By Kasia flood
|
September 21, 2024
In fall 2023, I ran a mixed-method study to explore the correlation between universally offered work policies and organizational outcomes. The aim was to fill the present gap in practical guidance for employers amid the rise of topics such as potential advantages of greater neurominority (NM) inclusion and the future of work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic.
The following article presents a summary of the preliminary research, study design and resulting recommendations. For a full version of the report including full methodology, initial findings and sources, please reach out through my contact page.
In today’s era of talent shortages and rapid technology evolution, maintaining a diverse, innovative and satisfied workforce is a top priority for most employers. Many organizational experts have been quick to associate a rising concept as a key source to support these endeavours: neurodiversity. The term refers to a shift in how society views and accommodates those with cognitive characteristics that differ from traditionally accepted norms (Doyle and McDowall, 2022). These individuals, commonly referred to as neurominorities (NM) include those with conditions such as Autism (ASD) or Attention-Deficit- Hyperactivity–Disorder (ADHD). Neurodiversity advocates for a transition from today’s predominant clinical focus on deficits (Ortiz, 2020) to accepting these conditions as naturally occurring “differences” that could provide societal benefit (Krzeminska, et al., 2019). While some experts have been eager to align these differences with the potential for an employer to gain a competitive advantage, this perspective is highly debated.
Despite these differing viewpoints, a common thread exists— better accommodating the individual needs of employees leads to better employer outcomes. This view not only supports NM performance, but provides the flexibility to better accommodate the unique preferences and needs of the full employee population. This leans on the principles of Universal Design (UD), which considers potential personal limitations and barriers to facilitate convenient and full usage from as many individuals as possible (National Disability Authority, 2020). Within an organizational policy context, this would see a reduction in individual accommodations in favor of more flexible working arrangements.
With remote and flexible work arrangements amongst the most commonly recommended accommodations (CADDAC, 2022), their sudden uptake throughout the global COVID-19 pandemic (Galanti, et al., 2021) provided ample opportunities to both dispel pre-existing notions of telecommuting and explore the impact universally offering employees greater environmental control could have on performance. A state of emergency was first declared in Ontario, Canada on March 17, 2020 (Nielson, 2020) ordering many businesses to close and providing strong recommendations for any employers who could transition to remote work to do so. The province saw three full-scale lockdowns over the course of the following 22 months and remote work guidance continued into early 2023 (Freeman, 2023). Beginning in 2023, discussion emerged around the “future of work” following this three-year paradigm shift (Doherty, 2023).
Emerging in the 1990s, acceptance of the term “neurodiversity” has grown substantially over the past two decades. The term refers to embracing the unique mental models offered by “neurominority” (NM) individuals which includes those with ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia and Tourette’s Syndrome (Ortiz, 2020). Often described as having “spiky” cognitive profiles marked by standardized IQ ability scores spread over two standard deviations apart (Doyle, 2020), many have mused these individuals may be well-suited for specialist work (Doyle, 2020). Partnered with the chronic underemployment (Pooran, 2022) of this demographic, links have been made between better accommodating these individuals and improved employer outcomes; however, experts are mixed on the extent (Austin and Pisano, 2017).
Austin and Pisano (2017) explain several large organizations such as HSE, Microsoft and SAP have launched dedicated programs to reduce the challenges traditional ways of work have created for NM individuals. Their feature article claims SAP saw increased productivity through their targeted ASD hiring program, although no specific metrics were provided. Similar perspectives were shared by those arguing ASD predisposes individuals to high attention to detail (Hawse and Krzeminska, 2020) and above average intelligence (Hawse and Krzeminska, 2020; Rao and Polepeddi, 2019) or that ADHD individuals outperform within entrepreneurial endeavors and environmental scanning tasks (LeFevre-Levy, et al., 2023), but these perspectives are highly contested. Brown and Fisher (2023) assert claims of high IQ predisposition are incorrect and fail to speak on the high comorbidity rate between many of these disorders. Other experts found the boastful claims of NM “superpowers” were both misleading and detrimental to progress. Many experts feel they could sour the perspectives of colleagues and create challenges when seeking special accommodations (Barkley, 2014).
Despite ongoing debate, a common theme can be found throughout nearly all the literary sources referred to above – Better inclusion and consideration of NM at work is a worthwhile endeavor. From a macro perspective, the unemployment and underemployment of roughly 20% of society (Silver, et al., 2023) NM represent, creates serious concerns for government spending. Additionally, with fulfilling employment representing such a substantial portion of the adult experience, Doyle (2020) argues improving career outcomes for NM can reduce the “revolving door” of prescriptive mental health. Driven by such motivators, nations such as Italy and China have introduced dedicated regulation that provides major organizations with NM hiring quotas (Loiacono and Ren, 2018).
At an organizational level, better accommodating NM can help stay abreast of these regulatory changes and tap into a larger talent pool, while the inclusion efforts required could improve performance amongst the general population. Common accommodations for ADHD individuals include flexible hours, unscheduled time, meeting transcriptions, frequent reminders and planning software (CADDAC, 2022) while supporting ASD individuals is often seen with reducing environmental stimuli such as scents, unnecessary noises and visual distraction (Pooran, 2023). Leadership at SAP observed that the management training provided as part of their ASD hiring program increased management sensitivity to individual needs and preferences company-wide (Austin and Pisano, 2017) which supports the argument that NM consideration can better support the unique knowledge, skills, preferences and needs of the remaining 80% of the population.
A prominent theme associated with neurodiversity is the Social Model of Disability. It argues that individual “differences” or impairments only become disabilities when the surrounding environment fails to properly accommodate their needs (LeFevre-Levy, et al., 2023). While accommodations are frequently used to remove these environmental barriers for employees struggling with either NM conditions or physical impairments, literature indicates the solution falls short. Silver, et al., (2023) argued a general culture of inclusion is required to drive forward the neurodiversity agenda and many experts see accommodations as lacking in this regard. Ortiz (2020) expressed many NM individuals may not have an appropriate diagnosis, while others may fear discrimination if they disclose a condition. This is echoed by LeFevre-Levy, et al. (2023) who discuss how “invisible” differences can be more difficult to understand, accommodate and fight bias. Meanwhile, symptoms can manifest very differently between similar diagnoses (Brown and Fisher, 2023) creating challenges with sweeping, scalable policies (Austin and Pisano, 2017). Despite this, many organizations feared expanding beyond these to cover more personal variables could create bulky policies and excess management overhead (Loiacono and Ren, 2018).
UD has recently emerged as a popular perspective to reevaluate education and policy making. It emphasizes the need for flexibility, perceptible information, ease of use and tolerance for error (National Disability Authority, 2020) as a means to facilitate the highest usage possible. Originating in architectural studies, it has flourished in digital product design with major technology companies like Microsoft building robust and publicly available guidelines to advance general understanding. Microsoft outlines the permanent, situational and temporary “spectrum” that could prevent an individual from fully using a product and the positive impact UD thinking can provide. With this lens, offering diction software universally rather than as a specific accommodation to deaf individuals could also support those with ADHD, ear infections, those working in loud environments or still learning the applicable language (Microsoft, 2016). This phenomenon is frequently referred to as a “curb-cutter” which references the long list of individuals supported when curbs are rounded for wheel-chair users (Northwest ADA Center, 2023). Many neurodiversity advocates argue the increasing level of technology present in our daily lives presents the opportunity for similar “cuts” to NM barriers. Aside from supporting the many individual “differences” employers may not be aware of, studies have shown removing barriers for those struggling often reduces friction amongst the general population (Roberson, et al., 2022).
The rapid adoption of remote work throughout the pandemic resulted in a variety of new workplace demands and resources. Galanti, et al. (2021) explain the two as the aspects which drain employee energy, and those which stimulate their motivation and growth. The greatest change to these resources include less time commuting, reduced distractions and fewer meetings (Ozimek, 2020), while the convergence of professional and personal lives, social isolation and the physical requirements from one’s home are amongst the most prominent new demands (Galanti, et al., 2021). Akatsuka, et al.’s (2021) study corroborated these findings adding that this shift towards remote work generally reduced stress responses in individuals and could improve productivity, but also exacerbated presenteeism issues and could reduce project quality.
While many employers initially expressed negative opinions about remote arrangements, recent studies have shown that their fears were greatly exaggerated (Akatsuka, et al., (2021). Amongst chief concerns were that the blurring of personal and professional lives would lower employee satisfaction (Błaszczyk, et al., 2022), however, nearly one in three employees voiced a preference for remote work (Błaszczyk, et al., 2022) with highest increases in satisfaction seen amongst NM audiences (Narenthiran, et al., 2022). This is supported by Goldfarb, et al. (2022) findings that sensory sensitivity issues decreased for those with ASD in remote environments, while Nakai (2022) saw notable increases in the productivity amongst those with ADHD. Meanwhile, in line with UD principles, Narenthiran, et al.’s (2022) survey demonstrated increased control over factors like climate and lighting improved satisfaction and productivity amongst all employees.
Howe and Menges (2021) suggest these results are closely linked with intrinsic characteristics which vary by individual. Their research pointed to those motivated by work-life balance to experience the highest satisfaction, while those who genuinely enjoyed their work performed the best. They found little links between intelligence and remote performance, while the trait “neuroticism” was closest linked with negative feelings. Meanwhile, Galanti, et al. (2021) argue self-leadership as defined by the ability to set, monitor and achieve goals was the primary trait associated with high remote performance.
Neurodiversity, long-term work environments and UD policy each represent notable gaps in academic literature. Throughout the past two years many studies exploring the early reception of telecommuting throughout the pandemic have been published, however, they fail to separate the challenges of the initial, unplanned transition from the long-term reality of remote work. Lacking any sort of longitudinal insight, these studies blur periods of panic and normalcy, and long-term company outcomes are absent. Amongst the works reviewed, only Akatsuka, et al. (2021) had explored the potential for partial or “hybrid” arrangements– a pertinent topic amid a post-pandemic world (Doherty, 2023). Meanwhile, UD principles have become a popular topic in educational spaces and curriculums, but their application within organizational policy development is in its infancy.
In their 2022 literature review of the term “neurodiversity” in context to organizational studies, Doyle and McDowall found only one of their 28 works studied featured any tangible organizational outcome. Brown and Fisher (2023) seconded this perspective, emphasizing too much of today’s literature was based on the anecdotal experiences of a select, high performing few. They cautioned this oversimplification of a complex and nuanced topic, sets false expectations for potential employers and leaves them ill-prepared for the challenges NM hiring could present. Meanwhile, Silver, et al. (2023) argue for similar reasons that the “business case” of improved company performance is an insufficient motivator for driving notable improvements for the neurodiverse community. Felt amongst these academics is a warning that overpromising NM strengths or failing to generate supporting research could bring reputational risk to the topic. The potential for this is felt within Google Search trends. The term “neurodiversity” as a search query continued to increase over the past decade until reaching a peak in March 2023 and beginning to decline. Today, this gap in research prevails, with minimal new studies contributing insight aside from Nakai, et al. (2022) and Goldfarb, et al. (2022) which each suffer from sampling issues such as small sample, self-reported symptom screening only and limited organizational guidance.
It is amid this post-pandemic environment and gap in practical organizational research on NM and UD policy that this study was conducted. Applying a pragmatic lens, it compares the employee experience and perceived output achieved in both office environments and pandemic remote accommodations. The mixed-method design uses a combination of semi-structured employee surveys and manager interviews to explore the following three questions:
Electronic surveys provided the opportunity for employees to self-report their experience in both workplace environments. Respondents were prompted with a digital consent form, and a series of qualifying questions such as how long they had worked for their employer and within the two different environments. A series of ratings (see Appendix 1) were provided for respondents to share the importance of certain environmental aspects on their creativity and productivity, and if shifting to a remote environment resulted in improvements in these areas. Optional open-ended questions (see Appendix 1) provided insight into their remote workplace set up, and what aspects of the two environments employees felt were helpful or a hindrance to their work.
One manager interview was conducted for each organization to provide context into existing accommodation related policies, pandemic responses and performance metrics. This second perspective provided deeper analysis into the impact on organizational success and sought to minimize the potential for personal preference to skew the perceived results within the survey.
Interviews each followed a semi-structured format with the same pre-scripted set of open-ended prompts (see Appendix 2). This format enabled managers to provide responses independent from any researcher commentary to reduce the potential for errors in circularity. Questions that were deemed irrelevant to the particular business or had already been answered through the open reply to a previous question were omitted. Held through Zoom, the recordings from each interview were run through the AI transcription service “Cockatoo” to enable easier codification.
To achieve practical insight, organization and employee eligibility was determined based on their fit with the study’s purpose rather than pursuing a large sample size. The primary criteria required the organization to have transitioned to remote working arrangements throughout the pandemic following a primarily office-based environment with little change to the nature of work. Secondly, all teams were based in Ontario, Canada to maintain focus on the before and after environment, and isolate these findings from any potential region-specific differences such as lockdown durations, accessibility regulation and local cultures. Employees who participated had all worked within the applicable organization for a minimum of six months in the office and through six months of remote work, enabling a fair comparison.
As the targeted sample was too small a sample to facilitate inferential statistical analysis, the survey’s numeric questions were used to produce descriptive statistics to complement the study’s primarily qualitative results. A matrix of three-point likert scales was used to assess both the personal importance of common accommodations and the degree of change they experienced transitioning to remote work. Transcripts produced from the recordings and the open survey responses were coded and fed into a template analysis conducted within Google Sheets.
Four organizations were identified across government, technology, banking and union sectors, and partook in the study throughout August and September 2023. This resulted in a total of four interviews and 38 survey responses collected. To ensure comfort in anonymity, survey responses from all organizations were merged within a single collection form. Details such as individual team size, core function, office layout, discussion and KPIs are identified within the full copy of study.
Quick survey stats:
How employees felt various office elements and common accommodations contributed to their individual productivity and creativity was evaluated using a three-point likert scale and analyzed on a 0 - 1 range. Analyzing open survey replies showed that while “Quiet or private spaces” were perceived as the most important contributor to employee productivity and creativity, and were frequently offered, they failed to properly support independent work in reality. Three respondents mentioned their office's private spaces lacked appropriate soundproofing, while six felt colleagues routinely conducted calls or meetings from open space areas rather than the dedicated private areas.
Manager interviews at all organizations agreed that the transition to remote was unplanned and took place over several phases. Organization D mentioned productivity dipped within the early weeks while the predominant focus shifted to mental health and employee well-being, while both B and C emphasized it took several months to facilitate a proper IT set-up. Organization B pointed out this staged adjustment could skew productivity results to be overly negative if not considered and appears to be rarely captured within media reports. As a technology house with cloud storage and multiple locations, Organization A stood out in their ability to seamlessly transition to remote work with little changes to their existing infrastructure.
The shift to remote settings produced multiple changes to the environmental aspects employees rated through survey questions 2 and 3 (see Appendix 1). The most notable positive changes were seen to “private workspaces” which increased by 0.7, “Flexible working hours” which increased by 0.4 and “Customized workspaces” which increased by 0.4. Meanwhile “team interactions” declined by 0.4 alongside common collaborative tools like “whiteboarding & post-its” by 0.1.
In total, 42% of respondents reported adjustments to improve the function or ergonomics of their home workspace including seven who purchased larger or additional monitors, five acquired a sit-stand desk and four purchased better quality chairs. Another 32% replies were dedicated to increasing their enjoyment which saw personal decor, sound systems, new paint and optimizing natural light all mentioned multiple times.
The template analysis of both open survey replies and interviews demonstrated that creativity, communication, culture and collaboration were seen as intrinsically linked at all participating organizations. The a priori “collaboration” and “creativity” themes were merged throughout the analysis as a result, creating the most prominent theme within the study with 40 individual insights.
Within the -1 to +1 range, the impact of remote work on creativity was generally positive with a mean improvement of +0.3 experienced. These results differed based on the initial office arrangements. Those moving from private office spaces within their original environment reported no change, while those in open concept reported +0.3 and the few in cubicles reported the highest improvement of +1. Acknowledging the strong correlation between creativity and collaboration seen within the study, these differences are echoed within the coordinating open responses. Those originating from private office spaces experienced the smallest degree of collaborative change with knocking on a colleague’s door replaced with a phone or Zoom call. Meanwhile, those coming from open-concept reported team-based seating arrangements and mentioned the collaborative nature of sitting side-by-side with colleagues, a benefit which was lost in remote environments.
Higher gains were reported for “productivity” within remote environments. The mean survey reply showcased an increase of +0.5, which remained consistent even when adjusting for various initial office arrangements. The template analysis demonstrated a high correlation between productivity, “concentration” and “work-life balance”. Ten replies specifically mentioned the positive impact no commute had on their work day with five respondents highlighting some of the time-savings were reallocated to expand their work day and another mentioning it let them commence the morning in a positive mindset.
Three of the four manager interviews corroborated these self-reported employee responses. Organization A noted a moderate increase of key performance indicators during their remote setting and attributed much of it to a reduction of frequent “context switching” within their open concept. Organization B also witnessed improved task completion, but attributed much of this to a shift in how work was managed rather than general productivity. These changes included more clearly defined roles and streamlined processes and an increase in out of hours availability. Meanwhile, Organization C indicated that the reduced dependency on meeting in person had drastically decreased the time spent traveling to client meetings, helping them meet more frequently and spend more time preparing.
Although not included within the eligibility criteria, it was discovered through the study that all participating organizations were testing “hybrid” solutions. Considered a combination of in-office and remote working arrangements, hybrid was expressed as highly preferable by both managers and employees. At a glance, it appears to bridge the strengths of both environments: the reduced stress (Akatsuka, et al., 2021), lack of commute, and increased autonomy and flexibility of remote (Galanti, et al., 2021) with the collaborative and social nature of the office.
Findings from this study were consistent with existing literature which found moderate increases in productivity in remote environments (Nakai, 2022 and Ozimek, 2020). There was a general sense from managers that this was found in the form of “heads down” production, however, this brings little organizational value if an employee is moving in the wrong direction. Several managers noted a lack of engagement within remote environments that shifted the burden of creative solution building to managers. This was in order to break down the work needed and deliver instructions rather than facilitate collaborative dialogue. This is both unsurprising and problematic. Akatsuka, et al.’s (2021) work found that full-time remote work increased issues with presenteeism and production quality. Meanwhile, social isolation was considered one of the largest demands placed on an employee remotely (Galanti, et al., 2021). One manager felt it had resulted in a significant decline in interpersonal relationships, especially for newly hired employees. Partnered with the template analysis findings that collaboration and creativity were intertwined and more prominent in the office, it can be inferred a strong rapport amongst team members is needed to facilitate the brainstorming required to initiate successful projects.
While a handful of days in the office per month may appear to satiate these collaborative needs, a loosely structured hybrid solution can be riddled with challenges. Managers had no shortage of feedback on the matter. One pointed out that with too much flexibility, not everyone’s “hybrid” will look the same, while another expressed frustration that they would travel to the office and fail to overlap with those they needed to meet with. Those most satisfied with their current hybrid offerings described their in-office time as “team days” where group lunches, brainstorming sessions and bilateral meetings were prioritized. Another manager expressed purposeful efforts to facilitate social efforts were essential even if they appeared to be unproductive on the surface.
Recommendation: With these considerations, it is recommended applicable employers pursue a hybrid work arrangement with pre-set, team-based scheduling. Doing so can reduce the social isolation and collaborative issues experienced within fully remote arrangements, while building a purposeful culture around the elements employees appeared to appreciate most. While some managers shared concerns that a forced schedule contradicted the flexibility employees wanted, this study indicates the social element of the office weighs greater both in terms of employee importance and organizational outcomes.
Although the three organizations who shared details on accommodation policies indicated vastly different approaches, they shared two commonalities. Firstly, the onus was on the employee to bring forward any concerns. As Ortiz (2020) pointed out, this approach is subject to challenges like fear of discrimination or lack of official supporting documentation. Secondly, each featured a lengthy, reactive process. These shared characteristics contribute to management overhead and eliminate the potential organizational gains of proactive solutions.
While 40% of respondents had claimed an accommodation, this figure pales compared to the 79% who felt customized workspaces had the potential to increase productivity. When asked to rate the importance of certain work elements, 53% of employees felt the ability to customize their space was “Somewhat Important” to their productivity, while another 26% felt it was “Very Important”. These responses are strengthened by the mean increase in reported productivity and creativity amongst those who described customizing their workspace for enjoyment. Those 16 respondents saw a mean increase in both creativity and productivity of 0.7, representing a 0.4 and 0.2 increase over the general sample. This suggests pride in one’s space could be associated with improved outcomes similar to Organization A’s assertion that pride is a core driver behind project quality. Conversely, there was a negative correlation seen with respondents who reported no official office set up, with all five claiming their creativity had “declined significantly” within the remote environment.
This illustrates the curb-cutting nature of UD thinking within policy creation– creating a solution that reduces friction and increases usability for all would support another 39% of the workforce who likely wouldn’t have sought an accommodation. Doyle suggests fully accommodating an employee costs only slightly more than a thousand pounds per employee, which is a minimal cost compared to lost productivity or a vacant role. Case studies conducted by Loiacono and Ren (2018) indicated a primary concern amongst managers when considering increasing NM hiring was increased overhead associated with excessive policies. This was reflected within Organization B who felt the effectiveness of their accommodations were reduced by their cumbersome processes and high burden of proof required.
Recommendation: Offering employees a predefined budget for home office customizations extends the gains in productivity and creativity to all employees while streamlining the associated processes. As the requirement of an office space at home and the blurring of personal and professional lives were seen as major demands brought on by remote work, This autonomy provides employees the power to reduce the drain of home office requirements and the blurring of personal and professional lives create (Galanti, et al., 2021). Meanwhile, without specific accommodations, proof or approvals required, organizations are able to reduce their related policies and streamline their claims process.
Unnecessary noise and distractions were amongst the primary challenges seen within survey responses. As previously expanded upon, many reported frustration with calls in open concept spaces and insufficient sound proofing within supposed “quiet spaces”. While this can present productivity challenges for all, it may disproportionately affect NM. For example, those with ADHD and ASD may struggle to filter out auditory distractions (Pooran, 2023), while the hyperactivity of those with ADHD may become a distraction to others (CADDAC, 2022). While Ozimek (2020) suggests this is a primary benefit of shifting to remote work, introducing a hybrid work schedule will reintroduce these issues on office days.
Recommendations: Policies should specify the appropriate use of various spaces such as which are to be used for “quiet” independent work, conference calls and meetings. While improved office soundproofing can come at a high cost, many affordable solutions such as noise canceling headphones could be offered to all employees as a proactive measure to support concentration. While accommodations are often sought to resolve these issues, supporting literature indicates many NM will not seek due to factors like lacking diagnoses or fear of discrimination (Ortiz, 2020). Offering these accommodations universally reduces barriers for all employees while providing them the flexibility to partake in the level of socialization and collaboration they feel is most appropriate.
While this study addresses a variety of gaps currently found within today’s organizational literature, it also highlights certain areas for continued research. Firstly, the small sample size disabled proper statistical analysis, removing the possibility to collect and explore reported differences between NM and the general employee population. Meanwhile, Howe and Menges (2021) found employees rating high in neuroticism experienced predominantly negative feelings towards remote arrangements. Similarly, survey results within this study showcased a select number of employees expressing negative feelings towards office socialization- a notable departure from the average response. These highlight how the “big five” personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, neuroticism and conscientiousness (Mcleod, 2023) could influence individual employee preferences and strengths.
With three of four participating organizations contributing disproportionately Ottawa-based teams and all based in Ontario, a limitation of this study is its regional focus. Often touted for its relative affordability (LRO, 2019), the average footprint of homes in Ottawa are significantly larger than other major cities both in Canada and globally. This could explain the high proportion of survey respondents having fully dedicated home offices and minimize reported work demands such as the home space requirements and the blurring of professional and personal lives (Galanti, et al., 2021). Additionally, the province saw prolonged pandemic restrictions (Freeman, 2023) which may have yielded employee responses entrenched in habit-based preferences which may not reflect all regions.
Recommendation: A larger study could feature various regions and improve neurodiversity consideration by exploring the relationship between environmental factors and NM productivity and creativity, similar to Narenthiran, et al.’s (2022) study on satisfaction. Additionally, the big five personality traits could be explored to better inform how personal variables could be better supported by curb-cutting flexibility.
The current study contributes to the understanding of how flexible policies can support improved organizational outcomes while reducing management overhead and better satisfying unique employee needs, especially of NM individuals. It identified the relationship between environmental aspects of work, and employee productivity and creativity. Through both the median replies and a template analysis of open responses, it was found both increased marginally throughout the pandemic. Despite these gains, employees and managers alike continued to feel that shared spaces continue to offer the most opportunities for collaboration and establishing. Hybrid is perceived as a favorable solution to bridge the benefits of both remote and office environments. While hybrid policy decisions should be tailored to each individual organization, home office budgets, shared space policies and group-based scheduling were recommended to provide the greatest impact on employee outcomes.
True North Digital is where creativity and strategy meet for exceptional results.