The Phygital Workplace Barometer 2023, conducted by IFOP with nearly one-quarter of respondents working in the industrial sector, reveals a decline in trust toward hybrid work organization. This downward trend affects both managers and employees alike.
Hybrid Management: Definition and Current Trends
A few years ago, hybrid management was promoted as a promise of balance and agility. Today, it reveals its full complexity, caught between unfulfilled expectations and evolving challenges.
What Exactly Is Hybrid Management?
Hybrid management refers to a way of leading teams within a mixed work organization that combines onsite and remote work. This model became widespread with the rise of digital tools and the generalization of remote work, particularly after the 2020 health crisis. It requires a deep transformation of managerial practices—in leadership, organization, and communication.
In practice, the hybrid manager must now coordinate sometimes dispersed teams, synchronize activities across different work environments (office, home, coworking spaces), maintain team cohesion despite distance, and ensure engagement in varied contexts.
This form of management relies on several key pillars:
- strengthened trust in employees
- a clear framework of operations (especially for remote meetings and exchanges)
- strong team autonomy
- seamless use of digital collaboration tools
On top of this, the manager needs to adapt their style depending on the situation, strike the right balance between control and autonomy, and drive performance without relying on constant physical presence.
When well-structured, this model can enhance both the company’s attractiveness and its organizational flexibility.
A Tarnished Image Year After Year
Although hybrid management initially sparked enthusiasm, perceptions have gradually darkened. According to the Phygital Workplace Barometer 2023, conducted by IFOP for the consulting firm Julhiet Sterwen, the sense of positive impact from hybrid organization has declined sharply since 2016. Today, only 58% of employees and 72% of managers view this transformation positively.
For managers—whether confident or not—the challenge lies in balancing growing expectations: greater autonomy, stronger remote managerial presence, and maintaining team cohesion. Meanwhile, the gap in perception between managers and non-managers has widened, as employees seek more flexibility and support while managers struggle to find their footing.
Added to this is a kind of fatigue with the model, fueled by the initial illusion that hybrid work would be easy to implement. Without a solid framework and adequate tools, the hybrid approach can generate isolation, disengagement, and even a loss of purpose.
Today, companies face a major challenge: restoring credibility to this model by clearly defining the conditions for success.
How to Rekindle the Flame of Hybrid Management?
The decline in support among both managers and employees calls for a rethinking of the conditions for success in this work model. If hybrid work struggles to convince, it is less about the principle itself than about its often incomplete or unbalanced implementation.
Making Hybrid Work Successful in 2025: Tools, Trust, and Autonomy
The data from the Phygital Workplace Barometer is clear: the success of hybrid management depends as much on digital tools as it does on the quality of leadership. Among the key factors identified for successful adaptation:
- 34% of respondents cited the IT tools provided to employees
- 32% pointed to the trust shown by their manager as a decisive factor
- 31% emphasized empowerment and autonomy given to employees
- 28% highlighted the importance of collaborative solutions
This highlights a dual requirement: investing in reliable and accessible digital infrastructures, while also fostering a managerial approach based on trust, clear frameworks, and autonomy. The manager’s role evolves into that of a facilitator, a team coordinator, and a guarantor of connection despite distance.
Specific Challenges of Hybrid Management in the Industrial Sector
In the industrial sector, hybrid management presents unique challenges. On one hand, not all roles are eligible for remote work, which can create an imbalance between frontline workers—often required to be onsite—and support or managerial functions, which are more flexible. This disparity can fuel feelings of inequity or frustration.
On the other hand, work culture in the industry remains strongly tied to physical presence. This makes the transition toward a management style based on trust, autonomy, and delegation all the more complex. And yet, the success factors mentioned above remain relevant. Even in technical environments, managerial practices can be rethought to adapt to partial hybridization.
This requires clearer formalization of rules (particularly in large organizations), training managers in leading hybrid teams, and explicitly considering the specificities of each role when designing hybrid work policies. Without these measures, companies risk both intensifying internal tensions and missing out on the potential benefits of hybrid management.
How to Measure the Impact of Hybrid Management?
Despite growing skepticism, performance indicators from the Phygital Workplace Barometer highlight tangible benefits—particularly for managers. While perceptions remain mixed, certain positive effects stand out, provided that hybrid work is supported by clear frameworks and adjusted managerial oversight.
A Perceived Boost in Engagement Drivers
From a managerial perspective, hybrid organization fosters several positive dynamics:
- 87% of managers report improved trust in their teams, compared with 60% of non-managerial employees.
- 86% of managers observe increased accountability, a figure almost identical to employees themselves (80%).
- Finally, 86% of managers and 83% of non-managers believe that autonomy has strengthened under this new framework.
These figures reveal an ambivalent reality. While managerial outcomes appear largely positive, employee sentiment is more measured. The perception gap between managers and teams suggests a partial mismatch between expectations and lived experiences.
Toward Formalized Practices
The barometer also highlights the gradual professionalization of hybrid management practices.
For example, 63% of managers state they have defined specific rules for hybrid meetings—such as setting clear time limits, requiring cameras to be on, and agreeing on interaction methods. This structure contributes to better coordination and greater equity between onsite and remote participants.
However, these good practices remain unevenly implemented, especially in industries where a culture of physical presence still dominates. For the hybrid model to deliver on its promises, it must move beyond ad-hoc solutions and instead rely on explicit, shared, and regularly evaluated rules.
Hybrid Management: A Model to Consolidate
Hybrid management is not a dead end but rather an unfinished project. It has already delivered positive effects on accountability, perceived performance, and autonomy. But to build on this momentum, organizations need lasting changes in managerial posture, adapted governance models, and clear recognition of the impact hybrid work has on the employee experience.
