New research reveals that 67% of remote and hybrid workers would consider more office days for higher pay, while 45% of fully on-site employees would accept a pay cut for greater flexibility.
Employers pushing workers back into the office may need to offer more than better facilities and opportunities to collaborate, with new research revealing that higher pay and greater flexibility are considerably more persuasive incentives for employees. More than two-thirds (67%) of remote and hybrid employees say higher pay would encourage them to consider spending more time in the office, while 45% of fully office-based workers would accept a pay cut to work remotely at least some of the time.
The findings come from Hubstaff’s State of the Workweek 2026 report, based on a survey of 1,068 full-time US employees in computer-based roles. The research reveals that 59% of remote and hybrid employees were asked or required to spend more time on-site during the previous 12 months, with 44% of all remote and hybrid respondents now attending more frequently as a result.
However, the findings also challenge assumptions that greater physical presence necessarily provides employers with better visibility into employee workloads. Some 58% of fully office-based workers believe their employer sees half or less of their actual working week, compared with 51% of remote and hybrid employees. The findings raise questions about whether increasingly rigid office attendance policies are delivering the benefits employers expect, particularly as employees continue to place considerable value on flexibility, work-life balance and autonomy.
RETURN-TO-OFFICE DEMANDS ARE INCREASING
According to Hubstaff, 59% of remote and hybrid workers surveyed said their employer had asked or required them to attend the workplace more frequently during the previous year. Nearly half (44%) of all remote and hybrid respondents said they were now spending more time on-site as a result.
The findings suggest return-to-office policies are influencing employee attendance, even as workers continue to express strong preferences for flexible arrangements. The results reinforce earlier research that three in 10 companies planned to end remote working and enforce full-time office attendance by 2026.
That separate survey, involving 978 business leaders, found that 30% expected to require five office days each week, while another 17% planned to mandate four days. Employers cited strengthening company culture, improving productivity and making better use of office space among their reasons for increasing attendance requirements.
However, the research also revealed a disconnect between organisational policies and leaders’ own views about ideal working arrangements. Just 16% of business leaders believed a five-day office week was ideal, with most favouring a three-day hybrid arrangement. The latest Hubstaff findings add a further dimension to that debate by examining what employees believe would make increased office attendance worthwhile.
HIGHER PAY TOPS RETURN-TO-OFFICE INCENTIVES
When asked what would encourage them to spend more time working on-site, remote and hybrid employees placed financial compensation considerably ahead of improvements to office facilities or collaboration opportunities. According to the research, the most frequently selected incentives were:
- Higher pay: 67%
- Greater flexibility over which days employees attend: 48%
- Additional on-site benefits or perks: 38%
- Better office facilities: 29%
- More opportunities for meaningful in-person collaboration: 28%
Only 11% said nothing would persuade them to work on-site more frequently. The findings suggest employees increasingly view additional office attendance as something that carries a tangible personal cost.
HIGHER COMMUTING AND CHILDCARE COSTS
Commuting can involve additional spending on transport, parking, meals and other expenses, as well as time that could otherwise be spent working, caring for family members or managing personal responsibilities. For working parents and carers, additional office days may also create childcare and scheduling pressures.
The survey does not establish exactly how much additional pay employees would require, nor whether organisations offering higher salaries would necessarily achieve greater attendance. Nevertheless, it indicates that employers seeking to increase office attendance may need to consider the financial and practical implications for employees rather than assuming that workplace facilities or opportunities to collaborate will be sufficient.
SACRIFICING SALARY FOR FLEXIBILITY
Perhaps the most revealing finding concerns employees already working fully on-site. Some 45% said they would accept a pay cut in exchange for the opportunity to work remotely at least some of the time. Most of those willing to sacrifice salary said they would give up no more than 10% of their earnings. The findings suggest flexibility has a value that extends beyond convenience.
For some employees, the ability to work from home may reduce commuting costs, make caring responsibilities easier to manage or provide greater control over how they structure their working day. Others may value the opportunity to work in an environment that better supports concentration, accessibility or personal wellbeing.
That does not mean every employee can afford to sacrifice income for flexibility, or that employers should treat remote working as a reason to reduce salaries. Rather, the findings highlight how strongly some workers value greater choice over where they work. For organisations competing to attract and retain talent, flexible arrangements may therefore represent an important employment benefit.
GROWING RESISTANCE TO RIGID OFFICE MANDATES
Although the Hubstaff study focuses on US employees, its findings reflect wider debates about the future of flexible working. Previous research from King’s College London found that most UK workers, particularly women and working parents, resist full-time return-to-office demands. That research, drawing on extensive UK labour market data and employee surveys, found that only 42% of workers said they would comply with a five-day office requirement, down from 54% in early 2022.
Some 50% said they would look for another job if required to return to the office full-time, while around one in 10 said they would resign immediately. Overall, 58% indicated they would either resign or begin searching for alternative employment. The findings suggest employers imposing rigid attendance requirements could face retention challenges, particularly among employees who have built their working lives around greater flexibility.
FLEXIBILITY IMPORTANT FOR WORKING PARENTS
The value of flexible working becomes particularly apparent when examining employees’ responsibilities outside work. Earlier this year, Fair Play Talks reported that three-quarters of working parents believe their current working arrangements do not fit modern family life. That US research, involving more than 5,400 parents, found that 72% wanted greater flexibility to spend time with their children.
Meanwhile, revealed that one in three parents with children under seven had left a job because they could not access flexible working. The TUC research also found that 73% of parents were more likely to apply for jobs advertising flexible arrangements upfront, while 48% reported negative treatment after working flexibly. These findings highlight why workplace flexibility cannot simply be viewed as a perk.
For employees balancing careers with childcare, eldercare or other responsibilities, working arrangements can directly influence whether they can remain employed, accept career opportunities or progress professionally. That does not mean in-person work has no value.
Face-to-face collaboration, mentoring and relationship-building can be particularly beneficial in certain roles and circumstances. However, employers may need to distinguish between attendance that serves a clear business or employee purpose and blanket requirements that impose additional costs without delivering corresponding benefits.
RETURN-TO-OFFICE POLICIES CAN CREATE INCLUSION RISKS
The impact of office attendance requirements is also an important consideration for workplace inclusion. Recent reporting on the Neurodiversity in Business Research Report 2026 highlighted the potential consequences of blanket return-to-office mandates for neurodivergent employees. The study, developed with Birkbeck, University of London, found that 38% of neurodivergent employees surveyed had received a return-to-office mandate.
More than half of those affected said the requirement had made them reconsider staying with their employer. The research also found that 75% relied on hybrid working, highlighting the importance of flexibility for many employees with different sensory, cognitive or communication needs.
These findings do not mean all neurodivergent employees prefer to work remotely. Individual needs vary, and some people may benefit from the structure, social interaction or facilities provided by an office environment.
However, standardised attendance requirements may create unnecessary barriers if employers fail to consider individual circumstances, accessibility needs and reasonable adjustments. For employers, the challenge is designing working arrangements that support both business objectives and employees’ ability to perform effectively.
UK EMPLOYERS MUST CONSIDER FLEXIBLE-WORKING RIGHTS
For UK employers introducing stricter return-to-office policies, flexible working is not simply a matter of company preference. There are also legal obligations to consider. Under legislation in force in Great Britain since April 2024, employees have the statutory right to request flexible working from their first day of employment. This includes requests to work remotely, adopt hybrid arrangements or change working hours.
Employees can make two statutory requests within 12 months. Employers must consider them reasonably, discuss requests before refusing them and normally reach a decision within two months. However, the law does not give employees an automatic right to work remotely. Employers can refuse requests for specified business reasons, including additional costs, detrimental effects on performance or an inability to reorganise work.
Importantly, employers must also comply with the Equality Act 2010. Where office attendance places a disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage, employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, which may include changes to working arrangements.
DISCRIMINATION RISKS
Blanket attendance requirements can also create discrimination risks where they disproportionately disadvantage particular groups, including women with childcare responsibilities, unless employers can objectively justify the policy. Employers should also consider existing employment contracts. Where homeworking or hybrid arrangements form part of agreed contractual terms, changing those arrangements may require consultation and agreement.
Further changes are approaching. Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, reforms expected to take effect in October 2027 will strengthen the requirements for refusing flexible-working requests. Employers will need to demonstrate that refusing a request is reasonable, explain their decision and follow additional consultation requirements.
The updated rules reinforce the importance of employers assessing individual circumstances rather than automatically rejecting requests that conflict with office attendance policies. For organisations tightening return-to-office requirements, the challenge is therefore not simply whether employees should attend more frequently, but whether policies are fair, legally compliant and compatible with employees’ individual needs.
VISIBILITY AT WORK
One of the most striking findings from the Hubstaff research challenges the assumption that greater physical presence gives employers a more complete understanding of how work gets done. Some 58% of fully on-site employees believe their employer sees half or less of their real working week. That compares with 51% of remote and hybrid employees.
Across the entire survey, 54% believe their employer sees half or less of their workweek, while 26% say their employer sees little or almost none of it. Only 15% believe their employer sees all the work they do. These figures reflect employees’ perceptions rather than independently measured employer visibility.
Nevertheless, they raise questions about whether physical attendance alone provides managers with sufficient information to make accurate workload, staffing and performance decisions. An employee may be present in the office throughout the day while still spending additional hours preparing work, responding to messages, correcting mistakes or meeting deadlines outside scheduled hours. Similarly, a remote employee may deliver substantial work that remains largely invisible because their manager relies on meetings, activity indicators or completed tasks to assess performance.
The findings suggest that understanding work requires more than knowing where employees are physically located. Employers may need clearer communication, realistic workload planning, meaningful performance measures and better conversations about the work employees actually perform.
WORKDAY EXTENDS WELL BEYOND OFFICE HOURS
The research also reveals that many employees remain connected to work long after their scheduled day ends. Some 71% check work messages outside working hours at least a few times each week, including 39% who do so every day. Another 43% work evenings or weekends most weeks or every week. Only 44% say they can fully disconnect at the end of their working day, while 28% admit working during their most recent holiday.
These findings suggest that bringing employees into the office does not necessarily resolve questions about workloads, boundaries or organisational expectations. For some workers, additional commuting and office attendance may simply be added to an already demanding working week.
The findings also connect to the growing debate about whether AI is genuinely reducing employees’ workloads. Hubstaff’s research found that 46% of workers using AI reported increased workload expectations, while 45% spent at least an hour a week correcting colleagues’ AI-generated work.
As explored in Fair Play Talks’ latest article, AI Saves Workers Time, But Nearly Half Face Rising Workloads as Burnout and Hidden Work Persist, the wider challenge is understanding whether new technology and existing working practices are creating more sustainable jobs or simply increasing expectations about how much employees should produce.
RETURN-TO-OFFICE PRESSURE & RETENTION ISSUES
The Hubstaff findings also suggest employers should consider the potential retention consequences of imposing attendance requirements without understanding wider employee concerns. Among workers who were asked to attend the office more frequently but did not increase their attendance, 47% said they had seriously considered leaving their jobs because of workload during the previous year.
That compares with 30% across the full survey. This does not establish that return-to-office requirements caused those employees to consider resigning. However, the difference suggests that organisations may need to examine whether disputes over attendance are occurring alongside broader concerns about workloads, autonomy, work-life balance and employee satisfaction.
For employers, retention strategies should therefore consider not only where employees work, but also whether their working arrangements support sustainable performance. Flexibility may be one factor in employees’ decisions to stay, particularly where it enables them to balance professional responsibilities with health, family life and other commitments.
WHAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD DO NEXT
The findings suggest organisations should reconsider how they approach return-to-office policies, employee flexibility and workforce performance.
Establish a clear purpose for office attendance
Employers should explain why particular activities benefit from in-person working, rather than relying solely on blanket attendance requirements. Collaboration, mentoring, training and relationship-building may justify time together, but organisations should consider whether those objectives can be achieved through purposeful office attendance.
Consult employees before changing working arrangements
Businesses should understand how additional office days affect commuting costs, caring responsibilities, wellbeing, productivity and accessibility. Consultation can help identify potential problems and develop arrangements that work for both employees and employers. Employers should also review their legal obligations, including statutory flexible-working requests, reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and potential discrimination risks, before introducing or enforcing blanket return-to-office policies.
Consider the financial impact of office attendance
With 67% of remote and hybrid workers saying higher pay would encourage more office attendance, employers should recognise the additional costs some workers face. Where possible, organisations could consider travel assistance, other support or greater choice over attendance days.
Make flexibility genuinely accessible
Flexible working should not depend solely on seniority, bargaining power or an employee’s ability to sacrifice salary. Employers should explore different arrangements, including hybrid working, flexible hours, compressed schedules and job sharing, where operationally appropriate. For roles that cannot be performed remotely, greater control over schedules may still provide meaningful flexibility.
Consider disability, neurodiversity and caring responsibilities
Employers should assess whether attendance requirements create barriers for disabled employees, neurodivergent workers, parents or carers. Individual circumstances, accessibility needs and applicable legal obligations should be considered before policies are introduced or enforced.
Measure outcomes rather than simply attendance
Organisations should evaluate whether working arrangements improve productivity, collaboration, customer service, employee development and retention. Office occupancy should not automatically be treated as evidence of performance.
Understand the complete working week
Employers should look beyond scheduled hours and visible activity to understand workload demands, including additional work completed during evenings, weekends or annual leave. Any use of workforce monitoring or analytics should be transparent, proportionate and respectful of employee privacy.
Assess the impact on employee wellbeing and retention
Regular employee feedback, workload reviews and retention analysis can help organisations identify whether attendance policies are improving working conditions or creating additional pressures.
THE COST OF INFLEXIBLE WORKING
For employers, the consequences of poorly designed return-to-office policies could extend beyond employee dissatisfaction. Potential risks include greater turnover intentions, reduced engagement, difficulty attracting candidates and the loss of employees who cannot easily accommodate rigid schedules. There may also be implications for workforce inclusion if attendance requirements disproportionately disadvantage employees with caring responsibilities, disabilities or specific workplace needs.
At the same time, flexible working should not be treated as a substitute for good management. Employees can experience excessive workloads, burnout and poor communication regardless of whether they work remotely, in hybrid arrangements or entirely on-site. The Hubstaff research reinforces the importance of understanding how work is actually performed, rather than relying on assumptions about where employees are most productive.
“Most of the workweek employers don’t see isn’t hidden on purpose,” said Jared Brown, CEO of Hubstaff. “The organizations that retain their best people will be the ones that use data to understand how work actually gets done and respond to it, not the ones that make assumptions.”
That message is particularly relevant to employers reassessing their workplace strategies. Decisions about attendance, staffing and performance need to reflect employees’ actual experiences as well as business requirements.
FLEXIBILITY: A VALUABLE EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
The Hubstaff findings suggest flexibility continues to hold considerable value for employees, even as organisations increase office attendance requirements. With 67% of remote and hybrid workers saying higher pay would encourage them to spend more time on-site, and 45% of fully office-based employees willing to sacrifice salary for some remote working, employers face a clear challenge in balancing business priorities with workforce expectations.
The findings do not suggest office working is inherently less productive, nor that remote working is the right solution for every employee or organisation. They do, however, reinforce the importance of understanding why employees value flexibility and what businesses gain from requiring greater physical presence.
For some organisations, the most effective approach may involve bringing employees together for activities that genuinely benefit from face-to-face interaction while preserving flexibility for work that can be performed effectively elsewhere. For others, greater choice over working hours, attendance days or schedules may make a meaningful difference.
As employers continue to reassess the future of work, the challenge is not simply persuading employees to return to the office. It is demonstrating that working arrangements are fair, purposeful and capable of supporting both business performance and the people responsible for delivering it.
Read the full Hubstaff’s State of the Workweek 2026: Burnout, AI, and the Work Employers Don’t See report here.
RELATED ARTICLES
Nearly half of AI users face rising workloads, while 45% spend at least an hour a week correcting colleagues’ AI-generated work. Meanwhile, seven in 10 employees report experiencing burnout in the past year, new research reveals.
Neurodivergent workers continue to report poorer wellbeing, psychological safety and work-life balance despite growing employer efforts to improve inclusion, according to latest UK research.
A third of parents with children under the age of seven have been forced to leave a job because they could not access flexible working, according to a new poll.
A new report reveals that parents increasingly want flexible work, predictable schedules and more time with family, as 75% say modern jobs no longer fit real family life.
Research shows that most UK employees are resisting full-time return to office demands, with women and parents leading the growing rebellion against rigid return-to-office policies.
Nearly a third of businesses plan to end remote work entirely by 2026, as employers continue tightening return to office requirements despite persistent employee demand for flexibility, according to survey
