Where people work has become one of the first things candidates raise when discussing their next role. For businesses, the decision sits at the intersection of talent attraction, retention, productivity and culture, and there is rarely a single right answer.
Every day, we speak with candidates across a range of industries and a clear split has emerged. Some are coming out of remote roles and actively seeking connection, collaboration and a stronger team environment. Others are looking for flexibility and the ability to work from home is central to how they manage their lives. Both groups are equally capable and equally committed. What they want simply differs.
What remote work offers
For employees, the appeal is easy to understand: fewer distractions, no commute and more control over how the day is structured. Many candidates tell us these factors improve both their productivity and their work life balance.
For businesses, remote arrangements can widen the talent pool and reduce overhead costs. In a competitive market, offering flexibility can be a real advantage in attracting people who might otherwise be out of reach.
Where it can fall short
The trade offs are just as real. Fully remote teams can experience reduced connection, isolation, slower communication and less spontaneous collaboration. Performance issues can also be harder to identify and address at a distance.
I experienced this during a period of time in a fully remote role. The flexibility was valuable, but I came to miss the quick conversations and the exchange of ideas that happen naturally when people work side by side. It was a reminder that the benefits of the office are often the ones we don’t notice until they’re gone.
The impact will vary by role and by industry, but businesses should weigh it honestly rather than assume flexibility is cost free.
Why this is an individual question, not a generational one
Covid changed how most of us think about work life balance. It’s often framed as a generational divide, but our conversations suggest it’s more individual than that. People have different working styles at every age and career stage and businesses have their own responsibilities to consider, including performance, culture and accountability.
When productivity slips, it’s reasonable for an employer to set clearer expectations around presence. Done well, that isn’t a step backwards. It can rebuild momentum and strengthen teams. It also raises a bigger question about what kind of environment helps people do their best work, particularly as the nature of work itself continues to change.
The role of human connection
That change is being accelerated by AI and automation which are now part of almost every workplace. As technology takes on more of the routine work, the skills that set people apart are increasingly human ones: critical thinking, communication, collaboration and trust. These develop through interaction, and they’re harder to build when people rarely share a space. The question for businesses is not just where people work, but how their working model builds these skills, and whether it gives people enough opportunity to learn from and challenge one another.
What this means for businesses
Based on what we see every day, a few principles tend to lead to the best outcomes:
Be clear about what the role requires and communicate it early so candidates can self select. Explain the reasoning behind your working arrangements, because people are far more receptive when they understand the why. Stay open to a middle ground, as hybrid models often balance flexibility with connection effectively.
Candidates don’t always see the business’s perspective, and businesses don’t always fully understand what motivates their people. The organisations that do this well are those willing to meet in the middle. In our conversations with candidates and clients, the best outcomes rarely come from one side getting everything they want. They come from honest conversations early, clear expectations and a willingness to find a balance that works for both parties.
