New study identifies flexible hybrid working as the most productive model in academia

The study, titled “Remote or in‑person? – work environments that support productivity and well‑being in our post‑pandemic world” (Finnish: Etänä vai läsnä? – tuottavuutta ja hyvinvointia tukevat työympäristöt pandemian jälkeisessä ajassa), set out to identify the academic work environments that best promote productivity and staff well‑being within the changing landscape of knowledge work. The researchers conducted a nationwide survey among users of academic work environments, analysed the ongoing facilities development projects at Tampere University and the University of Turku, and utilised a simulation model to support their investigation. 

The study was led by University Lecturer Jenni Poutanen from Tampere University, who stresses that the findings should not be reduced to a simple either/or choice. Instead, she emphasises the need for flexibility: work arrangements should be designed to meet the needs of both individual employees and the organisation as a whole. 

“Organisations often prefer to make decisions based on black-and-white thinking. However, our study demonstrates that effective outcomes can be achieved by combining different shades of grey. We believe that a hybrid work model is the optimal approach. In this model, the employer provides broad guidelines while giving teams the freedom to implement them in ways that best suit their own work,” Poutanen says.

According to Poutanen, the most successful employee involvement processes are those that result in a diverse range of solutions that are developed through genuine collaboration between the employer and employees. For organisations, the main takeaway from the study is the importance of closely involving users in the development of facilities and ensuring that sufficient time and resources are allocated to this work. This not only fosters user commitment but also supports organisations in achieving their strategic objectives.

Research Director Aki Koponen emphasises that work arrangements must be based on research evidence and their impact should be systematically measured.

“Organisations need to establish indicators that can be monitored to identify any significant changes within the organisation. They must be able to adjust remote work arrangements that are not working as intended,” he adds.

Cost pressures are driving facilities development

The researchers compared the facilities and ongoing development projects within the Faculty of Management and Business (MAB) at Tampere University and the Turku School of Economics at the University of Turku. 

The two universities started from a broadly similar position when initiating the development of facilities: one-person offices and corridors accounted for nearly 60% of all workspaces on their campuses. For both, cost reduction was the principal driver of facilities development: rising rental costs and reduced on‑site attendance due to increased remote work prompted them to seek savings by downsizing their physical premises. 

“Both universities have substantially reduced their physical footprint, which, depending on the calculation method, has resulted in a 16%–52% increase in space utilisation efficiency. The greatest reduction has occurred in the number of one-person offices, reflected in an approximately 39%–53% improvement in office utilisation efficiency. In some cases, the measured efficiency per workstation has increased significantly – by between 13% and 59% – which can translate into as many as 3.3 users per workstation,” says Poutanen. 

The survey conducted among staff in all Finnish universities shows that especially employees working in the redesigned campus spaces at Tampere University are less satisfied with their work environments than those working in premises that have remained unchanged. 

Productivity varies across individuals, roles and workspaces

The researchers point out that the productivity of work environments differs from how employees perceive their own productivity. In fact, only around 20% of perceived productivity can be attributed to the physical workspace. 

Researcher Elisa Enlund notes that, for individuals, professional productivity and occupational well‑being are often closely linked to their sense of autonomy at work. She says that having a sense of control is important regardless of whether employees are working on campus or remotely. 

From the perspective of employees, the choice between working on campus and working remotely depends on the day and the tasks to be completed. 

“Staff come to campus when attendance provides them with added value: opportunities for interaction and collaboration with colleagues, a shared sense of direction, or appropriate facilities for challenging tasks. The advantages of remote work include better opportunities for focused work, the time saved by not having to commute, and greater day‑to‑day flexibility,” summarises Koponen.

The researchers analysed the data and identified five employee productivity profiles, each with distinct requirements for an optimal work environment: Intellectually Curious Networkers are most productive on days involving interaction and collaboration with colleagues, and they tend to find routine tasks the most taxing. Goal-Oriented Achievers are motivated by working independently to deliver concrete results. For Focused Creators, productivity means being able to concentrate without interruption, whereas Collaboration Builders associate productivity with opportunities for social interaction and teamwork. The largest group, Steady Professionals, adapt their approach flexibly according to the nature of their tasks.

“The range of facilities available on any university campus is remarkably broad. For example, experimental research spaces and laboratories serve as positive pull factors that draw employees to work on site. Yet universities may inadvertently introduce solutions that act as push factors and ultimately reduce productivity,” Poutanen says.

The multidisciplinary two‑year study combined expertise in architecture and information and knowledge management from Tampere University with economic expertise from the Turku School of Economics. The study was funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund.

Read more about the study.

Further information

Jenni Poutanen, Tampere University, School of Architecture 
jenni.poutanen [at] tuni.fi (jenni[dot]poutanen[at]tuni[dot]fi), +358 40 849 0445

Aki Koponen, University of Turku, Turku School of Economics
aki.koponen [at] utu.fi (aki[dot]koponen[at]utu[dot]fi), +358 50 524 6239