Post-Pandemic Hybrid Work in Software Companies: Findings from an Industrial Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Software professionals learned from their experience during the pandemic that most of their work can be done remotely, and now software companies are expected to adopt hybrid work models to avoid the resignation of talented professionals who require more flexibility and work-life balance. However, hybrid work is a spectrum of flexible work arrangements, and currently, there are no well-established hybrid work configurations to be followed in the post-pandemic period. Goal. We investigated how software engineers are experiencing the post-pandemic hybrid work landscape, aiming to understand the factors that influence their choices between remote and in-office work. Method. We explored a large South American company by collecting quantitative and qualitative data from 545 software professionals who are currently navigating diverse hybrid work arrangements tailored to their individual and team requirements. Findings. Our study revealed an array of factors that significantly impact hybrid work within the software industry, including individual preferences, work-life balance, commute time, social interactions, productivity, and more. Team dynamics, project demands, client expectations, and organizational strategies also play an important role in shaping the complex landscape of hybrid work configurations in software engineering. Conclusions. In summary, the success of hybrid work models depends on balancing individual preferences, team dynamics, and organizational strategies. Our study demonstrated that, at present, there is no one-size-fits-all individuals approach to hybrid work in the software industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".