The Hybrid Divide
Why UK Construction Must Rethink Work, Leadership and Culture
Construction is standing in a cultural split it can no longer ignore. The workforce has changed. Expectations have changed. Daily life has changed. Yet many parts of the industry are still behaving as though the last five years were a temporary detour rather than a structural reset.
The traditional belief that productivity lives exclusively in the site office or area office has lost credibility. Hybrid working is not a perk. It is now a cornerstone of how talent assesses employers, how teams collaborate, and how organisations function.
This post is a slight detour from my usual technical topics, but timely in what I’m seeing and hearing in the industry. It looks at what has actually changed, why the industry is struggling to respond consistently, and what leadership behaviours will define the next decade. I expect people will challenge parts of what I’ve written here. Good. We need the debate.
My Experience: The Shift from Presence to Trust
Before Covid, I was one of the fortunate few who had a manager willing to trust me with a weekly work-from-home day. It wasn’t revolutionary, but it supported childcare, reduced the burden of constant travel, and acknowledged that value was not dependent on being seen.
When the pandemic hit, shifting to full remote didn’t feel dramatic. I already had the rhythm. More importantly, my business unit trusted me to help build the systems, behaviours and routines needed for teams to operate in a remote environment. They worked. People delivered. Projects continued.
I look back on that period with mixed emotions. I had time with my newborn son that I would never have otherwise experienced, and my career progressed quickly. But some relationships grew distant. Spontaneous collaboration receded. A quiet drift toward self-preservation spread across teams and functions.
The Cultural DNA of Construction
For most of its history, construction tied value directly to visibility. Being on site meant being productive. Long hours, mid-week stays, and a permanent willingness to travel signalled dedication. The industry’s unwritten contract was simple: the company provides stability and the employee provides physical presence and total availability.
This mindset built the industry, but it also constrained it. It favoured those able to give the most time rather than those able to create the most value. It worked in an era where information lived on paper, decisions relied on proximity, and professional roles were a small fraction of the workforce.
That era has ended.
The Cracks Appeared Before Covid
Two pressures were already forcing incremental flexibility long before the pandemic:
A mental health crisis.
Construction has struggled with wellbeing for decades. Long hours, extended travel, and inflexible routines were part of the problem.
A diversity and talent problem.
Rigid work patterns limited access to roles, especially for parents, caregivers, and people outside the traditional demographic pipelines.
When I became a parent in 2017, a single day of WFH per week made a meaningful difference. It signalled a shift in thinking that was already beginning to take root.
Covid Didn’t Create the Shift. It Accelerated It.
The pandemic didn’t disrupt construction’s working culture so much as accelerate the direction it was already heading. Site teams continued under essential-worker regulations, but professional services — estimators, planners, QSs, designers, coordinators — retreated to their home offices.
The old assumption that “if you’re not here, you’re not working” evaporated in real time. Tenders still went in. Designs were approved. Supply chains were managed. Digital tools that struggled to gain momentum gained immediate traction.
The industry realised something uncomfortable: physical presence was not the foundation it had imagined. It was simply the habit it had built.
Hybrid Working Has Become the New Baseline
Since the end of the pandemic, the industry has not returned to its old patterns. Hybrid working has stabilised as an expectation, not a concession. ONS data from early 2025 confirms that more than a quarter of UK adults now work on a hybrid basis (ONS)
For construction, this has had three major consequences:
The talent pool has expanded beyond geography.
A project in Shetland can now rely on a planner living in Manchester. The industry has unlocked national talent rather than local patches.
Family life has become more manageable.
Many professionals have cut commuting hours, reduced mid-week nights away from home, and gained back time that would previously have been lost. (State of Hybrid Work, Owl)
Flexibility has become a deal-breaker.
60% of workers say they would seek new employment if hybrid flexibility were withdrawn. This matters in an industry already struggling to recruit and retain skilled people. (24+ hybrid work statistics for the evolving workplace, Zoom)
What Hybrid Working Has Actually Done to Construction Businesses
The impact has not been simply positive or negative. It is nuanced.
Positive Effects
More personal freedom.
People can manage school runs, appointments, and responsibilities without sacrificing working time.
A wider talent pool.
Firms can recruit from across the UK rather than within commuting distance.
Better diversity and accessibility.
Caregivers, people with health constraints, and those who previously could not manage rigid routines now have access to professional roles.
Rapid digital maturity.
Remote work forced companies to improve digital access, data sharing, and collaboration tools.
Lower carbon impact.
Less commuting means reduced Scope 3 emissions — essential for firms with net zero commitments.
Negative Effects
A perceived two-tier workforce.
Site-based teams can feel left behind, while office-based staff can feel unfairly targeted.
Reduced informal interactions.
The “coffee machine” moments that support decision-making and awareness no longer occur naturally.
Meeting overload.
Teams compensate for lost spontaneous communication with more scheduled communication.
Recruitment friction.
Firms that insist on rigid office attendance lose candidates to more flexible competitors.
Case Study: Laing O’Rourke’s Return-to-Office Mandate
In early 2024, Laing O’Rourke (LOR) broke from the industry trend by withdrawing standard home working. Working from home became something that needed to be formally approved rather than something that could be assumed. (Construction Enquirer)
This decision had three underlying drivers:
Concerns about engagement
Leadership cited declining engagement scores and poorly attended offices as a sign that connectivity was weakening.
Concerns about learning
There was a belief that junior staff were missing development opportunities — the “learning by osmosis” argument.
Side note, this narrative is contradicted by LOR’s own innovations. The company had successfully launched a “Bite-Sized Learning Revolution,” a micro-learning initiative via Instagram Reels and TikTok-style videos. This digital-first approach saw engagement with learning modules jump from 5% to 12% and contributed to an 18% drop in on-site safety incidents. The success of this digital program suggests that when training is designed for the modern learner, it transcends geography. (Proven Impact of Training and Development on Employee Performance, PeopleHum)
Financial pressure
The company had reported significant losses, and crisis conditions often trigger a reversion to familiar management approaches.
Employee reaction
The workforce response in some quarters was swift and negative. People questioned motives, felt trust was being withdrawn, and saw the policy as a backward step that failed to recognise the performance shown during the pandemic. (Reddit)
Did the policy drive results?
LOR’s financial rebound in 2024–25 was significant, but the improvement came from strategic pivots, the closing out of loss-making contracts, and strong performance overseas. (Laing O’Rourke)
This is a question of causation vs correlation. There is no evidence I’ve found to suggest the full-time return to the office caused the financial turnaround.
Further, the next question is what long-term cultural and retention costs were created?
Why Leaders Are Pulling in Two Different Directions
In the industry, as I’m sure in most firms, there is now a pull in two directions. Those who see the need to revert back to the full-time presence as the norm, and those who want to optimise for the hybrid flexible approach.
Return to mandated presence
Performance anxiety.
Hybrid working becomes an easy scapegoat for any decline in quality or safety, though could be a contributing factor in some areas.
Lack of visibility.
Some leaders feel uncomfortable without the informal oversight they previously relied on. However, it is true that the loss of informal interaction has impacted relationships and increased the number of meetings required to collaborate.
Residual mistrust.
The old belief that “being seen” equates to “being productive” still lingers. That being said, some people are more suited to WFH than others in terms of their environment, behaviours, and values.
Optimise for flexibility
Five years of life changes.
People have built new routines, had children, and formed different community ties.
A skills shortage.
Flexibility is a competitive advantage in recruitment.
Concerns about trust.
A mandated return is often interpreted as a withdrawal of confidence.
Reduced office estates.
Many firms simply no longer have the physical capacity to house everyone.
Cost-of-living pressure.
Hybrid work saves people significant daily commuting costs.
Net zero commitments.
Commuting emissions are non-trivial and under scrutiny.
How Competitors Are Responding
The industry is splitting along cultural lines, with different contractors making different strategic bets.
Skanska UK
Invested in home office equipment and created a structured “Flex-it” framework. The message was clear: remote work is legitimate, not an exception. (Skanska – Spotlight on Progressive, Agile, and Flexible Working, Onvero)
Wates Group
Committed to all roles being flexible by 2025. Every job advert includes flexibility as a standard feature. (Wates)
Laing O’Rourke
Adopted a mandated presence model. Clear, but rigid. Predictable, but costly in trust.
The Human Dynamics Leaders Need to Understand
The Psychological Contract
During the pandemic, employees proved they could be trusted outside of direct oversight. This was treated as a ‘Psychological Contract’. Withdrawing flexibility is often interpreted as a breach of that new contract. (Return-to-office mandates and workplace inequality: Implications for industrial-organizational psychology, Cambridge University Press)
Reactance
When people feel their freedom is restricted, they naturally resist. Compliance becomes minimal. Engagement drops. Attrition rises.
Fairness vs Sameness
Treating everyone identically is not fairness. A site engineer pouring concrete and a BIM coordinator reviewing IFC models simply do not face the same constraints. True equity requires different solutions for different contexts.
Cognitive Dissonance
Some leaders struggle to reconcile their learned belief that “real work happens on site” with the success of hybrid work. To reduce discomfort, they dismiss the evidence rather than update the belief.
The Timewise Construction Pioneers Pilot
A landmark pilot involving BAM, Skanska and Willmott Dixon tested whether flexibility can work on site, not just in the office.
Practical interventions
Team-designed rosters
Staggered start and finish times
Output-based completion rather than fixed hours
Results
One-day sickness absences more than halved across several contractors
No negative impact on budgets or deadlines
Wellbeing improved
(Timewise Construction Pioneers Programme: Making flexible working work in construction, CECA) (PRESS RELEASE: Reduction in sickness absence noted one year on from ground-breaking flexible working pilot, Timewise) (Timewise industry pilot shares positive impact of flexible working, Skanska) (Construction Pioneers Pilot one year on: what’s new?, Timewise)
This proves flexibility is not only possible on site, it can actually strengthen performance.
Leadership That Balances Authority and Curiosity
Construction leaders need a new set of skills that maintain standards while embracing autonomy.
Adaptive Leadership
Recognise the environment you are truly in, not the one you wish you were in. Anticipate future needs. Adjust decisions as conditions evolve. Communicate transparently. (Technical vs Adaptive Challenges, Medium)
Humble Inquiry
Move from a “telling” culture to one built on thoughtful questioning. Ask before instructing. Understand before deciding. Create psychological safety, not fear. (Humble Inquiry – How to build trust by asking instead of telling, Continuous Mile)
Authority with Curiosity
Authority Used Well: Setting boundaries. Safety protocols, critical reviews, and certain client interactions must be in person.
Curiosity Used Well: Teams decide how they work within those boundaries. This is where creativity, commitment and ownership emerge.
Equity Over Equality
Office-based professionals and site teams need different types of flexibility. Not identical treatment, but fair treatment.
Incentives Over Mandates
Make in-person collaboration meaningful and high value. People should want to come together because it improves outcomes. This includes purpose setting and creating collaborative environments.
Measure Impact, Not Attendance
Track performance against real metrics — margin, cash, safety, carbon, churn — rather than filling office chairs.
Upskill Your Leaders
Hybrid leadership, psychological safety, and inclusive decision-making are learned skills. Not inherited ones. Train your people to use them.
Invest in Digital Clarity
Choose tools that clarify decision-making rather than overwhelm it. Streamline digital ecosystems. Strengthen signal, reduce noise. (See the bonus Digital for Hybrid Checklist at the end of this post)
Final Reflections
Construction cannot return to its old patterns. The world has changed. Workers have changed. Families have changed. Technology has changed. The industry must meet the moment with leadership that respects tradition but refuses to be trapped by it.
Command-and-control will not carry the industry through the next decade. Nor will unstructured flexibility.
The future belongs to leaders who can set clear limits, build genuine trust, and create environments where people can deliver their best work — whether on site pouring concrete or at home coordinating models.
The industry deserves leadership that is grounded, curious, firm when needed, and flexible where possible.
Bonus: Digital for Hybrid Checklist
1. A Modern CDE (Common Data Environment)
Purpose: Maintain a single source of truth for drawings, models, documents, and workflows.
Why it matters for hybrid: When teams are split across site, home, and office, version control and coordination become critical.
Examples: Autodesk Construction Cloud (ACC), ProjectWise, Asite, Trimble Connect.
What leaders should check:
Is your CDE configured with clean permission structures?
Are workflows automated and built to suit your BMS, or held together by email?
2. A Digital Field Management Platform
Purpose: Bridge site-to-office communication with real-time data capture.
Why it matters for hybrid: Hybrid only works if site conditions, issues, inspections, and progress updates reach remote teams instantly and accurately.
Examples: ACC Build, Bentley Infrastructure Collaboration Cloud, OpenSpace, SphereXG, DroneDeploy
What leaders should check:
Are field issues still communicated through WhatsApp and photos?
Can office-based teams see what’s happening on site today?
3. A Collaboration Hub for Teams and Projects
Purpose: Provide structured communication, asynchronous updates, and meeting reduction.
Why it matters for hybrid: Without a shared communication space, hybrid teams slip into email chaos and calendar overload.
Examples: MS Teams, Slack, Notion (for asynchronous communication).
What leaders should check:
Are meetings being replaced with asynchronous, structured, written updates?
Is there an agreed channel structure for office and project communication?
4. Workflow and Task Management Tools
Purpose: Shift from time-based supervision to task-based clarity.
Why it matters for hybrid: You can’t rely on proximity to track progress. Tasks, owners, deadlines, and dependencies must be visible.
Examples: Microsoft Planner, Monday.com, Trello, Jira.
What leaders should check:
Can you see what each team member is responsible for this week?
Are blockers being surfaced quickly?
5. Role-Specific Digital Dashboards
Purpose: Give leaders and teams real-time visibility of key performance indicators without needing to “walk the floor”. They are asynchronous, so don’t need a meeting to facilitate an update.
Why it matters for hybrid: Dashboards replace anecdote with evidence.
Examples: Power BI, Tableau
What leaders should check:
Do you have data on safety, progress, cost, and workforce availability at the frequency I need?