Hybrid-Work Regulation in National Civil Services

Abstract

Background: The practical operation of policy relating to hybrid work differs across settings, suggesting a need to examine implementation capacity and institutional design directly.

Objective: This study sought to explain differences in the implementation of hybrid work by examining institutional responsibility, administrative capacity, and civil service.

Methods: The study surveyed 380 relevant officials, professionals, service users, or regulated actors. Questionnaire items covered implementation quality, capacity, procedural clarity, transparency, and perceived effectiveness; associations with implementation outcomes were assessed descriptively and with multivariable regression.

Results: Responses concerning hybrid work were complete for 360 participants. Of these, 57% reported consistent practice and 16% experienced substantial procedural or capacity barriers. Even after adjustment for organization size and jurisdiction, role clarity, staff capability, and formal guidance were associated with stronger performance.

Conclusion: The findings underline a practical gap between formal policy on hybrid work and the institutional work required to deliver it consistently. This means that civil-service reform should pair formal policy changes with workforce capability, managerial clarity, and consistent implementation arrangements.

Study design: cross-sectional civil-service survey.

Publication history: Originally published in print on 15 June 2022, Volume 2, Article 3. Online abstract record added on 16 September 2026. Full-text PDF will be added when the digital galley is ready.