Of course, this relates only to roles where working from home is a possibility. Can we take that as read?
Despite proving working from home can work during lock-downs, and having the access to technology to facilitate it, we see more employers digging their heels in to get people back to the office full time.
At the same time, we’re speaking to candidates who almost universally place flexibility higher than salary increases, shorter commutes and, in some cases, even career progression. Candidates who would happily decline a role they otherwise love simply because it requires five days per week in the office.
So who’s right?
What Candidates Are Telling Us
Over the past few weeks, we polled experienced design and technical professionals for their views.
The responses were remarkably consistent.
Many candidates said hybrid working had become a non-negotiable part of their decision making process. Several openly stated they would not consider a full-time office based role. Others said they would accept a lower salary in exchange for flexibility because the overall improvement in quality of life more than compensated for any difference in pay.
In the poll one design candidate said they would not be able to work for their current employer without hybrid working because of where they live and family support needs. Another said they would consider a hybrid role for a slightly lower salary because of the savings in commuting costs and the improvement in quality of life. Others highlighted productivity, concentration, childcare, commute time and work-life balance as major factors. It’s also perceived as inflexible, untrusting and micro-managing!
The reasons weren’t particularly surprising:
- Reduced commuting time
- Better work-life balance
- More family time
- Lower travel costs
- Greater productivity on concentrated tasks
- Improved wellbeing
- and they could do their jobs at least as well, when working from home!
What was interesting, however, was the strength of feeling. For many job-seekers, hybrid working is no longer viewed as a perk. It’s viewed as the normal way of working. Take it away, or don’t offer it at your peril!
The Employer Perspective
Of course, there is another side to the argument. Many employers didn’t spend money on offices just to leave them empty. Business owners and senior leaders often point to legitimate concerns about:
- Team collaboration
- Knowledge sharing
- Cultural development
- Mentoring junior staff
- Communication
- Innovation
- Accountability
And of course, they have a point.
There is real value in junior employees sitting alongside experienced colleagues and learning through observation and informal conversation. Some aspects of development happen naturally in an office alongside colleagues and are difficult to replicate through Teams calls.
Culture can also become diluted if people rarely interact in person. These aren’t unreasonable concerns. They’re genuine business challenges.
The debate isn’t really a choice between five days in the office versus complete remote working
The more important question is: What problem are you trying to solve?
If productivity is the concern, there are excellent systems that measure outputs rather than attendance.
If collaboration is the concern, structured office days may be more effective than simply insisting everybody attends every day.
If culture is the concern, leaders should ask whether culture is genuinely created through physical presence or through leadership, communication, trust and shared purpose. Candidates perceive a full time office culture as inflexible, untrusting, just keeping the bosses happy and even micro-managing. I doubt that’s the culture you were going for!
And if trust is the concern, the issue might be recruitment rather than location. Many argue that if expectations are clear and results are delivered, where somebody sits becomes far less important.
The Talent Pool Impact
This is where the issue becomes commercially important – and to us as recruiters!
Regardless of personal opinions, the market reality is clear. Every restriction you place on a role reduces the available talent pool. Sometimes that reduction is entirely justified. A site-based role obviously requires people on site. Some operational, manufacturing and leadership positions genuinely require regular presence. But where flexibility could be offered, employers need to understand the price of not offering it.
In June, two of our clients lost out on candidates they offered jobs to, for more flexible roles with lower salaries and longer commutes!
That cost us, and your price may include:
- Longer hiring times
- Fewer applicants
- Increased salary expectations
- Harder to fill vacancies
- Missed access to experienced candidates outside immediate commuting distance
- You may even start losing your current staff!
In areas where specialist skills are already difficult to find, those factors can significantly affect hiring success.
The Winners Will Be Pragmatic
The businesses attracting the best people aren’t necessarily the ones offering unlimited remote working. They’re the organisations that take a pragmatic approach.
They understand:
- Some tasks are better done collaboratively.
- Some tasks require uninterrupted concentration.
- People benefit from face to face interaction.
- People also value autonomy and flexibility.
Most importantly, they recognise that trust and accountability are not opposites.
The most successful hybrid environments tend to have:
- Clear expectations
- Strong communication
- Measurable objectives
- Good technology
- Effective managers
- A culture built on outcomes rather than attendance
Final Thought
Whether you love hybrid working or hate it, one thing is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: Candidates care about it. A lot.
The question is no longer whether hybrid working is good or bad. The question is whether your approach helps or hinders your ability to attract, retain and develop the people your business needs. Because in a market where good talent remains difficult to find, reducing your talent pool should always be a conscious decision rather than an accidental one.
Our position: we have an “office first” preference. If you can come in, be in. But we are also flexible for people to work at home a couple of days a week, for whatever reasons – usually personal, sometimes for focused work. We have flexible hours to suit different needs. We have (really good) systems that measure activity, and (really good) VOIP phones that update the systems automatically (and save us money!). We treat people with trust and have the processes in place to manage performance, wherever the work is done. It’s 2026!
