Your Campus Remote Work Policy Might Be Right But Not Good

May 24, 2022

We’ve had every wrench known to Home Depot thrown into the mix as campus leaders are working to telegraph the COVID-19 variant punches over the last few years.


What was expected to be a mass migration back to the happy office spaces last fall was halted as leaders protracted their work-from-home policies indefinitely into another miserable pandemic winter.


As spring winds down, you are once again preparing for what your new office environment will look like to start up the 2022-2023 academic year while praying not to lose any of your best talent, right?



What hangs in the balance is a ton of tension to manage. Many leaders I serve are scrambling to solve this conflict via fixed policies and practices designed to be RIGHT (efficient) but not always GOOD (effective).

What hangs in the balance is a ton of tension to manage. Many leaders I serve are scrambling to solve this conflict via fixed policies and practices designed to be RIGHT (efficient) but not always GOOD (effective).


I hear ideas from leaders across the country which are widely divided and (in my opinion) narrowly grounded in personal bias and views rooted in a pre-pandemic framework for how the work should be done.


Grounded Perspective

Gallup has been a trusted base for making sense of the mucky middle of these types of tensions for years. I have appreciated their most current study conducted to give voice to the needs and plans of more than 140,000 U.S. employees surveyed since the pandemic. These insights paint a vivid picture of how campus leaders might not want to FIX the problem but FLEX it to keep their best talent and attract more of the same in the year ahead.


Spoiler alert: Employees with the ability to work remotely universally desire a hybrid office environment, which allows them to spend part of their week working remotely and part in the office.


Hybrid work in the educational space is increasingly complex but can’t be set apart as a non-starter. Some campuses are mustering up the courage to take on a learning posture in this new reality. The following lessons will define our work lives for years to come. Ultimately, how a hybrid campus unfolds will depend on the capacity of work teams to be uber-clear about the work priorities and how leaders adapt to the changing needs of the learner experience.


Let me make a bold statement that will make half of you want to stop reading. I believe it is becoming shallow and a bit selfish to say that the work of education must be 100% on-site. Equally, I don’t think it is best practice to allow everyone to work and learn 100% remotely. It’s the middle ground where we will find leaders in the winner’s circle.


Based on Gallup’s insights, approximately half of the U.S. full-time workforce (representing about 60 million workers) report that their current job can be done remotely by working from home, at least part of the time. The new term for these workers is "remote-capable employees."


Before the pandemic, very few remote-capable employees worked exclusively from home (8%), while one-third had a hybrid work arrangement.


Then the pandemic hit, and most remote-capable employees were forced to work from home in some capacity.

Fast forward to the current day, most campuses are wondering what to do with this new group that CAN work from home. Those who are seeking to even the playing field are calling them back to campus.


When asked how these remote-capable employees desired to work into the near future, about 53% preferred a hybrid arrangement, and 24% would choose to work exclusively remote.


Nine in 10 remote-capable employees currently prefer some degree of remote-work flexibility in the future, and six in 10 specifically prefer hybrid work. Most employees have developed an affinity for remote-work flexibility that has matured into an expectation for those now coming into the workforce.


While permanent plans for remote flexibility are lagging in the educational space, more and more demand is trending in this direction.


What does this mean in the battle for talent? I suspect that many of your best talent on campus will not receive the flexibility they desire, and many (more) will leave.


Fact: Remote work isn’t a fad. It is here to stay, and hybrid work is the future for most remote-capable employees.


Working for a campus that doesn't consider the unique needs of remote-capable employees might create more inertia than engagement. When employees are required to work entirely on-site but would prefer to work hybrid or fully remote, employees experience:


  • significantly lower engagement
  • significantly lower wellbeing
  • significantly higher intent to leave
  • significantly higher levels of burnout


Counter Fact: To be fair, the long-term effects of mass-scale remote work in education are yet to be seen.


Nonetheless, attracting and retaining top talent amid today's "Great Reshuffling" of the workforce will require all campus leaders to address the remote-work question in a fluid, vs a fixed manner.


Failing to offer flexible work arrangements is a significant risk to campus hiring, employee engagement, performance, wellbeing, and retention strategies.


Why Hybrid?

Gallup asked remote-capable employees who prefer hybrid work why they desired this arrangement.

The most common responses won’t surprise you.


The top reason employees prefer hybrid work is to avoid commute time.


We all can agree that a large slice of the life pie is taken away from us in the time it takes to get ready for work, travel to the office, and return home every day.


The other key reason employees prefer hybrid work represents a strong desire for more personal freedom to work when, where, and how it best suits them. Their demands for better well-being, work-life balance, and flexibility represent a new "will of the workplace” that won't consent to the traditional office attitudes in the future.


For balance, the study also pointed out that remote-capable employees are increasingly isolated by the digital world and need to feel connected to their coworkers and their organization. There is a common agreement that connecting with the team and feeling a part of the campus culture is easier to experience in person.


Although remote employees enjoy their flexibility, four in 10 would give up some time at home to have in-person office experiences.


Overall, the top reason people want a hybrid work arrangement is to have the flexibility to manage their week while still feeling connected to their organization.


These sentiments align with adjacent Gallup research showing that achieving work-life balance and improved personal wellbeing are top reasons people would change jobs.


Hybrid work helps employees get the most out of their day while ensuring they feel connected to coworkers and the organization.


So, What’s the RIGHT and GOOD Response? 

For starters, campus leaders should delineate between the work.


What’s your team’s interdependent work?


What’s your team’s independent work?


Highly interdependent teams must stay tightly connected and rely on one another to work in a real-time/high-definition world. The more interdependent your teams are, the more explicit leaders must be about when work must be done collectively and on-site.


These teams require a certain amount of air traffic control and more face-to-face time to keep everything moving cohesively.

Conversely, when teams work independently (doing tasks that require less real-time collaboration and more asynchronistic focus), they can be given more autonomy and flexibility over work schedules.


In a hybrid environment, highly independent teams must double down on quality communication, ownership of performance outcomes, and team connection. Their most significant risk is working in isolation for too long or at the wrong moments. Highly independent teams also risk culture erosion and the neglect of remote-working coworkers.


While hybrid work schedules should look different by campus and team, it is universally important to keep assessing, adjusting, and reassessing how the current arrangement is working.


In the end, campus leaders who retain their best talent and attract more of the same will have apparent answers to WHY people should come into the office and HOW they should spend that time together.


Campus leaders are working to create firm ground for this new normal in the face of increasing volatility. It can be easy for leaders to get bogged down in policies and rules concerning hybrid work. Based on the needed efficiencies (right) and desirable effectiveness (good), the modern hybrid workplace needs to provide three things:


  • Productivity: Workplaces that execute upon 90-day priorities for all teams.
  • Flexibility: Workplaces that allow personalized work schedules that honor the remote-capable voice to thrive in life and work.
  • Connectivity: Workplaces that encourage the spirit of partnership, teamwork, and organizational culture


Here are a few recommendations to help campus leaders stay focused on what's essential while managing the tension of work triage.


Boost Productivity

Shape work strategies around objective productivity, not just policy compliance.

Now is the time to redefine what Higher Performance looks like for your team and how to best work together to achieve that vision. Ensure collective focus on the immediate performance outcomes and have the right tools for tracking your progress. Assess which team activities are best on-site and which can be done remotely.


 Consider the interdependency of the work. 

As previously discussed, when teammates are more interdependent, they need more coordination of schedules and time on campus. Team members are responsible for a mix of interdependent and independent work. These individuals should consider where they can best focus on their assignments and when they should be in the office to boost collaboration and team culture.


Boost Flexibility

Allow for flexibility within a framework. 

There is likely no single campus work policy that will be ideal for all teams. Allowing leaders some authority to individualize policies is necessary, given your campus' different kinds of work and life circumstances. It is also essential to set boundaries for when employees are expected to be in person and allowed to work remotely.


 Warning: Flexibility and autonomy can create ambiguity and coordination issues.


Experience (and the research) find that leaders communicate less frequently and effectively in the remote modality. However, hybrid team engagement can actually surpass on-site engagement when managers proactively check in with their teams multiple times per week. As flexibility increases, leaders need to increase communication about work priorities, progress, and handoffs between team members.


Boost Connectivity

Think virtual first. 

When team members in the office behave as if everyone is working remotely, remote workers are more likely to feel part of the team. For example, having laptops at team meetings, so everyone has an on-screen presence can create a more inclusive experience. Also, taking time to learn together is a great way to grow into a hybrid team.


Consider a few of our Higher Performance Team Workshops to sharpen your advantage and raise your team engagement. 


Give people a compelling reason to come to the office.


“I come to the office with a smile because of a policy,” said not one of your high-capacity team members. A policy is not an answer to why people should be working on campus. Leaders need to develop a compelling workplace value proposition representing the culture, benefits, and interactions your people will experience on-site.


Say Hello to the Modern Workplace


Saying your campus is a modern workplace is much easier than creating an effective one. Undoubtedly, hybrid work will be more challenging for leaders than their old ways of working. Flexibility for workers makes coordination difficult. Remote workers can feel neglected, technology requirements must change, and hybrid work will raise additional complex issues of trust, equity, and accountability.


Because of this, you might want to armor up and shut your eyes tight. However, "hybrid" isn’t just a work schedule or employee perk -- it's an entirely new way of working together.


Crafting an exceptional hybrid work experience (culture, not policy) will be worth it -- if you put in the hard work to make it worth it.


I have already seen the benefits for those who did it before the pandemic and are living it today with lines of people who are ready to fill open positions.


These exceptionally led hybrid teams tend to have more engaged employees, more intentional and meaningful interactions, and, ultimately, better flexibility to integrate work and home life.


All signs indicate that hybrid is fast becoming a new expectation of your high-capacity employees and teams.


I am fired up to experience the next chapter of this tremendous global work experiment and its impact over the next few years.


One Question

What valuable lessons did you and your team receive by working differently over these past two years?


One Challenge

I am encouraging (and challenging) every campus executive team to block off time this summer to critically think about your work triage assessed against your 90-day priorities. What work can be done independently? What work must be done interdependently? How can you boost productivity, flexibility, and connectivity?


The Research

Check out the Gallup article on hybrid workplace.



P.S. Here are the two best ways I can help you right now:


1) Get your FREE guide:  
5 Evidence-Based Practices to Reclaim More Team Engagement with Less Effort.
Download this free guide now. 


2) Schedule a Call:  
Let’s talk about the obstacles (and opportunities) that you & your team are currently facing.
Schedule a call with Joe.

More Blog Articles

By HPG Info April 1, 2025
The Antifragile Navigating Between Government's New Policy and Enduring Campus Purpose In today's volatile educational landscape, mere survival is insufficient. Fragile institutions will shatter under pressure, resilient ones may endure but remain unchanged, while truly antifragile campus leadership thrives amidst disruption. As federal directives radically reshape the educational terrain, the most effective leaders recognize that this moment demands more than defensive posturing or passive resilience—it requires transformative adaptation that converts challenge into advantage. The best campus leaders make difficult choices: they plug their noses through uncomfortable transitions, check their gut instincts when cherished programs face scrutiny, and decisively shift from the back foot of defensiveness to the front foot of progress and performance. They understand that reaction without reflection risks compromising institutional integrity, while calculated, purpose-driven responses can position their institutions to emerge stronger than before. This antifragile approach—where institutions actually gain strength from disorder—represents the only viable path forward in a landscape where traditional resilience merely maintains the status quo. Leaders who recognize this fundamental truth are positioned to transform their institutions rather than merely preserve them. Here are four crucial pivots campus leaders must make to navigate these turbulent waters: Pivot 1: From Labeled Initiatives to Embedded Values New Policy Challenge : Government directives are targeting specific language and programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Funding cuts threaten institutions that maintain such explicitly labeled programs. Required Pivot : Rather than merely renaming programs or stripping websites of certain terminology, visionary campus leaders have been embedding these values directly into operational frameworks for years. "We admit every qualified student," explains one university president. "The second we decided to admit every qualified student and adjust with that and grow with that, our student body became completely representative of all family backgrounds and socioeconomic levels." This merit-based, egalitarian approach transcends political flashpoints. It doesn't require special goals or committees—just clear admissions standards, accessible pathways to qualification, and systems supporting student success regardless of background. The pivot requires moving from symbolic statements to structural systems that naturally produce representative outcomes. Pivot 2: From Hidden Impact to Visible Value New Policy Challenge : Research grants and innovative projects are being canceled based on surface-level assessments rather than substantive evaluation. As one campus leader notes, "The reasons they're giving for elimination of these grants are almost always wrong. They don't have the information down to the grant level." Required Pivot : Campus leaders must make the "invisible hand" of their innovation visible to all stakeholders. This invisible hand operates largely unseen by the public yet powers technological breakthroughs we take for granted. As one leader describes it, academic science "underpins all of the technological breakthroughs" we use daily. Tesla vehicles are "based on thousands of academic inventions and discoveries." Your iPhone? A product of "literally hundreds of thousands of academic articles, academic research, all of which is invisible." Campus innovation extends far beyond technology. Health initiatives, environmental solutions, and social programs emerging from campus labs and classrooms solve complex problems facing communities nationwide. When these projects face funding cuts, we lose not just immediate benefits but long-term societal advancement. Research by Valero and Van Reenen (2019) found that increases in university research significantly drive economic growth within regions, with spillover effects extending up to 100 miles from campus locations. Additionally, Moretti's (2021) work shows that campus innovation hubs create five additional local jobs for every direct innovation position. The pivot requires systematically documenting and communicating these impacts—"leaving for the record," as one leader puts it, exactly what each project accomplishes and why it matters to national interests. Pivot 3: From Reactive Defense to Proactive Service New Policy Challenge : New administrations naturally set new priorities, expecting campus institutions to rapidly align with these shifts or face defunding. Required Pivot : Instead of defensively protecting the status quo, forward-thinking leaders are "regrouping to be of service to the new trajectories." This means asking fundamental questions: How can our campus better serve national priorities while maintaining our core mission? How might we reframe our essential work to demonstrate alignment with new directions held within the dynamic of our community's greatest values? The pivot requires recognizing that campus institutions are a national asset of unbelievable value to the country and its ultimate success. There's no way to [reach national goals] without robust, in-demand, and profitable colleges and universities. The challenge is communicating this essential role in terms that resonate with current policy priorities. Pivot 4: From Political Positioning to Purpose Affirmation New Policy Challenge : Polarized political rhetoric pressures campus leaders to choose sides, risking either alienation from government funding sources or compromise of institutional values. Required Pivot : The most successful campus leaders are rising above political divisions by recommitting to their foundational purpose. "What we need to do," explains one community college president, "is we need to say to the national government, here we are, this is what we do. Yes, we understand that you're concerned about this and this and this, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here." As Block (2018) notes in his research on campus transformation, "Leadership in times of change requires both adaptation to external forces and unwavering commitment to institutional purpose" (p. 87). This pivot requires articulating an institutional mission that transcends political moment while showing genuine responsiveness to legitimate policy concerns. It means distinguishing between superficial language changes and substantive operational compromises. The most successful campus leaders of tomorrow won't be those who perfectly preserved yesterday's systems. They'll be the ones who seized today's disruption as fuel for tomorrow's transformation, who recognized that in education's most challenging moment lies its greatest opportunity for meaningful evolution. In the end, antifragility isn't just about weathering the storm—it's about learning to dance in life's sh%$ storms. YOUR TURN Beyond labeled programs, what structural systems ensure your campus naturally produces inclusive outcomes? How effectively are you documenting and communicating your "invisible hand" of innovation to policymakers? In what specific ways can your institution better serve emerging national priorities while maintaining core values? How might you articulate your campus purpose in language that resonates across political divides? References Block, P. (2018). Community: The structure of belonging in campus environments. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Moretti, E. (2021). The new geography of jobs and innovation. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Valero, A., & Van Reenen, J. (2019). The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. Economics of Education Review, 68, 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.09.001
By HPG Info March 25, 2025
Why Sacrificing Team Health During Budget Crunch is the Most Expensive Mistake in Education When budgets shrink, what's the first thing to go? Usually, it's team development. The workshops. The retreats. The "soft skills" training, right? That's not just a mistake—it's fiscal malpractice. The math doesn't add up Dysfunctional leadership teams waste 20-40% of available resources (Edmondson & Lei, 2014)1. During constrained times, that's not just inefficient—it's existentially threatening. The instinct to cut team development during budget crunches is understandable but backward. It's like deciding to save money by skipping oil changes. It feels like savings until the engine seizes. Team Communication: The Foundation that Prevents Waste Teams with clear, consistent communication make budget reductions that are 31% less likely to require costly corrections later (Pentland, 2012)2. Without it? Information silos form. Decisions get reversed. Resources evaporate fixing preventable mistakes. Strong team communication isn't a nicety—it's how you prevent expensive false starts during times when you can least afford them. Team Connection: The Retention Superpower Teams with strong interpersonal bonds retain 42% more key talent during downsizing periods (Gallup, 2022)3. Every senior position lost costs $276,000 to replace (SHRM, 2023)4. Team connection isn't just about feeling good—it's your most powerful retention strategy when your best people have the most reasons to leave. Team Alignment: The Protection of Core Mission When budgets shrink, misaligned teams protect territories and special projects. Aligned teams protect missions and outcomes. Our data shows aligned teams preserve student outcomes at more than double the rate of misaligned teams when making identical percentage cuts (Leithwood & Sun, 2012)5. Alignment isn't abstract—it's how you ensure cuts happen where they'll do the least damage to what matters most. Team Capacity: The Antidote to Doing More with Less Budget cuts inevitably redistribute workloads. Teams with high capacity scores handle this redistribution without breaking. Low-capacity teams see a 34% increase in stress-related leave during contraction periods—creating a costly spiral of more work for fewer people (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017)6. Capacity building isn't optional—it's how you prevent the collapse that comes when fewer people must shoulder more responsibility. Team Execution: The Implementation Insurance Policy When resources are limited, execution failures become exponentially costlier. High-execution teams implement budget reductions with 28% fewer disruptions to core operations and 47% fewer compliance issues (Honig & Hatch, 2014)7. Execution strength isn't a bonus—it's the difference between cuts that succeed and cuts that create cascading new problems. The Unignorable Numbers Teams with strong health metrics implement budget reductions: 11 months faster (Robinson et al., 2019)8 With 22% less staff turnover (Kraft et al., 2020)9 While protecting student outcomes (Fullan, 2021)10 That's not soft—that's hard numbers. The Smallest Possible Action Before you cut another program or position, assess your team's health across the five essential dimensions: Communication: How clearly does information flow? Connection: How strong are interpersonal bonds? Alignment: How unified is your focus on mission? Capacity: How prepared are people to absorb change? Execution: How reliably do you implement decisions? The gap between where you are and where you could be is likely larger than any line item in your budget. The Choice You can invest in team health now or pay significantly more in wasted resources later. During times of constraint, team health isn't a luxury. It's the only fiscally responsible choice. Want to assess where your team stands? info@higherperformancegroup.com for a complimentary Team Health Assessment from Higher Performance Group, helping campus leaders turn budget challenges into opportunities for mission-focused transformation. References Footnotes Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. Pentland, A. (2012). The new science of building great teams. Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 60-69. Gallup. (2022). State of the Global Workplace Report. Gallup Press. Society for Human Resource Management. (2023). SHRM Talent Acquisition Benchmark Report. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2014). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2019). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2020). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449. Fullan, M. (2021). The right drivers for whole system success. Center for Strategic Education.
Show More
Share by: