Editorial
Every Saturday morning, my nine-year-old son and I walk to our local bakery, where he's allowed to pick one treat. Last weekend, as he debated between a chocolate-filled croissant and a rainbow sprinkle donut, he asked, "Dad, why can't I have both?"
I explained that having too many sweets wouldn't make him feel good, but having none would mean missing out on joy. "Life is about finding that middle spot," I told him. "One donut brings happiness. Five donuts brings a stomach ache."
The conversation feels remarkably similar to the ongoing debate between remote work vs. in-office. Just as with my son's donut dilemma, the workplace location question isn't served well by all-or-nothing thinking. The most effective approach lies in the middle — a thoughtful hybrid policy that balances company culture, business objectives and employee well-being.
How Work Became a Battleground
Since 2020, we've witnessed a seismic shift in how and where work happens. What began as an emergency response to a global pandemic evolved into a fundamental rethinking of workplace norms. According to the March 2025 Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes, 13% of workers with remote-capable jobs now work from home full-time and another 25% work in a hybrid capacity.
Our increasingly polarized workplaces leave employers and employees at odds. On one side, companies like Amazon, Disney, Google and Dell have mandated returns to the office, citing culture and productivity concerns. On the other, employees have grown accustomed to the flexibility and work-life integration that remote work enables, with many listing better mental health and increased autonomy as primary benefits.
Both sides miss a crucial truth: work isn't one-size-fits-all, and our approach to where it happens shouldn't be either.
The Case for a Middle Ground Between Remote and RTO
The debate between full-time office presence and complete remote flexibility presents a false dichotomy. The most effective approach for most organizations lives in the middle — a thoughtfully designed hybrid model that captures benefits from both worlds while mitigating their respective drawbacks.
A balanced hybrid approach offers several compelling advantages:
- It preserves culture while acknowledging new realities. In-person collaboration builds relationships and sparks creativity, but forcing arbitrary office schedules ignores the profound shift in employee expectations. Companies must articulate the rationale behind their policies while offering employees some autonomy in how they adhere to requirements.
- It addresses different employee needs based on role and life stage. Employees, like children, go through developmental stages. Some need the direct guidance that comes from in-person interaction (the "Captain" phase), while more experienced team members might thrive with the independence of remote work (the "Counselor" phase). A hybrid model accommodates these varying needs.
- It creates space for meaningful connection without sacrificing flexibility. Well-designed hybrid policies designate specific days or events for in-person collaboration, ensuring teams maintain relationships while still benefiting from focused remote work time. This intentional approach elevates both aspects of work life rather than forcing an arbitrary choice between them.
When I spoke with executives at HP's Imagine 2024 event, they emphasized the shift from "employee engagement" to "employee fulfillment." Their research revealed a significant gap between IT decision-makers' perceptions of technology effectiveness and employee experience. Only 28% of knowledge workers reported having a healthy relationship with work.
Finding the right hybrid balance is key to closing this fulfillment gap.
Finding Your Organization's Sweet Spot
The optimal hybrid approach will differ for every organization based on several key factors:
- Company Culture and Collaboration Needs
Consider what aspects of your work truly benefit from face-to-face interaction. Strategy sessions, creative brainstorming and relationship building often yield better results in person, while focused execution work may thrive in a distraction-free remote environment. - Role-Specific Requirements
Not all jobs can or should follow the same location policy. When employers understand where employees are in their career journey, whether they view their work as a job, career or calling, they can better tailor their approaches. Younger employees might seek skill development through in-person mentorship, while mid-career professionals might value the work-life balance of remote days. - Employee Demographics and Preferences
Generational perspectives can influence location preferences. Baby Boomers and Gen X might value traditional office settings differently than millennials and Gen Z, who often prioritize flexibility and autonomy. The most successful policies acknowledge these differences rather than forcing uniformity. - Business Objectives and Productivity Measures
Ultimately, work location policies must support organizational goals. Establish clear metrics to evaluate how different arrangements affect both productivity and employee satisfaction, then adjust accordingly.
Organizations like McKinsey recognize this need for balance. They're implementing creative approaches like job swaps and increased mobility budgets when promotions aren't possible — finding middle ground solutions that keep employees engaged without relying on traditional advancement pathways alone.
Conference
Sep
16
HR Tech Conference Las Vegas 2025
Register
Conference
Oct
27
Gartner HR Symposium/Xpo Orlando 2025
Register
Finding Joy in the Middle
The core message is simple: By adapting your workplace approach to meet people where they are — acknowledging both organizational requirements and employee needs — your team can grow, succeed and find fulfillment in their work.
As you evaluate your current workplace policies, consider whether you're stuck in an all-or-nothing mindset. The true opportunity lies in the middle ground — a balanced approach that serves both your business objectives and the human beings who make those objectives possible.
The most successful organizations will reject the false choice between full-time office mandates and unconstrained remote work. Instead, they'll craft thoughtful hybrid approaches that capture the best of both worlds — creating policies that, like that single weekend donut, bring joy without excess.
Editor's Note: Read other takes on the remote vs. in office debate below:
- The Hybrid Employee Experience in 2025: Findings From a Global Study — Organizations still struggle to set up effective hybrid work models for individuals and teams. A recent study found adopting 3 foundational practices can help.
- CEOs Blame Work From Home for Company Failings. Here's Why They're Wrong — Work from home has become a scapegoat for all sorts of company shortcomings. Here's what those claims leave out.
- Return-to-Office Mandates: Layoffs in Sheep's Clothing — Companies demand employees come into the office for many legitimate reasons. But in some cases, it appears to be a tactic to force employees out.
Learn how you can join our contributor community.
