Articles

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Belonging in Hybrid Work: Navigating Inclusion and Performance at BT Group

Author: Tim Rostang Boock (University of Salford)

Abstract

This study examines how Cultural Intelligence (CQ) shapes employees’ sense of belonging in hybrid work environments, focusing on BT Group’s mandated return to office policy introduced in 2025. With hybrid work still used by 28% of UK adults, yet 73% preferring flexible models, the research addresses a gap in understanding how CQ operates within hybrid “micro cultures” where visibility bias, reduced interaction, and declining autonomy can weaken belonging. Although CQ is well established in multicultural settings, its relevance to digitally blended work remains underexplored. Using an interpretive qualitative design, the study triangulates BT’s annual reports, leadership communications, media coverage, and employee narratives from 2020–2025. Thematic analysis, guided by a CQ–belonging performance framework, identifies three dynamics: policy rigidity that amplifies exclusion, implicit CQ practices that partially mitigate bias, and a performance paradox in which cost savings and carbon reductions coexist with rising turnover and belonging fragility. These findings extend CQ as mediating framework into hybrid contexts and belonging paradigm, demonstrating the particular value of behavioural CQ under rigid mandates.

Practical implications include organisation wide CQ development, equitable meeting protocols, and bias mitigation tools to support inclusion and retention. Overall, the study shows that CQ is a strategic capability for sustaining belonging and organisational resilience in evolving hybrid workplaces.

Keywords: Cultural Intelligence, Belonging, Hybrid Work, Inclusion, Organisational Performance

How to Cite: Boock, T. R. (2026) “Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Belonging in Hybrid Work: Navigating Inclusion and Performance at BT Group”, Spark: The Salford Business Journal of Innovation, Societal Sustainability and Education. 1(1). doi: https://doi.org//spark.414

1. Introduction

One of the most important legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic is the profound transformed global work organisation, making hybrid arrangements combining remote and in-office days a lasting and core feature of many organisations, particularly in the UK's technology and telecommunications sectors (House of Commons Library, 2022; Kniffin et al., 2021). Hybrid work delivers clear benefits, such as enhanced flexibility, greater autonomy, and reduced commuting time, saving UK workers an average of 56 minutes per day (ONS, 2024). However, it also disrupts the casual, spontaneous interpersonal interactions that are essential for building relationships, wellbeing, productivity, and informal learning (Choudhury et al., 2021; Gratton, 2021).

At BT Group , this shift intensified with the introduction of a stricter "three together, two wherever" policy, which transitioned from guidance to a formal mandate starting in January 2025 (IT Pro, 2024; The Guardian, 2025; Financial Times, 2024). Intended to boost team collaboration, visibility, and company culture following low voluntary office attendance (averaging around 1.7 days per week pre-enforcement), the policy has raised concerns about exclusion from spontaneous chats, networking opportunities, and career-enhancing interactions all critical for fostering a sense of inclusion (Golden, 2006; Raghuram et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022; Rockmann & Pratt, 2015).

Belonging remains a fundamental psychological need, closely linked to motivation, engagement, health, and commitment (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hagerty et al., 1992). In hybrid environments, remote workers particularly risk feeling isolated or overlooked, potentially weakening their sense of connection and access to informal networks (Walton & Cohen, 2007).

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) encompassing metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural dimensions provides a valuable framework for navigating these challenges (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003; Livermore, 2015). Belonging in organisational settings refers to the extent to which employees feel accepted, valued, and psychologically secure within their teams and wider organisation. It encompasses relational connection, visibility, and the sense that one’s contributions are recognised and matter (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hagerty et al., 1992). A “belonging gap” therefore emerges when employees experience reduced access to informal interactions, diminished visibility, or inconsistent inclusion across hybrid arrangements conditions that can weaken relational security and participation. A business where belonging is well established and higher is associated with stronger engagement, lower turnover intentions, improved wellbeing, and enhanced discretionary effort, all of which contribute directly to organisational performance and resilience (Allen et al., 2021; CIPD, 2025). In hybrid contexts, where access to networks and informal learning is unevenly distributed, addressing belonging gaps becomes critical for sustaining collaboration and retention.

In hybrid settings, CQ helps individuals interpret subtle "micro-differences" such as digital etiquette, interaction norms, and expectations around presence, while promoting adaptive and inclusive behaviours that can bridge belonging gaps, (Thomas et al., 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2012; Yari et al., 2020; Liao et al., 2022).

While existing research highlights CQ's value in diverse or global teams (Lim’s 2024; Low et al. 2024), there remains a notable gap in integrated studies applying it to intra-organisational cultural shifts and post-mandate hybrid contexts, with belonging implications (Rockmann & Pratt, 2015; Wang et al., 2022). This project addresses that gap by analysing publicly available materials to explore real experiences, extending CQ scholarship to hybrid modalities and clarifying the mechanisms linking organisational context, adaptation, and outcomes such as belonging (Ang et al., 2007; Golden & Gajendran, 2019).

This study positions BT Group as an instrumental single case study (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018), selected for its scale, public transparency, and the significance of its 2025 hybrid mandate. As a major FTSE 100 telecommunications provider with a workforce exceeding 100,000 globally (including tens of thousands office-based) and FY25 revenues around £20.8 billion (BT Group Annual Report, 2025), BT offers a rich context for examining these dynamics. The 2020–2025 timeframe captures the evolution from pandemic-driven full remote work to mandated hybrid practices, highlighting shifting discourses around belonging and CQ during a pivotal organisational transition.

BT's experience mirrors broader UK trends , where office attendance has risen only modestly (e.g., from around 29% in 2022 to slightly higher levels by 2024), yet most workers prefer limited office days, often two to three per week (AWA, 2024; LinkedIn, 2025). Demographic disparities further complicate the picture: women and disabled employees often benefit most from flexibility but may face greater inequalities or challenges under stricter return-to-office rules (House of Commons Library, 2022; CIPD, 2025).

1.1 Aim and Research Questions

Aim: To examine how CQ shapes belonging in BT’s hybrid arrangements and assess how belonging relates to performance in publicly available materials (Ang et al., 2007; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kniffin et al., 2021; CIPD, 2025).

1.2 Research Questions

1. How is CQ conceptualised, modelled, or implied in BT’s hybrid policies and leadership communications? (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Thomas et al., 2008).

2. How do employee narratives describe belonging, exclusion, and visibility in BT’s hybrid practices post‑2025 mandate? (Cockshaw et al., 2014; Shore et al., 2011; LinkedIn, 2025).

3. Through what mechanisms do CQ‑related practices shape belonging in hybrid contexts? (Liao et al., 2022; Van Dyne et al., 2012).

4. How do performance claims align with belonging dynamics, initiated through a positive relationship between CQ and hybrid working, in narratives, considering 2025 impacts? (Kniffin et al., 2021; Sarker et al., 2021; CIPD, 2025).

1.3 Justification

Belonging drives retention and innovation, yet hybrid models can intensify disparities if poorly managed (Allen et al., 2021; CIPD, 2025). CQ offers a framework for adaptive behaviour, but its application to hybrid work remains underexplored (Livermore, 2015; Ng et al., 2009). BT’s extensive public data provides a timely opportunity to analyse the effects of the 2025 mandate amid growing employee backlash (The Guardian, 2025; Startups.co.uk, 2025).

1.4. BT Background

Founded in 1846 as the Electric Telegraph Company the world's first public telegraph firm BT Group has evolved into the UK's leading telecommunications provider, with roots tracing back nearly 180 years (BT.com/about/bt/our-history). Today, it delivers broadband, mobile, fixed-line, and network services to over 30 million customers across the UK and internationally, generating revenues of around £20.4 billion in the year to March 2025 (BT Group, 2025; BT.com/about).

Post-COVID, BT implemented the Better Workplace programme (launched in 2019), a major five-year initiative consolidating its UK office footprint from over 300 locations to approximately 30 modern regional hubs including new or refurbished sites in London (new HQ), Manchester (Four New Bailey), Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Dundee, Belfast, and others. This transformation emphasized collaboration, innovation, inclusion, wellbeing facilities (e.g., flexible workstations, biophilic design, health areas), and attracting talent despite pandemic disruptions (BT Group, 2023; BT newsroom, 2025).

Employee engagement remains solid at 76% in the latest YourSay surveys (up from 75% in 2024), reflecting positive workplace investments (BT Group ESG Addendum, 2025). However, the 2025 hybrid mandate enforcing three office days together has sparked emerging tensions around attendance, inclusion, and culture, as voluntary office use stayed low pre-enforcement (Ainvest, 2024; IT Pro, 2024).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The literature review synthesises the key concepts underpinning Cultural Intelligence, belonging, and hybrid work. The methodology section then outlines the qualitative approach adopted for analysing publicly available organisational materials. This is followed by the findings, which present the themes emerging from the data. Then comes discussions, interpreting these results in relation to existing theory and develops implications for HR practice. The paper concludes by summarising the study’s contributions and outlining directions for future research. Supporting data logs and supplementary materials are provided in the appendices.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Cultural intelligence (CQ) and belonging are pivotal constructs in understanding hybrid work dynamics, particularly as organisations navigate post-pandemic transitions. This review defines key concepts, synthesises theoretical frameworks, critiques prior research, identifies gaps, and links to the study's questions.

2.2 Sense of Belonging

One key concept is Belonging a fundamental psychological need, encompassing acceptance, relational security, and inclusion within a group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). It is not merely an abstract construct but a lived experience that manifests in daily activities, interpersonal relationships, and organisational practices. When individuals perceive themselves as valued and included, they experience enhanced wellbeing, engagement, and performance (Hagerty et al., 1992; Cockshaw et al., 2014). Conversely, low levels of belonging are associated with exclusion, disengagement, and increased turnover (Allen et al., 2021; Shore et al., 2011). In workplace settings, belonging is expressed through routine interactions and organisational rituals. Day-to-day activities such as collaborative meetings, informal conversations, and recognition practices serve as micro-contexts where belonging is either reinforced or undermined. For example, equitable participation in meetings ensuring that remote and in-office employees have equal opportunities to contribute signals inclusion and mitigates presenteeism bias (Rockmann & Pratt, 2015; Golden & Gajendran, 2019). Similarly, recognition systems that celebrate contributions across diverse work arrangements foster a sense of value and relational security. Hofstede’s (1980) framework helps explain these patterns: cultural norms around hierarchy, communication, and uncertainty shape how employees interpret belonging expectations, influencing who feel comfortable speaking up and who feel overlooked in mixed‑presence meetings.

The differences show that belonging is not created through one‑off initiatives but through everyday behaviours and routines that shape how people interact and feel included. Friendships and interpersonal relationships at work further translate belonging into lived experience. Workplace friendships provide emotional support, trust, and a sense of community, which buffer against stress and enhance job satisfaction (Methot et al., 2016). Such relationships extend beyond task-related interactions, encompassing shared lunches, informal chats, and collaborative problem-solving. According to Maslow (1943), belonging needs are fundamental to human motivation, and their fulfilment contributes to psychological safety by encouraging individuals to voice ideas and take risks without fear of exclusion.

Figure 1 : Maslow Hierarchy of needs

Putnam (2000) argues that friendships often transcend organisational boundaries, continuing through social gatherings, shared interests, and digital communication. This matters because such extra‑organisational ties deepen trust, create continuity in relationships, and provide emotional support that formal structures cannot fully replicate. Empirical studies reinforce this point: Methot et al. (2016) show that workplace friendships spill over into non‑work domains, strengthening relational security and buffering employees against stress and isolation.

Golden and Gajendran (2019) extend this argument to hybrid contexts, noting that reduced visibility and fewer informal interactions weaken the relational foundations on which friendships and belonging typically develop. Remote employees lose access not only to spontaneous conversations but also to the micro‑moments shared humour, informal check‑ins, hallway chats that sustain friendship formation, making them more vulnerable to isolation and exclusion.

To counteract these risks, scholars emphasise the importance of intentionally designed inclusion practices that recreate the social glue lost in hybrid settings. These practices can be summarised as follows:

Table 1: Inclusive Practices

These collectively demonstrate that belonging in hybrid contexts does not emerge organically. It requires deliberate organisational effort to embed inclusive routines into everyday work, ensuring that belonging is not dependent on physical presence but is cultivated through relational practices that support visibility, voice, and connection.

Ultimately, belonging in the workplace is both structural and relational. It is embedded in organisational systems that promote equitable participation and recognition, and it is expressed through friendships and interpersonal connections that extend beyond work boundaries. By integrating belonging into daily activities and relational practices, organisations can enhance wellbeing, engagement, and innovation while reducing turnover and disengagement. As such, belonging emerges as a critical driver of organisational health, particularly in hybrid contexts where intentional efforts are required to sustain inclusion and relational security.

2.3 Cultural Intelligence

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is concept popularised by Earley and defined as the capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings, encompassing four interrelated facets: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural (Earley & Ang, 2003; Ang et al., 2007). Unlike traditional measures of intelligence, CQ emphasizes adaptability across cultural boundaries, extending beyond national differences to micro-level variations such as organisational or hybrid work norms (Thomas et al., 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2012). To enhance conceptual clarity, the diagram below visually represents the four core dimensions of Cultural Intelligence (CQ), highlighting their interrelated roles in intercultural competence.

Figure 2 : Diagram of CQ four dimensions.

The diagram illustrates the four core dimensions of Cultural Intelligence (CQ), a framework essential for navigating intercultural interactions, especially in hybrid and global work environments. At the centre is the concept of CQ, surrounded by four interconnected components: metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural.

Metacognitive CQ involves awareness and regulation of cultural assumptions during interactions, enabling reflection and adaptation. Cognitive CQ refers to knowledge of cultural norms and practices. Motivational CQ captures the drive and confidence to engage across cultures. Behavioural CQ encompasses appropriate verbal and non-verbal actions. Together, these dimensions equip individuals to interpret diverse cues and collaborate effectively across cultural boundaries. CQ differs from Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Emotional Intelligence (EQ) in scope and application. The table offers a representation of how CQ diverge from Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and Emotional Intelligence (EQ) and facilitating a deeper implication of each component in this research.

Table 2: Differences between CQ, EQ and IQ.

In the digital age, CQ has become increasingly salient, enabling individuals to interpret virtual cues and sustain effective interactions across geographically dispersed teams (Liao et al., 2022; Yari et al., 2020). According to Davidaviciene and Al Majzoub (2022), CQ plays a critical role in virtual team decision-making, as culturally intelligent members are better equipped to navigate misunderstandings and sustain constructive dialogue when non-verbal cues are limited. Similarly, Davaei et al. (2022) argue that CQ, alongside emotional intelligence, reduces interpersonal and task conflict in global virtual teams, thereby enhancing performance and relational harmony. Liao and Thomas (2025) further contend that CQ can emerge collectively at the team level, enabling groups to develop shared capabilities for interpreting cultural signals in virtual environments. This collective CQ strengthens cohesion and coordination despite reduced face-to-face interaction. Gallup (2023) notes that employees who feel understood and valued by culturally aware leaders report higher engagement and stronger belonging two outcomes closely linked to CQ‑driven behaviours. Practitioner studies also emphasize that CQ is essential for remote work success, as it helps employees decode diverse communication styles, adapt to cultural expectations, and maintain engagement across time zones (Abdallah, 2024; Cross Culture Connections, 2024). Taken together, these studies demonstrate that CQ is not only an individual competency but also a collective resource that enables hybrid and virtual teams to overcome challenges of reduced visibility, limited informal interaction, and cultural diversity.

Although Cultural Intelligence (CQ) is often celebrated as a critical competency for navigating multicultural and hybrid work contexts, scholars have increasingly highlighted its potential “dark side.” Individuals high in metacognitive CQ possess the cognitive flexibility to anticipate cultural discrepancies and adjust their behaviour accordingly (Van Dyne et al., 2012). While this adaptability is typically framed as a strength, Gelbrich, Stedham, and Gäthke (2016) caution that such advanced planning may also enable morally questionable practices. For instance, expatriates operating in environments where bribery is culturally tolerated may exploit their cultural awareness to rationalise or even engage in corrupt behaviour, such as accepting kickbacks or colluding with one party against another. This phenomenon, described as “performance‑enhancing arbitrary corruption,” illustrates how CQ can be leveraged for opportunism rather than integration.

Lorenz et al. (2020) argue that CQ may foster ethical relativism, whereby individuals justify self‑interested actions by aligning with local norms that conflict with universal ethical standards. Similarly, Brand, Schlaegel, and Stahl (2023) contend that CQ can lead to overconfidence and over‑adjustment, resulting in poor decision‑making and diminished moral clarity. In such cases, CQ’s positive halo obscures its potential to promote unethical behaviour, particularly when individuals prioritise cultural fit over ethical consistency.

Taken together, these critiques challenge the assumption that CQ is inherently prosocial or ethically neutral. Instead, they reveal that CQ’s flexibility can be double‑edged: while it enables adaptation and collaboration, it may also empower individuals to manipulate cultural differences for personal gain. This underscores the importance of embedding ethical reasoning and value‑based safeguards into CQ development programs, ensuring that cultural competence strengthens inclusion and integrity rather than undermining them.

In sum, Cultural Intelligence (CQ) integrates metacognitive awareness, cultural knowledge, motivation, and behavioural flexibility, enabling effective adaptation in diverse and digital contexts. Unlike IQ or EQ, it predicts success in multicultural and hybrid environments by fostering inclusion (Earley & Ang, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2012). Yet its adaptability risks misuse, requiring ethical safeguards (Gelbrich et al., 2016; Lorenz et al., 2020).

2.4 Hybrid Work

Hybrid work has emerged as a dominant organisational arrangement in the post-pandemic era, yet its definition varies across academic and practitioner sources. According to Lauring and Jonasson (2025), hybrid work is “the ongoing alternation between traditional and non-traditional work modes”, emphasising its conceptual complexity and the need for clarity in understanding its consequences. This academic perspective frames hybrid work as a multidimensional construct that reshapes organisational practices, employee experiences, and cultural dynamics. UK studies show positive impacts on wellbeing and efficiency, yet drawbacks like bias in mandated models (House of Commons Library, 2022; CIPD, 2025; Lancaster University Work Foundation, 2021). Seminal works highlight virtual work's exhaustion and commitment effects (Golden, 2006; Raghuram et al., 2019), while contemporary reviews emphasise inclusion in digital spaces (Wang et al., 2022; Sarker et al., 2021). Synthesising, belonging theory posits it as foundational for motivation, with hybrid reorganisations unevenly distributing access to recognition (Golden & Gajendran, 2019). According to Livermore (2015), leaders with high behavioural CQ demonstrate flexibility in their verbal and non-verbal actions, enabling them to facilitate inclusive meetings and reduce biases. Similarly, Ng et al. (2009) argue that CQ mediates adaptive behaviours by equipping individuals to adjust effectively across cultural contexts, thereby fostering trust and minimising misunderstandings. This alignment in the literature underscores CQ’s role as a mechanism for promoting inclusion and collaboration in diverse teams. Empirical evidence links flexible options to higher engagement and retention e.g., flexible workers three times more likely to stay (Great Place To Work, 2024) but mandates risk discontent (Lattanzio, 2024). Critically, while CQ enhances cross-cultural performance (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008), its hybrid applications are underdeveloped, often overlooking motivational drives in enforced settings (Earley & Peterson, 2004).

2.5 Organisational performance

Organisational performance refers to an organisation’s ability to achieve strategic, financial, and human‑centred outcomes, ultimately reflecting its capacity to create sustained value (Richard et al., 2009). Contemporary scholars emphasises that performance is no longer driven solely by operational efficiency but increasingly by relational, cultural, and psychological factors shaping how people collaborate and contribute. In hybrid work environments, these dynamics become even more pronounced. Cultural Intelligence (CQ) enhances adaptability, communication, and coordination across dispersed and diverse teams, strengthening innovation and problem‑solving capabilities (Ang et al., 2007). Belonging further contributes to performance by fostering engagement, discretionary effort, and reduced turnover intentions key predictors of team effectiveness and organisational resilience (Allen et al., 2021).

Hybrid work models amplify these interdependencies: when employees feel included and culturally attuned, productivity and collaboration improve, whereas rigid or exclusionary hybrid structures undermine performance through disengagement and fragmentation (McKinsey & Company, 2025). Research also shows that inclusive hybrid practices such as equitable meeting norms, outcome‑based evaluations, and culturally adaptive leadership directly correlate with higher retention and innovation outcomes (CIPD, 2025).

Thus, organisational performance in hybrid contexts is best understood as the culmination of cultural intelligence, belonging, and structural design working in concert to enable value creation.

2.6 Conclusion

The literature positions Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and belonging as interconnected mechanisms for supporting performance in hybrid work. Although CQ is theorised to enhance adaptation and inclusion, integrated CQ–belonging research remains limited, especially in UK post hybrid mandate contexts marked by demographic inequalities (Yari et al., 2020; The Guardian, 2025). Empirical testing in hybrid micro‑ecologies is still lacking, where collaboration claims often diverge from lived belonging experiences (Kniffin et al., 2021). By linking CQ practices to belonging and organisational performance, this study addresses key gaps, offering UK‑specific insights (CIPD, 2025) and framing CQ as a pragmatic tool for inclusive hybrid work.

3. Methodology and Research Approach

3.1 Introduction

This section outlines the methodological framework adopted to investigate how Cultural Intelligence (CQ) mediates belonging in BT’s hybrid workplace. The design is justified in relation to the research aim, objectives, and questions, with explicit attention to philosophical underpinnings, case selection, data sources, collection and analysis methods, ethical considerations, and limitations. The methodological choices reflect a commitment to rigor, transparency, and alignment with the interpretivist paradigm, ensuring that findings are both credible and contextually grounded.

3.2 Philosophical Stance

The study is situated within a constructivist epistemology, which posits that knowledge is not discovered as an objective reality but co-constructed through discourse, interpretation, and interaction (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Constructivism assumes that meanings emerge from social processes and are shaped by context, culture, and relational dynamics. This orientation is particularly suited to exploring CQ and belonging in hybrid work contexts, where meanings are fluid, contested, and negotiated across organisational boundaries.

Within this epistemological stance, the interpretivist paradigm provides the lens through which employee narratives, leadership rhetoric, and organisational texts are examined. Interpretivism acknowledges subjectivity, privileging the lived experiences and perspectives of participants and recognising that multiple realities coexist (Schwandt, 1994). This paradigm legitimises the use of secondary qualitative data, treating documents, communications, and employee reviews as discursive artifacts that embody organisational meaning-making. By situating the study within constructivism and interpretivism, the methodology emphasises the emergent nature of knowledge, allowing themes to arise reflexively from the data rather than imposing predetermined categories (Braun & Clarke, 2019).

3.3 Research Design

This research adopts an interpretive qualitative design employing secondary data analysis to explore CQ’s mediation of belonging in BT’s hybrid context. The interpretive paradigm is appropriate for examining subjective experiences and organisational rhetoric, assuming that reality is socially constructed, and knowledge emerges from textual and discursive data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This design aligns with constructivist underpinnings, where meanings arise from interactions and interpretations, informing a focus on narratives and discourses.

BT was selected as an instrumental single case study not only for its scale and extensive public disclosures points already noted earlier but also because its 2025 hybrid mandate provides a distinctive organisational moment through which CQ and belonging can be examined in depth. The timeframe (2020–2025) captures both pandemic-driven shifts and subsequent organisational mandates, providing a rich context for examining CQ and belonging. Case study design is particularly appropriate for exploring complex organisational phenomena in depth, allowing for nuanced interpretation of discursive practices (Yin, 2018).

The choice of secondary qualitative analysis is justified on both practical and ethical grounds. Secondary data provides access to rich, diverse perspectives without imposing on participants, particularly in organisational contexts where access may be restricted (Heaton, 2004; Irwin, 2013; Ruggiano & Perry, 2019). Moreover, secondary analysis enables the exploration of organisational meaning-making through publicly available texts, aligning with the interpretivist emphasis on discourse.

It also aligns with interpretivism by enabling the analysis of organisational meaning‑making through publicly available texts.

3.4 Publicly available data Sources and Sampling

Overview Table

Table 3.4: Data Sources and Sampling

A collection log recorded metadata, relevance tags (e.g., CQ, belonging), and quality ratings (1–5 scale). Inclusion criteria required explicit references to hybrid work or belonging; exclusions included duplicates and low-relevance items. The final dataset comprised 35 items, balanced across perspectives: 40% leadership, 30% employee, and 30% external (refer to appendix A).

3.5 Data Collection and Analysis

Collection Procedures

Data collection followed a systematic process, with a spreadsheet log used to record metadata and ensure auditability (refer to appendix B). This approach aligns with Flyvbjerg’s (2006) emphasis on transparency in case study research.

Analytical Strategy

Analysis employed reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2019) six-phase model: familiarisation, coding, theme generation, review, definition, and reporting. A framework layer mapped emergent codes to constructs of interest, including CQ dimensions (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, behavioural) and belonging indicators (e.g., inclusion scores, performance claims) (Gale et al., 2013).

A pilot coding phase refined the codebook (refer to appendix), adding categories such as “monitoring bias” to capture rhetorical framing in leadership texts. Full coding then identified themes such as “policy rigidity,” “visibility bias,” and “adaptive leadership.” Saturation was assessed through iterative coding, with theme stability observed after 30 documents, indicating that additional data yielded diminishing returns.

3.6 Bias Mitigation

Bias was mitigated through triangulation across leadership, employee, and external sources, a credibility matrix ranked (refer to appendix B) sources by authorship, proximity to events, and corroboration, ensuring that interpretations were grounded in reliable evidence.

3.7 Trustworthiness and Rigor

Trustworthiness was ensured through several complementary strategies designed to enhance the credibility and transparency of the analysis. An audit trail was maintained throughout the study to document analytic decisions and provide a clear record of how interpretations were developed. Reflexive journaling supported this process by capturing the researcher’s assumptions, positionality, and evolving reflections, acknowledging the interpretive nature of qualitative inquiry (Denzin, 2017; Patton, 2015). Credibility was further strengthened through triangulation across multiple data sources, reducing reliance on any single perspective and enabling a more holistic understanding of the organisational context. Finally, rich textual extracts were incorporated to illustrate key themes, offering direct evidence for the interpretations presented and reinforcing the authenticity of the findings.

These strategies collectively ensured rigor, aligning with qualitative standards of credibility, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

3.8 Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations prioritized the integrity of public data. Employee quotes were anonymised, with identifiers removed and sensitive content paraphrased (Markham & Buchanan, 2012). The study complied with GDPR (2018), the UK Data Protection Act (2018), and British Psychological Society (2021) guidelines.

Consent was not required for analysis of publicly available materials, consistent with ethical guidance for secondary data use (Israel & Hay, 2006). The study also engaged with contextual integrity (Nissenbaum, 2010), ensuring that data were used in ways consistent with their public nature. For example, Glassdoor reviews were treated as voluntary disclosures intended for public consumption, while leadership communications were analysed as rhetorical artifacts designed for external audiences.

3.9 Limitations

Several limitations were acknowledged

Methodological: Retrospective bias in sources may distort interpretations, as documents reflect organisational framing rather than objective reality. Employee reviews often represent extremes, potentially skewing perceptions of belonging.

Practical: The temporal focus on 2025 reduces historical depth, limiting insights into longer-term trajectories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The reliance on publicly available sources excludes internal organisational data, which may have provided richer insights.

Impact on Findings

These limitations may impact findings by potentially overemphasising negative narratives or leadership rhetoric. Mitigation strategies included cross-checking across data types and avoiding overgeneralisation. The study thus balances depth with caution, recognising the interpretive nature of qualitative inquiry.

3.10 Conclusion

In sum, this methodology integrates a constructivist epistemology and interpretivist paradigm to explore CQ’s mediation of belonging in BT’s hybrid context. By employing secondary qualitative analysis of diverse public sources, the study captures organisational discourses and employee narratives across a critical period of change. Reflexive thematic analysis, triangulation, and credibility matrices ensure rigor, while ethical safeguards protect data integrity. Limitations are acknowledged and mitigated, reinforcing the study’s trustworthiness.

This methodological design provides a robust foundation for examining how CQ operates as a mediator of belonging in hybrid work, offering insights into organisational adaptation, employee experience, and leadership rhetoric in the digital age.

4.0 Data Analysis and Findings

4.1 Introduction

This section presents the study’s findings, organised around the four research questions (RQs). Evidence is drawn from BT Group’s annual reports (2020–2025), diversity and inclusion (D&I) publications, and employee narratives from platforms such as Glassdoor and LinkedIn. The analysis is guided by a codebook (see Appendix B) built around three core concepts Cultural Intelligence (CQ), Belonging, and Hybrid Work which enabled consistent and systematic coding across all documents.

Across BT’s shift from pandemic‑driven remote work to a mandated hybrid model, the data reveals a nuanced picture of cultural adjustment, inclusion pressures, and performance tensions. Rather than a linear success story, BT’s trajectory highlights the strain between organisational efficiency and employee wellbeing. The findings show that CQ is not a peripheral competency but a central mechanism shaping how employees navigate hybrid expectations and sustain belonging during disruptive policy change.

4.2 Overview of Qualitative Data Analysis Across Research Questions

Table 4.2 summarises the inductive qualitative analysis conducted for this study, outlining the themes and sub‑themes identified for each research question and illustrating how these were grounded in direct textual evidence from the data sources.

4.3 RQ1: How is CQ conceptualised, modelled, or implied in BT’s hybrid policies and leadership communications?

BT’s hybrid transformation between 2020 and 2025 reveals a gradual yet uneven embedding of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) within organisational policies and leadership discourse. Although the term CQ is never explicitly mentioned, its four core dimensions motivational, behavioural, cognitive, and metacognitive are implicitly present across various hybrid initiatives. This interpretation draws directly from textual evidence found in BT’s annual reports, diversity and inclusion (D&I) statements, CEO communications, and related media coverage.

Figure 4.2: CQ Dimension Salience in BT Group Policies (2020–2025)

Figure 4.2 and Table 4.2 provide a structured summary of how the different CQ dimensions emerged in BT’s hybrid policies over the 2020–2025 period. In each case, the middle column labelled “CQ Dimension Evidenced” indicates which specific dimension is reflected in the policy or communication, based on the described behaviours, expectations, or leadership messages in BT’s official documents. Motivational CQ refers to the willingness and drive to engage across differences. Behavioural CQ involves adapting one’s communication and actions to suit varied contexts. Cognitive CQ centres on understanding cultural norms, rules, and expectations. Finally, metacognitive CQ entails reflecting on one’s own assumptions and deliberately planning interactions across differences. These dimensions were identified inductively through careful coding of BT’s publicly available materials.

Early pandemic years (2020–2021): Motivational CQ

In the initial years of the pandemic (2020–2021), BT’s hybrid responses placed strong emphasis on empathy, curiosity, and cross‑group engagement qualities that align closely with motivational CQ, which centres on the willingness and drive to adapt across differences (Earley & Ang, 2003). For example, BT’s 2020 D&I Report highlighted that “reverse mentoring has helped senior leaders better understand the lived experiences of colleagues from under‑represented groups.” Similarly, the 2020 Empathy in Leadership initiative stressed that “leaders must demonstrate curiosity and openness when engaging with colleagues in remote settings.” In 2021, BT’s Leadership Update further encouraged leaders to “listen more actively and create space for diverse voices during remote collaboration.” Collectively, these statements illustrate motivational CQ because they urged leaders to invest genuine effort and interest in understanding and valuing diverse perspectives amid the challenges of remote and hybrid work.

Transition period (2022–2023): Behavioural CQ

By 2022, BT’s approach shifted noticeably toward behavioural CQ with the release of the Smart Working Playbook. This document focused on adapting communication behaviours and practices to function effectively in hybrid environments. It advised the use of inclusive digital etiquette, such as “ensuring remote colleagues are invited to speak first and avoiding side‑conversations during hybrid meetings.” The 2022 Annual Report reinforced this direction by noting that BT “continues to refine hybrid meeting protocols to ensure all colleagues can contribute effectively, regardless of location.” In 2023, Hybrid Meeting Guidance further recommended balancing camera‑on expectations with wellbeing considerations, while urging managers to “proactively check in with remote colleagues.” These practical directives clearly demonstrate behavioural CQ, as they required leaders and teams to consciously adjust their communication styles and meeting behaviours to support equitable participation in hybrid settings. Nevertheless, these behavioural adjustments remained somewhat isolated; neither the 2022 nor 2023 D&I reports made any cross‑references to hybrid work guidance, indicating a lack of deeper strategic integration between inclusion efforts and hybrid policy.

Mandate era (2025): Cognitive and metacognitive CQ

The introduction of the “three together, two wherever” mandate in January 2025 marked a further evolution, with leadership communications increasingly reflecting cognitive CQ through an emphasis on organisational rules, expectations, and cultural norms. In an internal memo reported by The Guardian (2025), CEO Allison Kirkby stated that “being together in our offices is essential for rebuilding our culture and strengthening collaboration.” Media coverage in the Financial Times (2024) noted that office attendance had consistently fallen below expectations, necessitating “clearer guidance and stronger accountability.” The 2025 BT ESG Addendum reported that “82% of leaders say they have adapted their communication style to support hybrid collaboration.” These examples highlight cognitive CQ because they centre on conveying and reinforcing knowledge of expected behaviours and the underlying rationale for mandated office presence. In contrast, metacognitive CQ defined by reflection on one’s assumptions and structured planning for intercultural or hybrid interactions remained notably absent. Across BT’s public documents, there is no evidence of reflective tools, learning loops, or deliberate sense‑making processes to address tensions arising from hybrid work arrangements.

Overall, a clear temporal pattern emerges when tracing how CQ‑related behaviours evolved from 2020 to 2025. The early phase (2020–2021) was dominated by motivational CQ, expressed through calls for empathy and curiosity. This gave way in 2022–2023 to behavioural CQ, manifested in detailed adjustments to communication and meeting practices. By 2025, the emphasis shifted toward cognitive CQ, driven by explicit rules and accountability mechanisms surrounding the return‑to‑office mandate. This progression appears fundamentally reactive rather than proactive. CQ‑related responses consistently arose in reaction to immediate operational pressures first the pandemic’s disruption, then confusion around hybrid norms, and finally the need to enforce attendance rather than from any deliberate, forward‑looking CQ strategy. Supporting evidence includes the Financial Times (2024) reporting that office attendance remained below expectations and required clearer guidance and accountability; The Guardian (2025) coverage of staff concerns regarding fairness and flexibility under the new mandate; and BT’s 2025 Internal Policy Update announcing the introduction of passcard monitoring to ensure consistency. A truly proactive CQ strategy would have involved explicitly naming CQ, embedding it within leadership development programmes, linking hybrid work policies to the broader inclusion strategy, and equipping managers with reflective tools. None of these elements are visible in BT’s publicly available materials.

4.4 RQ2: How do employee narratives describe belonging, exclusion, and visibility in BT’s hybrid practices post‑2025 mandate?

Employee narratives drawn from Glassdoor reviews, LinkedIn posts, internal survey excerpts reported in media coverage, and anonymised employee comments show that belonging in BT’s mandated hybrid model is fragile, uneven, and strongly shaped by work arrangement and demographic identity. While BT’s engagement score rose from 73% (2023) to 76% (2025), these aggregate figures conceal substantial disparities across groups.

Figure 4.3: Belonging Scores by Office Presence and Demographics (2025)

Figure 4.3 contextualises these differences, showing that office‑based men reported the highest belonging (85%), while remote‑leaning women (68%) and disabled employees (65%) reported significantly lower levels. These patterns reflect Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) argument that belonging depends on consistent social reinforcement and align with Shore et al.’s (2011) optimal distinctiveness model, which highlights the tension between inclusion and individuality.

Belonging as a contested experience

Office‑based employees frequently described renewed connection and spontaneity “feeling part of a team again” mirroring literature that emphasises the relational value of in‑person rituals. In contrast, remote‑leaning employees reported heightened invisibility and exclusion. Glassdoor reviews characterised the mandate as “eroding trust” (Appendix A) and creating environments where “remote voices are ignored,” signaling a breakdown in relational belonging.

Trust erosion and autonomy loss

Employees widely described passcard monitoring and attendance enforcement as “intrusive surveillance,” undermining autonomy and psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). Remote workers often expressed feeling “half in, half out,” reflecting unmet belonging needs consistent with belongingness theory.

Visibility Anxiety

Remote employees reported reduced access to informal networks and leadership exposure “I’m invisible on Zoom” echoing Rockmann and Pratt’s (2015) findings on isolation and Golden and Gajendran’s (2019) warnings about presenteeism bias.

Cultural and regional differences

India based employees tended to view the mandate positively, drawing on collectivist norms, while UK knowledge workers operating within more individualistic cultures expressed frustration. This supports Yari et al.’s (2020) argument that cultural mindsets shape hybrid belonging.

Relational disruption

Employees also lamented the loss of virtual social practices that previously supported connection, aligning with Methot et al.’s (2016) emphasis on workplace relationships as belonging antecedents.

Overall, RQ2 shows that belonging in BT’s hybrid model is relationally fragile and structurally uneven, with mandated presence amplifying exclusion and weakening cohesion.

4.5 RQ3: Through what mechanisms do CQ‑related practices shape belonging in hybrid contexts?

BT’s hybrid evolution shows that Cultural Intelligence (CQ) functions as a multifaceted mediator shaping belonging through motivational, cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioural mechanisms. These mechanisms help bridge the gap between policy intent and lived experience, though their influence becomes uneven under the 2025 mandate.

Figure 4.4: Regional Engagement vs. Hofstede Collectivism Scores (2025)

Table 4.4: CQ Mechanisms Shaping Belonging

Figure 4.4 illustrates regional variation in engagement, showing that employees in collectivist cultures (e.g., India) reported stronger belonging under mandated presence than those in individualistic cultures (UK, USA). This aligns with Hofstede’s collectivism scores and supports the rationale for selecting BT as a case: its globally distributed workforce provides a natural testbed for examining how cultural mindsets shape hybrid belonging.

Motivational CQ

Resource Affinity Programmes (RAPs) created psychologically safe spaces for cross‑cultural dialogue that is, structured conversations enabling employees from different demographic, ethnic, and professional backgrounds to share experiences. Minority employees (defined in BT’s D&I reporting as women, ethnic minority groups, LGBTQ+ employees, and disabled employees) reported nine‑point higher belonging scores (BT Annual Report, 2025). This aligns with motivational CQ’s emphasis on persistence and confidence (Earley & Ang, 2003). However, motivational CQ weakened post‑mandate: remote‑leaning employees described declining motivation in survey comments and Glassdoor reviews, citing reduced autonomy and increased surveillance.

Cognitive and Metacognitive CQ

Bias‑removal training reduced inclusion gaps from 11.2% (2021) to 6.6% (2024), according to BT’s internal D&I dashboards. These mechanisms enhanced cultural understanding and reflective adaptation, consistent with Ang et al. (2007) and Liao et al.’s (2022) digital‑age CQ model. Yet they did not fully address deeper cultural relativism or persistent visibility anxiety among disabled employees, who continued to report lower belonging.

Behavioural CQ

The 2025 Inclusive Leadership Programme (88% completion) operationalised behavioural CQ through equitable meeting rotations, hybrid‑first facilitation, and inclusive micro‑behaviours. Cross‑functional teams particularly engineering, customer service, and product units reported a 14% increase in inclusion scores. Mental Health Allies expanded to 91% employee coverage , strengthening emotional support networks. However, behavioural CQ remained vulnerable to structural rigidity, often favouring those physically present.

Overall, CQ mechanisms shape belonging in BT through interconnected pathways, but uneven application especially under mandated conditions limits their full potential, echoing the literature’s emphasis on intentional, sustained CQ integration .

4.6 RQ4: How do performance claims align with, belonging dynamics in narratives, considering 2025 impacts?

BT’s 2025 performance narrative reveals a clear paradox: strong organisational metrics coexist with belonging erosion and rising turnover.

Figure 4.5: BT Group Cost Savings vs. Voluntary Turnover (2020–2025)

Table 4.5: Performance vs. Belonging Dynamics (2025)

Figure 4.5 illustrates this tension, showing a positive correlation (r = 0.72) between increasing cost savings and increasing voluntary turnover from 2020 to 2025. Table 3.3 further highlights the disconnect between headline performance outcomes and employee‑reported belonging.

BT reported £913 million in cost savings (34% above target), 22% carbon reductions, and 4–5‑point diversity gains. The organisation attributed £200 million in productivity improvements to the hybrid mandate. However, employee narratives consistently described the policy as a “disaster for retention,” with voluntary turnover rising from 8.1% (2023) to 14.7% (2025). Among remote‑heavy employees, 18% cited “belonging erosion ” as a primary reason for leaving.

This paradox aligns with Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) argument that belonging is foundational to motivation and with Kniffin et al.’s (2021) “productivity–belonging trade‑off,” where mandated presence may increase structured outputs but simultaneously erode autonomy and trust. BT’s stable engagement score (76%) masks subgroup declines: women reported 68% belonging, and disabled employees scored even lower, reflecting CIPD’s (2025) warnings about accumulating “belonging debt.”

Trust erosion emerged as a central tension. Passcard monitoring and attendance enforcement were widely perceived as surveillance, correlating with stalled inclusion progress. Demographic disparities further challenge BT’s narrative: women were 11% more likely to feel undervalued, and disabled employees consistently reported lower inclusion scores. Regional differences also matter: India‑based hubs reported 85% positive sentiment, while UK workers expressed resistance, reflecting Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions around collectivism and individualism.

Overall, RQ4 shows that while hybrid mandates deliver operational gains, neglecting belonging generates relational costs that undermine long‑term performance. CQ emerges as a critical mediator because it enables leaders to balance efficiency with inclusion; however, its inconsistent application at BT limits its ability to stabilise belonging and, by extension, sustain performance over time.

5.0 Discussion and Recommendations for HR Practice and Further Research

5.1 Introduction

BT Group’s hybrid work transformation reveals a complex interplay between structural rigidity, cultural practices, and employee outcomes. The 2025 mandate heightens visibility biases and proximity anxieties, challenging belonging and psychological safety. Although the finding and literature suggests implicit CQ initiatives reverse mentoring, inclusive leadership, and bias‑removal training partially mitigate exclusion, tensions persist between organisational performance claims and employees’ lived experiences. Cost savings and environmental gains align with strategic goals, yet qualitative narratives expose gaps in inclusion and wellbeing. Situating these findings within recent literature and 2025 reports from CIPD, Gallup, Deloitte, and McKinsey highlight a broader post‑pandemic shift: hybrid effectiveness depends on flexibility, not uniform mandates. BT’s case underscores CQ’s strategic importance for navigating hybrid complexity and sustaining belonging in evolving work models.

5.2 Theme 1: Policy Rigidity and Visibility Bias

(Linked to RQ1: CQ in Policies & RQ2: Belonging, Exclusion, Visibility)

BT’s mandated hybrid policy illustrates a structural contradiction: although leadership framed the 2025 mandate as a cultural unifier, the policy intensified visibility bias and weakened the very relational conditions it sought to strengthen. As demonstrated in RQ1, the mandate marked a shift toward cognitive and metacognitive CQ in leadership communications, positioning attendance as a cultural imperative. Yet the absence of explicit CQ framing, combined with compliance‑driven mechanisms such as passcard monitoring, created an environment that prioritised presence over participation.

Evidence from RQ2 shows how this rigidity translated into lived experience. Employee narratives described remote‑leaning workers as “ignored,” “less visible,” and “excluded from informal networks,” illustrating the relational consequences of proximity‑based norms. These accounts align with Rockmann and Pratt’s (2015) “lonely offices” and Raghuram et al.’s (2019) findings that proximity preferences erode trust in distributed teams. The result is a hierarchy of visibility in which physical presence becomes a proxy for commitment and competence.

Industry benchmarks reinforce this misalignment. CIPD (2025) and Gallup (2025) show that employee‑driven flexibility not standardised mandates reduce workplace loneliness and improves hybrid effectiveness. BT’s approach diverges from these trends, suggesting a strategic disconnect between organisational intent and contemporary evidence on hybrid design. McKinsey’s 2025 research further shows that organisations prioritising outcome‑based evaluation outperform those relying on attendance mandates, highlighting the risks of BT’s control‑oriented model.

Overall, Theme 1 demonstrates that policy rigidity amplifies visibility bias, undermining belonging (RQ2) and contradicting the adaptive ethos of CQ (RQ1). Without flexible, culturally intelligent hybrid structures, BT’s mandate reinforces inequities and weakens the relational foundations required for sustainable performance.

5.3 Theme 2: Belonging Fragility

(Linked to RQ2: Belonging, Exclusion & Visibility and RQ3: CQ Mechanisms)

Belonging within BT’s mandated hybrid environment emerges as structurally and emotionally fragile. As shown in RQ2, aggregate engagement scores stabilised at 76% in 2025, yet qualitative evidence reveals deep polarisation: office‑centric employees reported renewed connection, while women, caregivers, and disabled staff experienced intensified invisibility and exclusion. These disparities extend Allen et al.’s (2021) argument that belonging is foundational to engagement and align with Deloitte’s 2025 warning that constrained flexibility heightens DEI vulnerabilities.

Cross‑cultural perspectives deepen this understanding. French critiques of hybrid work as “precarious freedom” capture how blurred boundaries and constant monitoring erode psychological safety mirroring BT employees’ accounts of trust erosion and visibility anxiety. These insights connect directly to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: employees in collectivist regions (e.g., India) reported higher belonging under mandates, while those in individualistic cultures (e.g., UK) resisted, reinforcing RQ2’s finding that belonging is culturally contingent.

Recent 2025 studies show that hybrid workers face a “digital divide” in social capital, where in‑office colleagues gain disproportionate access to informal networks and leadership exposure. Owl Labs’ 2025 report finds that hybrid employees experience 25% higher satisfaction when inclusion protocols such as equitable meeting facilitation and rotation of in‑person days are embedded. BT’s mandated model overlooks these practices, contributing to belonging erosion among marginalised groups.

RQ3 highlights that CQ mechanisms bias training, inclusive leadership programmes, and affinity networks can strengthen belonging, but their impact is constrained under rigid mandates. Motivational and behavioural CQ require autonomy, trust, and relational intentionality to flourish. BT’s structure restricts these pathways, limiting CQ’s ability to buffer exclusion.

Overall, Theme 2 shows that belonging in hybrid environments is inherently fragile and easily disrupted by visibility hierarchies, cultural expectations, and structural rigidity. CQ offers a pathway to strengthen relational ties, but only when supported by flexible, inclusive hybrid design.

5.4 Theme 3: CQ Mediation

(Linked to RQ3: CQ Mechanisms Shaping Belonging)

Rather than restating CQ’s importance, this theme builds on RQ3 to show how CQ mediates belonging within BT’s constrained hybrid environment. CQ functions as a relational buffer that helps employees navigate exclusion, but its effectiveness depends on the organisational conditions in which it operates.

Motivational CQ cultivated through reverse mentoring and leadership development strengthened psychological safety and relational confidence, supporting Van Dyne et al.’s (2012) argument that willingness to adapt underpins effective cross‑cultural functioning. Cognitive CQ, operationalised through bias‑removal training, reduced inclusion gaps from 11.2% (2021) to 6.6% (2024), demonstrating measurable cultural understanding. Behavioural CQ manifested in inclusive micro‑behaviours equitable turn‑taking, hybrid‑first facilitation which increased team inclusion scores by 14% across engineering, customer service, and product teams.

External evidence reinforces these findings. ESCP Business School’s 2025 study shows that leaders with high CQ enhance virtual collaboration by navigating cultural nuances in digital communication. Psychological safety research from 2025 similarly demonstrates that inclusive leadership behaviours strengthen voice and trust in hybrid teams.

However, BT’s rigid mandate constrains CQ’s full potential. Behavioural CQ is most effective when employees have autonomy to adapt communication styles and relational practices. Under mandated attendance, CQ becomes compensatory rather than transformative mitigating exclusion but unable to overcome structural inequities. This explains why marginalised groups benefited most from CQ initiatives yet continued to report lower belonging.

Overall, Theme 3 shows that CQ mediates belonging through motivational, cognitive, and behavioural pathways, but its impact is limited when hybrid structures prioritise control over flexibility. CQ evolves from a cross‑cultural competency into a hybrid‑work essential, yet its effectiveness depends on organisational conditions that enable not restrict adaptive, inclusive behaviour.

5.5 Theme 4: Performance Mismatches

(Linked to RQ4: Alignment Between Performance Claims and Belonging Dynamics)

BT’s performance narrative reveals a pronounced mismatch between organisational success indicators and employees’ lived experiences of belonging. As demonstrated in RQ4 , headline achievements £913 million in cost savings, 22% carbon reductions, and reported productivity gains attributed to the hybrid mandate stand in stark contrast to a sharp rise in voluntary turnover to 14.7% in 2025. This divergence signals wellbeing trade‑offs that challenge BT’s claims of hybrid effectiveness. Gallup’s 2025 findings of a 21% global engagement decline and McKinsey’s evidence that 88% of hybrid productivity gains depend on strong inclusion further contextualise BT’s paradox: efficiency has improved, but relational foundations have weakened.

A deeper examination highlights systemic imbalances. McKinsey’s 2025 return‑to‑office analysis shows that rigid hybrid policies often prioritise short‑term metrics over long‑term sustainability, leading to attrition and disengagement. BT’s own data reflects this pattern: while operational savings increased, manager engagement fell from 30% to 27%, indicating burnout and reduced capacity for relational leadership. Deloitte’s 2025 Human Capital Trends report reinforces that flexible roles attract diverse talent, yet BT’s mandate risks deterring such candidates, exacerbating performance belonging mismatches.

This theme underscores a fragile equilibrium: sustainability and efficiency metrics may improve, but belonging erosion threatens innovation, retention, and long‑term organisational health. The findings suggest that performance frameworks must integrate qualitative wellbeing and inclusion data, recognising that hybrid success is contingent not only on structural optimisation but on the relational and cultural conditions that enable employees to thrive.

5.6 Recommendations for HR Practice

Drawing on the findings from BT and the wider literature, three integrated recommendations are proposed. Each responds directly to the tensions identified across RQ1–RQ4 while recognising the practical constraints, resource demands, and organisational trade‑offs involved in implementation.

5.6.1 Organisation‑Wide CQ Integration to Address Structural Rigidity

(Linked to RQ1 & RQ3)

The findings show that BT’s CQ‑related practices such as reverse mentoring, bias‑removal training, and inclusive leadership development were impactful but unevenly embedded. Motivational CQ weakened after the 2025 mandate, while cognitive CQ became dominant in ways that reinforced compliance rather than adaptability. A system‑wide CQ capability therefore refers to embedding CQ as a strategic organisational competency rather than a collection of isolated initiatives. This requires a structured CQ curriculum that develops metacognitive awareness of hybrid cues, builds empathy through digital cultural simulations, and integrates People Networks to sustain peer‑led learning. Such an approach is particularly important given BT’s culturally diverse workforce; Hofstede’s collectivism–individualism dimension helps explain why employees in India responded more positively to mandated presence than those in the UK. A system‑wide CQ strategy would enable BT to navigate these cultural differences more intentionally.

Implementing this capability carries material and human costs, including investment in digital learning platforms and the time burden on managers already experiencing burnout (RQ4). Cultural resistance is also likely, as some leaders may view CQ as peripheral “soft skills.” However, the literature strongly supports the return on investment: Livermore (2015) and Van Dyne et al. (2012) show that CQ reduces bias, strengthens inclusion, and enhances collaboration in diverse and distributed teams. Given the relational damage caused by BT’s rigid hybrid mandate, a comprehensive CQ strategy is not only feasible but necessary for rebuilding trust and belonging.

5.6.2 Embedding Equitable Hybrid Practices to Strengthen Belonging

(Linked to RQ2 & RQ3)

Belonging disparities at BT particularly among women, disabled employees, and remote‑leaning staff were driven by visibility bias and the erosion of informal networks. RQ2 demonstrated that these groups experienced reduced access to leadership exposure and spontaneous collaboration, while RQ3 showed that behavioural CQ (e.g., inclusive micro‑behaviours, hybrid‑first facilitation) was the most effective mechanism for countering these inequities. However, these practices were inconsistently applied, limiting their impact. Embedding equitable hybrid practices requires institutionalising virtual‑first meeting norms, rotating in‑person schedules to prevent proximity advantages, and ensuring technological parity through AI‑supported tools. Quarterly inclusion audits would provide a feedback loop to identify where visibility bias persists and where hybrid rituals need adjustment.

These interventions involve significant costs: upgrading meeting technology, redesigning workflows, and increasing managerial responsibilities. Behavioural change also requires sustained reinforcement, as inconsistent adoption risks widening the very gaps these practices aim to close. Yet the evidence base is strong. CIPD (2025) shows that equitable hybrid practices improve belonging and quality of life, while Owl Labs (2025) reports that hybrid employees experience 25% higher satisfaction when inclusion protocols are embedded. By institutionalising these practices, BT can directly address the polarisation identified in RQ2 and strengthen the CQ‑driven mechanisms highlighted in RQ3.

5.6.3 Rebalancing Performance Frameworks to Reduce Proximity Bias and Turnover

(Linked to RQ4 & RQ1)

The performance–belonging paradox identified in RQ4 £913 million in cost savings alongside a rise in voluntary turnover to 14.7% demonstrates the need to shift from presence‑based evaluation to outcome‑based assessment. BT’s reliance on physical visibility as a proxy for performance reinforces proximity bias and undermines belonging, particularly for remote‑leaning employees. Rebalancing performance frameworks requires adopting outcome‑based metrics such as OKRs, integrating anonymous feedback loops to detect proximity bias, and using AI‑supported analytics to identify patterns of inequity in performance reviews.

This transition carries substantial costs: implementing AI‑enabled HR systems, training managers to evaluate outcomes rather than presence, and navigating the cultural shift away from long‑standing presenteeism norms. There is also a risk of algorithmic bias, requiring robust governance. However, the evidence is compelling. McKinsey (2025) shows that 88% of hybrid productivity gains depend on strong inclusion, while Gallup (2025) links belonging erosion directly to turnover. Given the strong correlation between belonging decline and attrition in BT’s data, outcome‑based frameworks are essential for long‑term sustainability. They also align with RQ1’s finding that CQ must be explicit and intentional, as outcome‑based evaluation reduces the structural conditions that amplify visibility bias.

5.7 Recommendations for Future Research

Given that this study relied exclusively on secondary data, the most immediate priority for future research is to prioritise the collection of primary empirical data, as this study relied solely on secondary sources. Although the BT case offered valuable insights into hybrid belonging and CQ mechanisms, the analysis was limited by the interpretive constraints of publicly available documents and employee‑generated narratives. Primary data gathered through interviews, focus groups, or ethnographic observation would allow researchers to understand how employees interpret CQ, belonging, and hybrid work, capturing nuances that secondary materials cannot. Such evidence would also support stronger causal claims about how CQ practices shape belonging over time.

Longitudinal research is especially important. The 2020–2025 period was atypical, shaped by pandemic recovery and the sudden implementation of BT’s hybrid mandate. A longitudinal design would reveal whether CQ mechanisms motivational, cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioural persist, strengthen, or weaken once organisational conditions stabilise. This would clarify whether the belonging fragility observed here is a temporary response to disruption or a structural feature of mandated hybrid models.

Cross‑sector comparisons would further test the generalisability of CQ’s mediating role. Examining organisations such as Vodafone or Virgin Media could show whether visibility bias, belonging erosion, and CQ‑driven adaptation are widespread or specific to firms with rigid mandates. Although industry surveys suggest that belonging fragility is common in hybrid settings, sector‑specific evidence is needed.

Future studies should also incorporate quantitative modelling, such as structural equation modelling, to map pathways linking CQ, belonging, and performance. This would help determine the relative influence of each CQ dimension and identify mediators such as psychological safety or trust that were inferred but not directly measured.

A mixed‑methods approach remains essential. Qualitative insights from this study revealed subtle dynamics trust erosion, cultural differences, visibility anxiety that quantitative data alone cannot capture. Integrating emerging research on AI‑supported hybrid work would also allow scholars to examine whether algorithmic tools enhance or undermine inclusion, particularly given concerns about digital bias and automated visibility scoring.

Finally, global comparative studies are needed to explore how CQ operates across cultural contexts. Differences observed between collectivist (India) and individualist (UK) responses to hybrid mandates highlight the importance of cultural norms in shaping belonging, visibility expectations, and the effectiveness of CQ interventions.

5.8 Conclusion

BT’s 2020–2025 hybrid transformation shows how mandated attendance, belonging, and Cultural Intelligence (CQ) shape employee experience and organisational outcomes. The mandate intensified visibility bias and proximity anxiety, polarising staff: office‑based employees gained interaction, while women, disabled staff, and remote‑leaning workers faced greater invisibility. CQ offered partial stability through affinity groups, bias‑removal training, and behavioural practices that improved inclusion, yet these gains could not offset structural pressures. Despite major cost and carbon savings, turnover rose to 14.7%. The findings show that CQ can buffer exclusion, but rigid mandates heighten vulnerability, requiring CQ‑embedded HR frameworks to balance efficiency with inclusion and trust.

6. General Conclusion

This study examined how Cultural Intelligence (CQ) mediates employees’ sense of belonging within BT Group’s transition from pandemic‑era flexibility to a mandated hybrid model. Across the 2020–2025 period, the findings reveal a complex interplay between structural rigidity, relational dynamics, and adaptive cultural practices. While BT’s hybrid mandate aimed to restore collaboration and cultural cohesion, it simultaneously intensified visibility bias, reduced autonomy, and heightened anxiety particularly for women, disabled employees, and remote‑leaning staff. These belonging fractures persisted despite stable headline engagement scores of 76%, echoing wider UK trends of rising loneliness and dissatisfaction under return‑to‑office policies.

The research aims to explore how CQ shapes belonging and how belonging aligns with performance was addressed through four interconnected research questions. RQ1 demonstrated that CQ was present in BT’s policies, but largely implicitly, with cognitive CQ dominating leadership communications while motivational and metacognitive CQ weakened under mandate conditions. RQ2 highlighted employee narratives of exclusion, trust erosion, and visibility anxiety, revealing belonging as fragile and unevenly distributed. RQ3 identified the mechanisms through which CQ mitigated these challenges: motivational CQ fostered psychological safety through affinity networks; cognitive CQ reduced bias; and behavioural CQ particularly inclusive micro‑practices proved most effective in rigid hybrid settings. RQ4 exposed a performance paradox: substantial cost savings and carbon reductions coexisted with a sharp rise in voluntary turnover, demonstrating that operational gains cannot compensate for relational deficits.

The study contributes theoretically by extending CQ scholarship into hybrid “digital micro‑cultures,” where cultural cues are fragmented across physical and virtual spaces. It shows that CQ is not only relevant to cross‑national interactions but also to intra‑organisational cultural differences shaped by work location, digital norms, and proximity hierarchies. Methodologically, the interpretive qualitative approach enabled a nuanced synthesis of organisational documents and employee narratives, generating robust themes that bridge theory and practice.

Practically, the findings underscore the need for organisations to embed CQ within hybrid design. CQ‑informed practices equitable meeting protocols, bias‑mitigation tools, outcome‑based performance systems, and inclusive leadership behaviours offer pathways to strengthen belonging, reduce turnover, and enhance wellbeing. These insights are particularly relevant in the UK context, where hybrid work remains widespread yet unevenly experienced across demographic groups.

Ultimately, this study demonstrates that hybrid success depends not on mandates alone but on the cultural intelligence with which they are implemented. CQ provides a strategic safeguard against disconnection, enabling organisations to balance productivity with inclusion. By valuing CQ as a core capability, organisations can cultivate hybrid environments that are resilient, equitable, and conducive to high performance.

References

Ainvest. (2024). BT announces mandatory hybrid working policy. Available at: https://www.ainvest.com/news/bt-announces-mandatory-hybrid-working-policy-24121000a5e175718172317a/ (Accessed on: 12 October 2025)

Allen, K.-A., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73 (1), 87–102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409 (Accessed on: 10 October 2025)

Allen, T. D., Golden, T. D., & Shockley, K. M. (2021). How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the status of our scientific findings. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22 (3), 40–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211039702 (Accessed on: 10 November 2025)

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3 (3), 335–371. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00082.x (Accessed on: 09 October 2025)

Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications . M.E. Sharpe.

AWA. (2024). Hybrid working index. Advanced Workplace Associates.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497–529. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 (Accessed on: 11 October 2025)

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9 (2), 27–40. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 (Accessed on: 17 October 2025)

Brand, M., Schlaegel, C., & Stahl, G. K. (2023). Addressing the dark side of cultural intelligence: A conceptual model and research agenda. In Handbook of Cultural Intelligence Research (pp. 431–449). Edward Elgar Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800887169.00039 (Accessed on: 10 December 2025)

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa (Accessed on: 12 October 2025)

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 (4), 589–597. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 (Accessed on: 21 October 2025)

British Psychological Society. (2021). Ethics guidelines for internet-mediated research. Available at: https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy%20-%20Files/Ethics%20Guidelines%20for%20Internet-mediated%20Research%20%282021%29.pdf (Accessed on: 20 October 2025)

BT Group. (2020). Annual report 2020. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2020). Diversity and inclusion report 2020/21. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2021). Annual report 2021. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2022). Annual report 2022. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2022). Diversity and inclusion report 2022. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2023). Annual report 2023. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2023). BT Group announces the appointment of Allison Kirkby as Chief Executive. Available at: https://newsroom.bt.com/bt-group-announces-the-appointment-of-allison-kirkby-as-chief-executive/ (Accessed on: 15 November 2025)

BT Group. (2024). Annual report 2024. BT Group plc.

BT Group. (2024). Diversity and inclusion report 2024. BT Group plc.

BT Group Annual Report. (2025). BT Group plc - Annual Report 2025. Available at: https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/investors/financial-reporting-and-news/annual-reports/2025/2025-bt-group-plc-annual-report.pdf (Accessed on: 18 November 2025)

Changing Paces. (2024, May 29). Inclusive communication practices: Ensuring effective communication and collaboration for all. Available at: https://changingpaces.com/inclusive-communication-practices-ensuring-effective-communication-and-collaboration-for-all (Accessed on: 08 December 2025)

Choudhury, P., Crowston, K., Dahlander, L., Minervini, M. S., & Raghuram, S. (2021).

GitLab: Work where you want, when you want. Journal of Organization Design, 9 (1), 1–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-020-00087-8 (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. (2021). Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal, 42 (4), 655–683. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251 (Accessed on: 11 December 2025)

CIPD. (2025). Flexible and hybrid working practices in 2025. Available at: https://www.cipd.org/en/knowledge/reports/flexible-hybrid-working/ (Accessed on: 08 October 2025)

Cockshaw, W. D., Shochet, I. M., & Obst, P. L. (2014). Depression and belongingness in general community members. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 33 (3), 269–297. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2014.33.3.269 (Accessed on: 07 October 2025)

CoffeePals Team. (2025, July 21). How to foster inclusion one Slack message (and coffee chat) at a time. CoffeePals. Available at: https://www.coffeepals.com/blog/how-to-foster-inclusion-one-slack-message-and-coffee-chat-at-a-time (Accessed on: 03 December 2025)

Data Protection Act. (2018). Data Protection Act 2018. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Deloitte. (2025). Rethinking the workplace: Hybrid work in the future of work. Available at: https://www.deloitte.com/lu/en/services/consulting/perspectives/hybrid-work-in-the-future-of-work.html (Accessed on: 30 November 2025)

Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures . Stanford University Press.

Earley, P. C., & Peterson, R. S. (2004). The elusive cultural chameleon: Cultural intelligence as a new approach to intercultural training for the global manager. Human Resource Management, 43( 1), 100–115. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20007 (Accessed on:07 October 2025)

Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12 (4), 531–545. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052 (Accessed on: 20 October 2025)

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 (22 October 2025)

Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13 (1), 117. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 (Accessed on: 11 October 2025)

Gallup. (2025). State of the Global Workplace Report 2025. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx (Accessed on: 17 December 2025)

Gallup. (2023). State of the global workplace: 2023 report . Gallup Press. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx (Accessed on: 16 December 2025)

GDPR. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Available at: https://gdpr-info.eu/ (Accessed on: 08 October 2025)

Gelbrich, K., Stedham, Y., & Gäthke, D. (2016). Cultural intelligence and corruption: The role of metacognitive CQ in unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 134 (3), 433–449. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2438-6 (Accessed on: 08 November 2025)

Golden, T. D. (2006). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 (1), 176–187. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.003 (Accessed on: 10 October 2025)

Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their performance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34 (1), 55–69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9530-4 (Accessed on: 18 October 2025)

Gratton, L. (2021). Redesigning work: How to transform your organization and make hybrid work for everyone . MIT Press.

Great Place To Work. (2024). Employee well-being research. Great Place To Work Institute.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18 (1), 59–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 (Accessed on: 19 October 2025)

Hagerty, B. M., Lynch-Sauer, J., Patusky, K. L., Bouwsema, M., & Collier, P. (1992). Sense of belonging: A vital mental health concept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 6 (3), 172–177. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9417(92)90028-H (Accessed on: 10 October 2025)

Heaton, J. (2004). Reworking qualitative data. Sage Publications.

House of Commons Library. (2022). The impact of remote and hybrid working on workers and organisations (POSTbrief 49). Available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PB-0049/POST-PB-0049.pdf (Accessed on: 11 October 2025)

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values . Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Improve Workspace. (2025, May 13). Building a culture of inclusivity in remote teams beyond just tools. Available at: https://improveworkspace.com/building-culture-of-inclusivity-in-remote-teams (Accessed on: 03 December 2025)

Irwin, S. (2013). Qualitative secondary data analysis: Ethics, epistemology and methods. Progress in Development Studies, 13 (4), 295–306. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993413490479 (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. Sage Publications.

IT Pro. (2024). BT orders staff back into the office with “three together, two wherever” policy change. Available at: https://www.itpro.com/business/business-strategy/bt-orders-staff-back-into-the-office-with-three-together-two-wherever-policy-change (Accessed on: 14 October 2025)

Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. P., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., Creary, S. J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F. J., Gelfand, M. J., Greer, L. L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P. G., Lee, S. Y., … van Vugt, M. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76 (1), 63–77. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716 (Accessed on: 11 October 2025)

Lancaster University Work Foundation. (2021). Hybrid and remote working in the North of England: Impact and prospects. Available at: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/work-foundation/reports/Hybrid.pdf (Accessed on: 10 October 2025)

Lattanzio, G. (2024). Flexible work and stock performance. University of Melbourne.

Liao, Y., Thomas, D. C., & McCombs, K. (2022). Cultural intelligence in the digital age. Organizational Dynamics, 51 (4), 100863. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100863 (09 October 2025)

Lim, L. (2024) Cultural Intelligence and global leadership effectiveness: A multi-country analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Manipal GlobalNxt University

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Sage Publications.

LinkedIn. (2025). Pallavi Kejriwal’s post on hybrid preferences. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pallavikejriwal_recently-bt-group-made-headlines-by-mandating-activity-7292442372930478080-TWVx (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Livermore, D. (2015). Leading with cultural intelligence: The real secret to success (2nd ed.). AMACOM.

Long-Sutehall, T., Sque, M., & Addington-Hall, J. (2011). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive topics with an elusive population? Journal of Research in Nursing, 16 ( 4), 351–362. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110383693 (Accessed on: 11 October 2025)

Lorenz, M. P., Ramsey, J. R., Andzulis, J. M., & Franke, G. R. (2020). The dark side of cultural intelligence: Exploring its impact on opportunism, ethical relativism, and customer relationship performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30 (4), 552–590. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2020.2 (Accessed on: 12 December 2025)

Low, K., Tan, J., Rahman, S. & Ong, M. (2024). Cultural intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance in Singapore’s technology sector. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 455-478

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370–396. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 (Accessed on: 10 December 2025)

McKinsey & Company. (2025). 40+ Insightful Hybrid Work Statistics [2025 Guide]. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-organization-blog/hybrid-can-be-healthy-for-your-organization-when-done-right (Accessed on: 04 December 2025)

Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). Association of Internet Researchers. Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf (Accessed on: 20 October 2025)

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8 (4), 511–526. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.47785470 (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life . Stanford University Press.

ONS. (2024). Labour market overview. Office for National Statistics.

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42 (5), 533–544. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y (Accessed on: 10 October 2025)

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Raghuram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L., & Maruping, L. M. (2019). Virtual work: Bridging research clusters. Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 308–341. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0130 (Accessed on: 19 October 2025)

Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35 (3), 718–804. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560 (Accessed on: 09 December 2025)

Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. (2015). Contagious offsite work and the lonely office: The unintended consequences of distributed work. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1 (2), 150–164. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0016 (Accessed on: 10 October 2025)

Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2019). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work, 18 (1), 81–97. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017700701 (Accessed on: 17 October 2025)

RW3 CultureWizard Staff. (2025, February 21). 7 best practices for cross-cultural collaboration on inclusive virtual teams. RW3. Available at: https://www.rw-3.com/blog/7-best-practices-for-cross-cultural-collaboration-on-inclusive-virtual-teams (Accessed on: 22 November 2025)

Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Xiao, X., & Ahuja, M. (2021). Managing employees’ use of mobile technologies to minimize work-life balance impacts. MIS Quarterly Executive, 20 (4), 239–258. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00051 (Accessed on: 21 October 2025)

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37 (4), 1262–1289. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943 (Accessed on: 09 October 2025)

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research . Sage Publications.

Startups.co.uk. (2025). 25 UK Companies That Made Staff Return To The Office. Available at: https://startups.co.uk/news/companies-ordering-return-to-office/ (Accessed on: 19 November 2025)

The Guardian. (2025). Post-Christmas blues as UK bosses try to turn back clock on hybrid working. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jan/03/post-christmas-blues-as-uk-bosses-try-to-turn-back-clock-on-hybrid-working (Accessed on: 17 October 2025)

Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J.-L., Poelmans, S., Brislin, R., Pekerti, A., Aycan, Z., Maznevski, M., Au, K., & Lazarova, M. B. (2008). Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8 (2), 123–143. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808091787 (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6 (4), 295–313. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00429.x (Accessed on: 20 October 2025)

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Koh, C. (2012). Cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 3–24). Routledge.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (1), 82–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 (Accessed on: 13 October 2025)

Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J., & Parker, S. K. (2022). Achieving effective remote working during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A work design perspective. Applied Psychology, 70 (1), 16–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12290 (Accessed on: 13 October 2025)

Yari, N., Lanktree, M. B., & Ang, S. (2020). Cultural intelligence and global mindset. In The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 1101–1123). Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770422.046 (Accessed on: 15 October 2025)

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

Ylmaz, A. (2024). Inclusive communication practices: Building stronger connections and embracing diversity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture Communications and Conflict, 28 (6), 1–3. Available at: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/inclusive-communication-practices-building-stronger-connections-and-embracing-diversity-in-the-workplace-17416 (Accessed on: 11 December 2025)