Back to the Office? Maybe We’re Asking the Wrong Question.

Working from home. Hybrid work. Return to office. Even in 2026, this question continues to occupy companies and leaders.

Recent Gallup data show that hybrid work is no longer an exception among full-time, remote-capable jobs in the United States. Fifty-two percent work hybrid, 26 percent fully remote and 22 percent fully on-site.

To me, the more interesting question is not:
Is working from home good or bad?
But:
Which work needs which setting, and what kind of leadership does it need there?

Not Every Job Works from Home

I know this from my own experience as a leader. I work in customer service, where part of the work depends on being on-site, on infrastructure and on physical processes. For a long time, working from home was therefore possible only to a limited extent.

Instead of introducing one general rule, we looked at where it could actually work. We were able to offer a work-from-home option for one of our duties. People use that option and, from what I can see, appreciate it a great deal.

That taught me something important: not everything has to be possible remotely for a little more flexibility to make a real difference.

A planned system change could allow us to organise more activities flexibly in future. What remains decisive for me is that the work, the service we provide and the team continue to function well.

Maybe the Debate Is Too Black and White

When it comes to working from home, two camps quickly form. Some say people are more productive in the office. Others see flexible work as a given. I think both views are too simple.

Gallup shows that hybrid work is now the most common arrangement for remote-capable employees. At the same time, the quality of leadership and team coordination play an important role in whether hybrid work succeeds.

A recent study in the Journal of Business Research also paints a more nuanced picture. The researchers studied 288 managers responsible for a total of 8,351 employees. Two factors mattered, among others: trust between managers and employees, and whether the work itself can reasonably be done remotely.

I find that interesting, because these two questions are easily confused:

Can this work be done remotely?
And
Do I trust this person when I cannot see them?
Those are not the same question.

Working from Home Changes Leadership

When people work together on-site, many things happen naturally. Someone asks a quick question. You notice sooner when support is needed. You may also pick up on tensions earlier. Some of these moments disappear when people work remotely.

To me, that does not automatically mean leadership becomes worse. It means leadership has to become more deliberate.

What outcome do we expect?
Who is responsible for what?
By when?
When will we speak again?
Where does someone need support?
And what happens if something is not working?

Current research on remote work also suggests that trust and informal leadership mechanisms play an important role.

That does not mean, to me, that oversight is unnecessary. But clarity must not be replaced by control.

Trust Does Not Mean Letting Everything Run Its Course

To me, trust when someone works from home does not mean: “Do whatever you like; I won't ask any questions.”

Good leadership still needs clear expectations, responsibility and feedback. At the same time, employees should not feel they constantly have to prove their performance by being visibly present.

Presence is easy to see. Good work is not always as visible.

That can feel unfamiliar, especially for new leaders. If seeing what happens in the team gives you a sense of security, you have to learn to lead more through results, agreements and communication.

Can There Be Too Much Working from Home?

Of course. Teams need to connect. New employees need guidance. Some conversations work better face to face. And some tasks benefit from people working together in one place. Leadership can also become harder when almost every encounter is a scheduled video call.

That is why I do not believe in a universal number of work-from-home days.
A better question is:
What does this task, this team and this situation need?

For some teams, three remote days may make sense. For others, perhaps one. And where much of the work requires on-site presence, even one suitable duty that can be done from home can make a real difference.

Returning to the Office Is Not a Leadership Strategy

There are good reasons to be on-site. Collaboration, onboarding, customer contact, infrastructure or certain work processes may require it.

But returning to the office does not automatically solve problems with collaboration, performance or communication. Nor does working from home solve these problems on its own.

The real work of leadership remains:
Clarify expectations.
Delegate responsibility.
Build trust.
Stay in touch.
And address issues early when something is not working.

That is exactly where I see the connection to SAY IT EARLY.

Flexible work changes where leadership happens. It does not change the responsibility for clear conversations.

Perhaps we should spend less time debating where people have to work and more time thinking about how to lead them well wherever they are.

In Short: Does Working from Home Work?

Yes, working from home can work when the task is suitable and expectations, communication and responsibility are clear.

Trust and the quality of leadership play an important role. At the same time, no working model automatically suits every team and every task.