Author: Sepideh Yekani
August 2024

Creativity is the lifeblood of organisations striving to seize new opportunities, adapt to change, and stay competitive, particularly in turbulent times. But what is creativity in the work environment?

Creativity in the work environment primarily involves generating original and useful ideas, especially for solving ill-defined problems. Contrary to the common perception of creativity as a sudden “aha” moment, in reality, it is a comprehensive process integrated into the daily routines of knowledge workers. This process encompasses several stages: preparing by gathering information, allowing ideas to incubate, experiencing moments of insight, evaluating these ideas, and elaborating on them to bring them to fruition. These stages typically require not only focused work but also activities such as discussions in meetings, informal corridor conversations, learning, and reflective pauses during relaxing moments. Having the availability of supportive spaces and a dynamic environment catering to these needs can be incredibly important for fostering creativity. By doing so, organisations can cultivate an atmosphere where creativity thrives, enabling them to navigate and succeed in an ever-evolving business landscape.

However, with the shift to hybrid working—where employees split their time between home, office, and beyond—the flow of creativity and ideation is undergoing significant transformation. While employees might feel more focused while working from home, what is the impact of missing the social dynamics of the office? How does online collaboration compare to the energy of in-person brainstorming sessions? What unique challenges arise in nurturing creativity in today’s evolving work landscape?

In this piece, we explore some of these questions through the perspectives offered by our project, The Hybrid Future (THF), aiming to gain deeper insights and understandings of hybrid working practices.

The Impact of Hybrid Working

Before diving deeper into the data, it’s worth highlighting that 34% of our respondents had full flexibility over where they work, 57% had some level of flexibility (requiring one to four days of office visits per week), and the remaining 9% had almost no flexibility, working either fully remote or fully office-based.

Regarding the overall impact of hybrid working, our results show that the transition to this model had a ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ effect on creativity for a majority of respondents (58%) while only 10% reported a ‘negative’ or ‘very negative’ impact.

A closer examination of the data across different roles reveals some interesting patterns. Most individual contributors (61%) and people managers (57%) indicated that the transition to hybrid working had a ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ impact on their creativity. However, only 38% of senior leaders reported a similar positive effect. Additionally, 67% of those who spent a considerable time commuting (one hour or more) reported a ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ impact of hybrid working on creativity, compared to 49% of those with a shorter commute time (less than 29 minutes). There is no significant gender difference regarding this topic, with 58% of women and 56% of men reporting a ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ impact of hybrid working on creativity.

When assessing time allocated for creativity, 65% of participants agreed they have sufficient time for creative thinking and exploration. However, a pattern emerges concerning office visit frequency. Only 53% of those who worked in the office 4-5 days per week felt they had enough time for creativity, compared to 73% of those who visited the office one day per week or less. These results suggest that the more time people spend in the office, the less time they find for creativity. One possibility is that some creativity-enhancing activities occurring daily and more spontaneously in the office, such as information exchange, learning from others, and idea sharing, are not directly recognised by respondents as creative time. Additionally, the time spent commuting to the office and engaging in activities like unwanted conversations and distractions can reduce the available time for creativity. In contrast, those who work from home have more control over these factors, potentially allowing for greater creative output.

Figure 01 – Sufficient time for creative thinking by number of days in office

One of the main concerns in the hybrid era is whether online brainstorming is as efficient as in-person sessions. To investigate this, we asked our respondents about their experiences with creative brainstorming in both settings.

Overall, 58% of respondents considered in-person brainstorming sessions with colleagues as ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ effective, compared to only 39% for online sessions—a significant 19 percentage point (pp) gap. However, a deeper analysis reveals this gap varies across different roles. For senior leaders, the gap is a striking 47 pp, while for people managers, it is 28 pp. In contrast, the disparity is much smaller among individual contributors, showing only a 10 pp difference.

Figure 02 – The effectiveness of online versus in-person creative brainstorming sessions

Interestingly, people with disabilities found both in-person (53%) and online (55%) brainstorming sessions almost equally effective. However, the gap in perception of online session effectiveness between people with disabilities (55%) and those without (36%) is notable. This suggests that the digital format may enhance accessibility and foster a sense of equality for people with disabilities. However, further investigation is needed to understand the underlying reasons in more depth.

We also asked about the challenges our respondents faced in hybrid working. The results show that nearly half (49%) identified ‘spontaneous conversations and interactions’ as the top challenge in a hybrid work environment. Additionally, almost one-third of respondents indicated that ‘informal communication,’ ‘accessibility of colleagues,’ and ‘video conference fatigue’ are significant challenges. Conversely, only 5% cited ‘coming up with new ideas’ and 8% mentioned ‘solving problems’ as some of their main challenges.

However, this does not mean creativity in the hybrid era is entirely unchallenged. Spontaneous and informal meetings, as well as having colleagues accessible and around, are crucial engines and resources for creativity in the long term. The lack of these elements can significantly impact the creative process. When examining the data across different roles, we observed that a larger proportion of senior leaders faced these challenges compared to managers, and more managers faced these challenges compared to individual contributors.

Figure 03 – Challenging aspects in hybrid working

When we asked where our respondents generated their best ideas, 40% of respondents identified home as their top choice, while 24% preferred the office. Another 12% favoured outdoor environments, 11% chose alternative spaces like cafés, and the remaining respondents mentioned during their commute or other spaces. Interesting patterns emerged across different roles: senior leaders are more likely to favour the office, individual contributors tend to prefer home, and managers show no significant preference between the two locations. Notably, no gender differences were observed in this matter.

Figure 04 – Locations where respondents generate their best ideas

Another interesting finding is that 42% of respondents preferred a ‘quiet zone’ when they needed to be creative, 32% chose to be near a window, and 28% favoured a creative room. When it comes to gender differences, women are more likely than men to prefer being near a window (35% vs. 27%) and being in spaces filled with plants (22% vs. 14%).

To conclude, the hybrid working model presents both opportunities and challenges for fostering creativity, with no universal solution to mitigate the hurdles. Working from home can provide a distraction-free environment that boosts individual focus on problem-solving. However, the absence of spontaneous interactions and informal discussions typical of an office setting can impede the creative process. While virtual meetings are useful, they can sometimes feel rigid and less conducive to free-flowing exchanges. Our data indicates that while hybrid working poses challenges for some, it supports creativity for others. Therefore, a hybrid model can accommodate various approaches to creativity, balancing the diverse needs of employees. Additionally, providing well-facilitated digital tools can help bridge the gaps inherent in virtual sessions, enhancing overall effectiveness.