Why CREM must also consider the organizational issue
Few topics have shaped the discussion around corporate real estate in recent years as much as Hybrid Work. The reflexive response of many companies: a space ratio. Less presence, fewer desks, fewer square meters – and the issue appears to be addressed.
This response falls short. Hybrid Work does not just change how much space a company needs. It changes how work is done in that company.
More than a space ratio
Anyone who reduces Hybrid Work to a square-meter issue overlooks the actual shifts. These include in particular:
- Collaboration and team logic,
- Leadership at a distance,
- Employer attractiveness and expectations of the workplace,
- Service expectations of the office,
- the fundamental role of the office in the company.
None of these points can be answered through space reduction alone. n the organization. However, they do not yet indicate whether CREM has the necessary capabilities, data, and processes.
An interface task for CREM
This makes Hybrid Work an interface task for Corporate Real Estate Management. User requirements do not arise in a vacuum. They must be clarified jointly with HR, IT, specialist departments, communications, and co-determination before they can be translated into robust space and service decisions.
If this coordination is skipped, space decisions are made quickly, but miss the organization's actual requirements.
Asking the right question
The obvious question – How much space do we need? – is therefore the wrong first question. What matters is:
Which work environment supports which form of work? And how flexibly must the portfolio be able to respond to changing usage patterns?
This question cannot be answered in general terms. It depends on the business model, the team structure, and the expectations of the respective user groups.
Trend or structural pressure? The role of the Change Driver
Not every company that talks about Hybrid Work is also under real pressure to adapt. This is precisely where the Change Driver within the CREM[strategy]works framework comes in: it classifies external and internal drivers of change – from new forms of work to regulatory or economic developments – and makes it visible whether this actually creates structural pressure to act for the organization itself, or whether a trend is merely named but does not really become effective.
Two reactions that fall short
In practice, two typical reactions can be observed, both of which fall short.
The first is pure space reduction: desks are removed without clarifying which forms of work are actually to be supported in future. The space shrinks, but the underlying organizational issue remains unresolved.
The second is unreflective adoption of a trend: Hybrid Work concepts are introduced because other companies are doing it too – without examining whether the company’s own context, business model, and user groups actually create the same pressure to adapt.torically plausible and professionally sound.
Two reactions that fall short
Hybrid Work is not a space issue alone. It is an organizational issue that recalibrates collaboration, leadership, and the role of the office. Only when business and user requirements are concrete can the workplace, space strategy, and organization be meaningfully developed further.
The wrong Hybrid Work question is: How many desks can go?
The right one is: What kind of work environment will our organization really need in future?