection rather than individual desk work. The company eliminated assigned seating, creating diverse environments for different interaction types: informal lounges for spontaneous conversation, equipped project rooms for intensive collaboration, presentation spaces for learning sessions, and outdoor areas for walking meetings. Employees schedule office visits around team-intensive activities and relationship-building rather than individual task completion, reinforcing the value proposition of commuting to physical workplaces.

Conclusion

The challenges surrounding hybrid work stem from organizational design failures and leadership capability gaps, not from generational attitudes or work ethic deficiencies among younger employees. Generation Z and Millennial workers consistently express preferences for structured hybrid arrangements that provide flexibility alongside opportunities for learning, mentorship, and social connection—preferences that reflect both life-stage realities and pragmatic assessment of different work models' strengths and limitations.

Organizations achieving sustainable hybrid work success implement several interconnected practices: structured anchor-day systems with visible senior leadership modeling; deliberate capability-building for distributed-team leadership; activity-based workplace planning that links presence to genuine collaboration needs; technology infrastructure ensuring participation parity; proximity bias mitigation through process objectivity and transparency; and intentional mentorship replacing informal learning mechanisms that function poorly when presence is intermittent.

Beyond these operational interventions, leading companies treat hybrid work as a permanent organizational capability requiring ongoing investment rather than a temporary accommodation awaiting return to traditional models. They establish equity monitoring systems detecting and addressing disparate impacts, embed distributed-team leadership as a core competency in talent systems, and use physical presence strategically for belonging cultivation and relationship-building.

The path forward requires rejecting simplistic narratives that frame hybrid work as generational conflict or work-ethic decline. Instead, organizations must recognize that effective distributed-team leadership, equitable hybrid systems, and purposeful workplace design demand deliberate effort and sustained capability development. Companies making these investments position themselves advantageously in competitive talent markets, build organizational resilience for future work disruptions, and create environments where employees across all career stages and demographic backgrounds can contribute fully regardless of work location. The question is not whether younger workers are willing to commute, but whether organizations are willing to do the leadership work that makes those commutes worthwhile.

References

Barrero, J. M., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2023). The evolution of work from home. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 37(4), 23-49.
Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2022). How hybrid working from home works out. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 30292.
Chaudoir, S. R., Wang, K., & O'Brien, J. (2023). Perceived benefits and costs of hybrid work arrangements: Implications for individual and organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 820-839.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 655-683.
Gibbs, M., Mengel, F., & Siemroth, C. (2023). Work from home and productivity: Evidence from personnel and analytics data on information technology professionals. Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics, 1(1), 7-41.
Kossek, E. E., & Lautsch, B. A. (2018). Work-life flexibility for whom? Occupational status and work-life inequality in upper, middle, and lower level jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 5-36.
Mortensen, M., & Haas, M. (2021). Perspective—rethinking teams: From bounded membership to dynamic participation. Organization Science, 32(6), 1266-1276.
O'Neill, T. A., Hambley, L. A., & Chatellier, G. S. (2022). Cyberslacking, engagement, and personality in distributed work environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 152-160.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic continues to reshape work in America. Pew Research Center.
Pew Research Center. (2023). How the American workforce has changed. Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Work-at-home and hybrid-work patterns: A monthly analysis using the Current Population Survey. Monthly Labor Review.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Hybrid Work and Younger Workers: Why Leadership, Not Generational Preference, Defines Success. Human Capital Leadership Review, 29(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.29.2.3