I keynote at conferences all over the world, for clients in every conceivable sector. Whether it’s a software leadership retreat in Los Angeles or a finance sales kickoff in London, there’s one sobering truth I see in hybrid businesses. Five years after the pandemic forced the grand remote experiment, many companies are failing at virtual and remote working.

The evidence paints a picture of widespread adoption with questionable execution. According to 2024 research from Zoom, 64% of business leaders report using hybrid models, with 82% planning to increase workplace flexibility further.

Meanwhile, a Robert Half study found 48% of job seekers prefer hybrid roles, making it clear this isn't a passing trend.

But here's where it gets interesting: A 2024 KPMG survey of 1,325 CEOs across 11 countries found that 83% expect their organizations to require a full return to the office within three years. That's a massive disconnect between what employees want and where leadership thinks they're heading.

A comprehensive study from Harvard Business Review (registration required) of 720 employees across a financial services company reveals why hybrid work often feels like a mirage: promising from a distance but disappointing up close. The research, conducted by Peter Cappelli and Ranya Nehmeh, uncovered systematic problems that many organizations haven't recognized, let alone addressed.

Consider this workplace scenario: You're a new hire trying to learn the ropes. In a traditional office, you'd naturally absorb knowledge by watching experienced colleagues handle difficult clients or navigate complex projects. You'd overhear conversations that provide context. You'd catch someone's eye when you're struggling and receive immediate help.

In hybrid arrangements, that organic learning often evaporates. New hires can't learn by example because there's no one to watch, and conscientious peers can't see when newcomers are struggling. With an average monthly U.S. turnover of just over 3% (meaning more than one-third of the workforce changes annually), this isn't a minor issue.

When managers can't easily observe collaboration, they often default to tracking what's measurable: individual key performance indicators (KPIs) and task completion. Employees focus on meeting their individual targets at the expense of helping colleagues or working on collective tasks not explicitly part of their KPIs.

This creates a vicious cycle. When someone needs help, colleagues often indicate they're "unavailable" online because they're focused on their own metrics. People often respond to requests for help only after finishing their own tasks, unless they have a personal relationship with the person asking.

Perhaps most concerning is how hybrid work is changing who gets ahead. In some cases, promoting the best individual performers into management jobs can lead to worse team performance. Yet that's exactly what's happening in many hybrid environments, where managers can easily track individual metrics but struggle to assess collaboration and leadership potential.

Managers often have no real idea whether colleagues can get along with others, let alone manage them, because they rarely see them interacting with other people.

Here's where expert opinion sharply divides: Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom's 2024 research found that employees working from home two days a week are just as productive and likely to be promoted as those in the office full time. His study concludes that hybrid work is a "win-win-win" for productivity, performance and retention.

But some argue this research primarily applies to highly educated professionals and may not translate to other roles or industries. Remote work is increasingly becoming a privilege for higher-income workers, creating a new workplace divide between those who can work flexibly and those who cannot.

This debate reflects a fundamental question: Is hybrid work a universal solution or an elite perk that inadvertently reinforces workplace inequality?

The tide may be turning. Reports suggest major companies, including Amazon, AT&T and Dell, have ended hybrid work policies in 2024-2025, enforcing full-time office attendance. The Wall Street Journal (registration required) has highlighted the growing tension between employers and employees over return-to-office mandates, with some companies willing to lose talent rather than maintain flexible arrangements.

These reversals suggest that many organisations have concluded the administrative burden and performance costs of hybrid work outweigh its benefits, at least as currently implemented.

For organisations committed to making hybrid work succeed, best practices are emerging:

Hybrid work isn't inherently broken, but many implementations are. Like any complex system, it requires intentional design, consistent execution and ongoing adjustment. I've noticed the companies succeeding with hybrid arrangements treat it as a management discipline, not an employee perk.

The choice business leaders face is stark: Either invest in the infrastructure, policies and management practices needed to make hybrid work effective, or acknowledge that you're destined to lose people, productivity and performance to another business that is taking hybrid seriously as a strategic strength.

Half-measures (the current approach at many organisations) deliver neither the flexibility employees want nor the performance outcomes businesses need. In the hybrid work equation, execution isn't everything. It's the only thing.

David Meade is one of the world's leading keynote speakers, trusted by Fortune 500 brands to inspire their people.

For more research and similar articles by David Meade, visit Forbes.com.