Remote, hybrid, or on-site?

Over the last few years, this has become one of the first questions in many workforce conversations. Organizations have revisited office policies, employees have developed new expectations around flexibility, and hiring teams have had to navigate both.

But from what I have seen on the staffing and delivery side, where someone works may not always be the best place to begin the conversation.
‍

A more useful starting point may be: What does the role actually need?

Think about three very different positions.

A scientist may need regular access to a laboratory. An engineer may need to work with equipment that cannot leave a facility. A software professional, on the other hand, may spend much of the day working in systems that can be accessed from several locations.
‍

Putting all three roles under the same workplace rule may be convenient from a policy perspective, but it doesn't necessarily reflect how differently the work is performed.
‍

And there is another consideration for hiring leaders: decisions around where a role can be performed may also influence the talent pool available for that role. That is why I tend to think about remote, hybrid, and on-site as part of a broader talent conversation not simply a workplace-policy decision.

Start with what the work actually requires

I don't believe there is a universally better model.

There are circumstances where each can make sense.
‍

On-site: when presence is connected to the work

Some positions have clear physical requirements. That could mean:

• access to laboratories, machinery, or specialized equipment;
• work performed in manufacturing or operational environments;
• direct interaction with customers, patients, or physical products;
• security or compliance requirements that limit where work can be performed; or
• responsibilities that depend heavily on being present with a particular team or operation.

In these situations, an on-site requirement isn't simply about preferring people in the office. Physical presence may be part of performing the role effectively.
‍

The hiring conversation then becomes less about whether the position should be remote and more about whether the organization can find the required skills within the geography it needs.

Hybrid: when the work benefits from both independence and interaction

Hybrid can make sense when parts of the role can be performed independently but other parts benefit from people being together.
‍

Planning sessions, collaborative problem-solving, mentoring, certain client interactions, or work that crosses multiple teams may benefit from regular face-to-face interaction without necessarily requiring it every day.
‍

The important consideration is what those in-person moments are meant to accomplish.
‍

A hybrid model can be more meaningful when office time is connected to the actual requirements of the role rather than simply a predetermined number of days.

Remote: when location isn't central to performing the work

For roles where the work can be performed effectively without regular physical presence, remote hiring may give organizations access to talent beyond one commuting radius.

That can become particularly relevant when the required skills are specialized.
‍

If the right person does not need access to a physical facility, equipment, or location-specific environment, hiring leaders may have an opportunity to consider whether geography needs to remain a hard constraint.

That doesn't automatically make remote the right answer.
‍

It simply makes location flexibility another variable worth evaluating. And the U.S. workforce itself reflects this mix. Gallup's May 2026 data for U.S. employees in remote-capable jobs found 52% working hybrid, 26% exclusively remote, and 22% on-site. Rather than suggesting that one model has become the universal answer, the numbers show multiple models continuing to coexist.

The work model can influence the talent pool

This is where the conversation becomes particularly relevant from a staffing perspective.

Every requirement creates boundaries around the search.

A hiring team may need:

• a particular technical skill;
• a certain level of experience;
• industry knowledge;
• specific certifications;
• a particular compensation range;
• someone within a defined geography; and
• someone willing to work on-site, hybrid, or remotely.

None of these conditions is necessarily unreasonable.

But the combination of them determines how broad or narrow the search may become. Our own recruiting activity at ASK Consulting provides some useful perspective.
‍

From 2024 through August 2026, ASK's delivery teams worked across 42,203 positions and generated 62,075 submissions. What is more interesting than the overall volume is how differently sourcing activity appeared across categories. Scientific roles averaged approximately 5.47 submissions per position. Pharma averaged 4.38. Supply Chain averaged 2.87. IT averaged approximately 2.11.

By comparison, Healthcare averaged approximately 1.09, Call Center 1.21, and Admin/Clerical 1.26.
‍

I would be careful about interpreting those numbers as saying that one category is simply harder to hire for than another. Hiring outcomes can be affected by many things from the individual requirement and compensation to timing and client expectations. But the variation does illustrate an important point:

‍
Different talent categories can require very different sourcing approaches.

And that matters when another condition such as location is added. Consider a hypothetical specialized engineering requirement.

The organization may need:

Skill A + Skill B + five years of relevant experience + industry experience + a particular compensation range.

That already defines a relatively specific group of candidates.

Now add:

Must live within commuting distance of one office + must be on-site five days a week.

Those may be completely legitimate business requirements. But they also become part of the sourcing equation.

For a role with a deep local talent pool, the effect may be relatively small.
‍

For a highly specialized role, it may be much more noticeable. The question isn't whether organizations should remove those requirements.

The question is whether hiring teams understand what each requirement may do to the available talent pool before recruiting begins.

Location adds another layer to the hiring decision

We often talk about the U.S. talent market as though hiring conditions are broadly similar across the country.

In practice, talent availability can vary considerably between cities and regions depending on the skills required, concentration of employers, local competition, industry presence, and compensation expectations. Technology provides a useful example.
‍

CBRE's research into U.S. tech talent markets shows meaningful differences in both the size and growth of talent pools across locations. Its 2026 analysis identifies New York as the largest U.S. tech-talent market in 2025, while Dallas-Fort Worth added more than 37,000 tech jobs between 2022 and 2025. Other markets, including Nashville and Jacksonville, also recorded strong growth.
‍

But even within “technology,” the picture becomes more nuanced when we look at particular skills.
‍

CBRE estimates that roughly one-sixth of U.S. AI-specialty talent is located in the San Francisco Bay Area. For hiring leaders, I don't think the takeaway should be that one city is better than another.

The more useful takeaway is that the geography attached to a requirement can change the context in which recruiters are asked to find talent.
‍

Imagine two organizations looking for a similar specialized technology skill.

- Company A can consider candidates across the United States.

- Company B needs someone within commuting distance of a specific office because the role requires regular access to the team or facility.
‍

Neither company is necessarily making a better decision. But their recruiters may be working with very different potential candidate populations, even though the technical requirement is similar.

And that can influence other parts of the search: compensation expectations, sourcing channels, competition for candidates, hiring timelines, and how much flexibility may be needed elsewhere in the requirement.

Role, skills, location and talent availability should be considered together

One of the things I have learned from working with hiring requirements over the years is that individual conditions can look perfectly reasonable when considered separately. It is when they are combined that the recruiting challenge becomes clearer.

‍

Take a requirement with:

a specialized skill set + a narrow geography + an on-site requirement + a fixed compensation range + several highly specific experience requirements. There may be a strong business reason for every one of those conditions.

But together, they describe a much smaller group of potential candidates than any one condition does individually. This is why I believe it can be useful to think about four things together.

‍

1. The role

What does the person actually need to accomplish?

Before deciding where the employee should work, understand what the work involves.

Does it require equipment? Physical interaction? Secure infrastructure? Frequent in-person collaboration?

Or can most responsibilities be performed effectively independent of location?

‍

2. The skills

How common or specialized is the capability being requested?

If qualified candidates are relatively abundant, organizations may have more room to place additional parameters around the search.

If the skill combination is particularly specialized, every additional condition may deserve more consideration.

‍

3. The location

Where is the relevant talent actually available?

This doesn't necessarily mean searching nationally.

It means understanding whether the required geography contains enough of the talent the organization needs and what competition for that talent looks like.

‍

4. Talent availability

Finally, what happens when all of those conditions come together?

The requirement may be perfectly aligned with the market. Or the hiring team may discover that one element needs to be reconsidered—perhaps compensation, geography, experience, or work model.

That isn't lowering the hiring standard. It is understanding the market before asking recruiters to search it.

Work patterns can also differ considerably by occupation

Another reason I hesitate to apply one workplace model too broadly is that even within professional work, patterns can differ by occupation.

Recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, for example, shows substantial differences in telework participation across occupational groups, with computer and mathematical occupations reporting particularly high participation compared with many other categories.

That doesn't mean technology workers should automatically be remote.

In fact, the technology sector itself demonstrates why broad assumptions can be risky.

CBRE has reported a decline in fully remote postings for new U.S. tech roles as more employers use hybrid arrangements. In the San Francisco Bay Area, fully remote tech job postings declined from 24% in mid-2022 to 7% by April 2026, while many AI-focused employers have leaned toward greater in-person presence.

‍

So even a simple statement such as “specialized technology talent prefers remote work” would miss part of the picture.

- Candidate expectations matter.

- So does employer demand.

- So does the type of work.

- So does geography.

‍

That is why context matters more than the label.

Five questions I would ask before sourcing begins

By the time a requirement reaches a recruiting team, many of the decisions that shape the eventual candidate pool have already been made.

From a delivery perspective, I believe some of the most useful conversations can happen before that point.

Here are five questions I would encourage hiring teams to consider.

1. What genuinely requires this person to be in a particular location?

If physical presence is necessary to perform the work effectively, that should be clear from the beginning.

If it isn't, there may be value in asking whether geography needs to be as restrictive as originally assumed.

2. How specialized is the skill combination?

Don't look only at the job title.

Two positions with the same title can represent very different searches depending on the technologies, industry experience, certifications, seniority, and other capabilities required.

The more specialized the combination becomes, the more useful it can be to understand the depth of the available talent pool.

3. What does that talent market look like in our required location?

Before sourcing begins, it can help to understand whether the relevant skills are readily available in the required geography.

If they aren't, hiring teams can decide which parameters genuinely need to remain fixed and where there may be room to adjust.

4. Are compensation, location and expectations aligned?

A role isn't competing only with other open positions.

It is competing for people.

Those candidates may have multiple opportunities, different expectations around flexibility, and different compensation options.

The work model therefore sits alongside compensation, career opportunity, employer reputation, and the nature of the work itself.

5. What is genuinely non-negotiable?

This may be the most valuable question.

Every requirement usually contains a combination of must-haves and preferences.

Being clear about the difference gives recruiters much more room to search intelligently.

Flexibility does not mean lowering the standard. It means understanding which standards actually determine whether someone can succeed in the role.

Moving beyond the remote-versus-office debate

The conversation around where people work isn't going away. But perhaps it doesn't need to be treated as a debate with a winner.

Remote can be valuable when location independence opens access to relevant talent. Hybrid can work well when a role benefits from both flexibility and meaningful in-person collaboration.

On-site can be essential when the work depends on physical presence and can also be the preferred model for organizations and teams where being together contributes meaningfully to how the work gets done.

‍

From what I have seen across staffing and delivery, the more useful conversation begins one level earlier.

- What work needs to be done?

- What skills does it require?

- Where is that talent available?

- What does the business genuinely need from the work environment?

And then:

- Which model best supports those realities?
‍

For me, that is the more practical way to approach the question.

Not remote versus hybrid versus on-site as three competing philosophies. But remote, hybrid, or on-site as three possible ways of structuring work..each of which can make sense when it fits the role, the talent market, and the business need.

‍

Because ultimately, the goal isn't to choose the most fashionable work model. It is to create the right conditions to find the right person and enable them to do the work well.

‍