Remote, Hybrid or in-Office: Which Working Model Drives Employee Happiness?

Remote, Hybrid or in-Office: Which one is better according to Employees? Since the pandemic, millions of workers in the US, UK and Canada have swapped cubicles for couches – but as companies insist on return to office (RTO) mandates, how does employee happiness really stack up between remote, hybrid and fully in-office work? Recent studies (2022–2024) paint a detailed picture. Broadly, employees overwhelmingly prefer flexible schedules, and hybrid/remote work often boosts satisfaction and retention – but it can also raise stress and isolation without the right supports. Below we compare key findings on worker satisfaction, productivity, mental health, and retention across work arrangements, drawing on surveys and studies from North America and the UK.

The Rise of Flexible Work and Employee Preferences

Across the US, UK and Canada, most knowledge workers now take a hybrid or remote schedule. In the US, Gallup reports that 60% of employees with “remote-capable” jobs want a hybrid arrangement, with about one-third preferring fully remote work and fewer than 10% wanting to be fully onsite. In Canada and the UK, similar trends hold: a Stanford survey found Canadians working remotely about 1.9 days per week on average, the highest in the world, with the UK and US not far behind. Crucially, demand for flexibility is strong. In fact, 60% of fully remote Americans say they would look for another job if forced back into the office full-time. Employers have noticed too: 83% of UK companies now offer some hybrid work, and most say it helps them recruit and retain talent.

Surveys of hundreds of thousands of employees find remote workers report better collaboration. In a global Culture Amp survey (241k employees), 72–80% of remote staff agreed “people consult each other” and “two-way communication” is open – higher than hybrid or office peers.

Even among those working partly on-site, job satisfaction tends to rise with flexibility. In a UK survey of 1,026 hybrid workers, 85% said splitting the week improved their job satisfaction, and 74% felt more productive doing so. Canadian workers echo this sentiment: a nationwide poll found 81% of respondents believed remote work was “good for them,” and 66% said it boosted their productivity. The lesson is clear: most employees want to keep at least some home-based work.

Job Satisfaction and Engagement: Remote and Hybrid Win Out

By many measures, hybrid and remote employees report higher satisfaction and engagement than their office-bound counterparts. For example, a late-2023 Gallup survey of 21,500 US workers found full-time remote (37%) and hybrid (36%) workers had significantly higher engagement than fully on-site workers (30%). Similarly, U.K. workers interviewed by IWG (regus) overwhelmingly praised hybrid work: large majorities said it left them feeling less drained (79%), less stressed (78%) and less anxious (72%) than working full-time in an office.

Stated job satisfaction often follows the same pattern. In the U.K. hybrid study, 85% of respondents reported higher job satisfaction under flexible schedules. In Canada, flexible schedules are tied to better work-life balance: Statistics Canada found that employees who worked from home were 12–14 percentage points more likely to say they were satisfied with their work-life balance than those working onsite. By contrast, forced in-office mandates often rankle. Gallup reports that remote-capable US workers who are still required on-site experienced the largest engagement drops of any group since 2020.

Notably, some research finds that “remote vs. onsite” is less important than how you work. A major analysis of 150,000 U.S. employees (Payscale data) found that factors like feeling appreciated by management overwhelmingly predict satisfaction – while the work location itself had little direct impact once culture and leadership were accounted for. In practical terms, this suggests hybrid or remote work can boost happiness if managers stay engaged and employees feel recognized.

Productivity: Myths vs. Reality

Do people really slack off at home? Multiple recent studies say no. A landmark six-month randomized trial (Bloom et al., Nature 2024) randomly assigned 1,600 staff to a hybrid (2 days home) schedule and found no drop in productivity or promotions – in fact, workers were just as productive and promotable as full-time office peers. Likewise, a large Stanford Institute survey of 40,000+ workers found hybrid schedules raised overall productivity metrics (for firms) while also slashing turnover, without any productivity hit.

Official data echo this. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that controlled experiments at some companies showed small positive productivity gains from hybrid/remote work, along with higher job satisfaction and lower turnover. At the aggregate level, BLS notes industries with more remote-capable jobs saw higher total factor productivity growth (2019–2022) than those without – implying remote work didn’t drag down output. In Canada’s Time Use Survey 2022, once analysts adjusted for job types, full-time teleworkers were no less productive (in hours worked) than office workers.

Many surveys also show employees feel at least as productive at home. In Canada, 66% of workers in one poll said their output rose remotely. In the U.K., 46% of employers believed their staff were “more productive” in hybrid/remote modes. (Only about 13% said productivity fell.) People at Work 2023 (ADP survey) similarly found that remote and hybrid workers often match or exceed office peers on measures like task completion – though they were slightly less optimistic about raises/bonuses. In short, the weight of evidence suggests remote/hybrid work does not harm productivity – and may even boost it for many knowledge roles.

Benefits of Remote/Hybrid Work (Many surveys find): improved work-life balance (e.g. 78% UK workers report better balance), higher autonomy/engagement, and often greater self-reported productivity.
Challenges of Remote/Hybrid Work: Employees also report downsides: more difficulty unplugging, longer hours, or feelings of isolation. (For example, UK research notes some hybrid workers felt they did more work but were also more engaged.)

Mental Health and Wellbeing: A Mixed Picture

Flexible work can improve wellbeing by cutting commutes and accommodating personal time – but it also can blur boundaries, raising stress. Surveys find both effects. In the UK IWG study, 78% of hybrid employees said they felt less stress working partially from home (and 72% felt less anxiety), with many citing better sleep and exercise routines when freed from daily commuting. Those hybrids overwhelmingly said returning to 5-day office weeks would harm their wellbeing. In Canada, remote work comes with more family time: teleworking parents spent 7–9 extra hours weekly on house chores or childcare, and more time sleeping/eating.

At the same time, other data highlight hidden stresses. Gallup finds U.S. remote and hybrid workers report higher recent stress than office staff. In Gallup’s May 2024 pulse survey, 45% of fully remote employees said they had experienced “a lot of stress” on the previous day, versus only about 39% of on-site workers. Fully remote workers were also less likely to say they felt they were “thriving” overall (only 36%, vs ~42% among hybrid and office workers). Gallup explains this “paradox”: remote employees are more engaged, but may sacrifice human connection or struggle with blurred work-life boundaries, leading to more stress and lower sense of wellbeing.

Canadian time-use data mirror this nuance. Statistics Canada found that fully remote teleworkers were much more satisfied with their work-life balance (12–14 points higher) than hybrid or on-site workers. Yet their hybrid colleagues (those who commuted sometimes) felt the most pressure: hybrid “on-site teleworkers” were 8–15 points more likely to report being constantly stressed or cutting back on sleep than fully home-based workers. In other words, the best mental-health outcomes came from either fully remote or a well-managed hybrid with clear boundaries; the worst came from partial-return hybrids caught between worlds.

Overall, these findings suggest employers must consciously support remote/hybrid staff. Flexibility alone isn’t a magic bullet. High-profile analyses note that employee wellbeing depends far more on culture, management and work environment than on work location per se. For example, Payscale research found that feeling appreciated and connected at work explains far more of job satisfaction than whether one works from home. The bottom line: companies offering flexible schedules should also ensure remote workers have strong social support and communication, to reap the mental-health benefits of hybrid work.

Retention, Turnover and the “Return to Office” Push

Perhaps the most dramatic data point is on turnover. Multiple studies show hybrid/remote schedules sharply improve retention. Bloom et al.’s Nature RCT of a Chinese tech firm found a 33% plunge in resignations when employees shifted from full-time office to a 3-in-5 hybrid schedule. Men, women, and commuters all quit far less under hybrid work. (Stanford’s press release trumpeted it as a “win-win-win” for productivity, satisfaction and retention.) U.K. data concur: 83% of employers in one CIPD study said hybrid working boosted retention and recruitment.

The cost of losing flexible work can be steep. In the U.S., Gallup finds that 6 in 10 fully remote employees would likely look for new jobs if their remote flexibility were taken away. Similarly, a 2023 PwC poll (Global Workforce Hopes & Fears) found many US and Canadian workers would quit if forced back without choice. Anecdotally, British Union surveys in 2024 reported tens of thousands signing petitions to keep hybrid options. In short, a strict office mandate can trigger the reverse “Great Resignation,” as workers see the door.

It’s telling that in Gallup’s U.S. tracking, engagement has fallen most among employees who could work remotely but are still required to be on-site. Those stuck in offices despite being eligible for remote work feel disengaged and are far more likely to leave. (Gallup notes these “remote-capable on-site” staff have seen the steepest engagement drop since 2020.)

By contrast, companies offering hybrid schedules enjoy loyalty. One survey of Canadian professionals found only 15% wanted to go back to 5 days onsite – meaning 85% preferred hybrid/remote. U.K. hybrid workers said flatly that commuting is a major downer: 86% felt the extra free time from avoiding daily travel improved their balance, and 75% said full-time office would damage their wellbeing.

In sum: Flexible work arrangements have become a powerful retention tool. Forcing workers back full-time risks resignations and costly turnover. (Americans alone quit 45 million jobs in 2023.) By contrast, data consistently show that offering hybrid or remote options cuts quitting. One U.K. analysis estimates hybrid could reduce resignations by one-third, saving billions in hiring costs.

Benefits and Drawbacks: What Surveys Say

Researchers and employers often summarize the pros and cons of remote/hybrid models. Putting studies side by side, common benefits cited include:

  • Better work-life balance: Most teleworkers can skip long commutes. Indeed, UK and Canadian data find large majorities reporting improved balance (e.g. 78% in the UK said WFH gave them better work-life balance; Canadian WFH workers were much more likely to be satisfied with their balance).
  • Higher autonomy and morale: Flexible schedules boost employee control. US Gallup finds fully remote/hybrid workers more engaged, and a UK study saw hybrid staff report feeling less drained (79%) and more motivated (76%) than when onsite.
  • Attraction and retention: Employers note that hybrid policies help hire and keep talent, and many employees say they prefer jobs with flexibility.
  • Equal or higher productivity: As discussed, many workers report equal or better output at home, and controlled studies show no loss in performance.

At the same time, drawbacks are real for some:

  • Stress and isolation: Remote work can blur lines. Gallup finds remote and hybrid staff report higher stress than on-site peers (45% vs 39%), and some feel lonely. A UK mental-health survey noted nearly half of remote workers felt isolated. Overwork can sneak in when managers always available online.
  • Career concerns: A common fear is “out of sight, out of mind.” U.S. employees, especially younger ones, worry remote colleagues will be passed over for promotions. Indeed, before hybrid normalization, U.K. workers on flex schedules were less likely to be promoted. (However, recent experiments saw no promotion penalty for hybrid staff once bias was removed.)
  • Management and culture: Some executives worry hybrid damages company culture. One retention report found 95% of leaders thought employees must be in-office for a strong culture. In the UK, only 38% of employers felt hybrid increased productivity – though far more (61%) saw it aid retention.
  • Uneven experience: Employees not interested in remote may face resentment. Gallup notes that “remote-capable” on-site workers are the least engaged group. Similarly, in Canada the most stressed group were those juggling office and home (they cut sleep more than anyone).

Many surveys put these in perspective. For example, a UK employers’ survey found 71% agreed hybrid improved work-life balance and 52% said it raised employee satisfaction – but 42% also cited the challenge of “getting people back into the office when needed”. In the US, 60% of remote workers worry that too much autonomy could create stress and coordination challenges.

Employers Weigh In

It’s not just employees: employers have surveyed their own workers. In the UK, a Hybrid Work Commission report found 73% of hybrid employees felt more productive and 76% more motivated splitting their week. Yet 75% of those said a 5-day office week would hurt their wellbeing. UK employers likewise report hybrid helps recruit/retain talent (+61 index points) and bring in talent from farther away.

In Canada, the federal public service saw a 4.5% productivity gain after shifting to remote during the pandemic. A PSAC survey echoed enthusiasm: creativity, passion and happiness reportedly rose among remote workers.

In the US, even chief executives are recognizing hybrid’s staying power. Stanford economists report 80% of Fortune 500 firms now use a 3-in-5 hybrid schedule. And recent Gallup polls show a staggering 93% of remote-capable American workers want some remote option going forward.

That said, many employers caution balance. Gallup’s latest analysis stresses that good management trumps location. Companies that promote wellbeing through training, mental health support and strong leadership see happier workers regardless of where they sit. For example, a Gallup–Workhuman survey found only 41% of US workers felt “thriving” overall – whether remote or not, implying far too many are discontent. Gallup concludes: to improve employee well-being, “the manager matters more than work mode”.

Key Takeaways

  • Most workers want flexibility. Surveys across the US, UK and Canada show clear preferences: roughly 60% of remote-capable employees desire hybrid work, ~30% fully remote and only ~10% want full-time office. Firms risk turnover by rescinding flexibility: 60% of fully remote Americans say they’d search for a new job if forced in-office.
  • Hybrid arrangements rank highest for satisfaction. Hybrid workers often enjoy the “best of both worlds.” In recent surveys, large majorities of hybrid staff report less burnout, more motivation and better sleep than under 5-day-office schedules. Employers report hybrid boosts recruitment, retention and satisfaction.
  • Remote-only workers are engaged but report more stress. Gallup finds that fully remote employees have among the highest engagement scores (37% “engaged” vs 30% on-site), but also the highest reported stress (45% vs 39%). They feel more autonomy but also more isolation.
  • Productivity is roughly equal (or higher). Quantitative studies consistently show that remote/hybrid has no adverse effect on output. Randomized trials find two days at home yields the same work performance, and large-scale data show industries with more remote workers saw higher productivity growth. Most employees say they are at least as productive at home.
  • Work-life balance tends to improve. A strong majority of teleworkers report better balance. In UK polls 78% said WFH gave them improved work-life balance; in Canada remote workers were much more likely to be satisfied with their balance.
  • Retention is higher under flexibility. Allowing some home work sharply lowers quit rates. Studies find hybrid schedules cut turnover by about one-third. Conversely, strict RTO drives attrition: Gallup reports 60% of remote workers would leave if their flexibility were removed.

Conclusion

The latest research from the US, UK and Canada makes a clear case: where feasible, remote and hybrid models generally boost worker happiness. Employees who work from home some days report higher satisfaction, engagement and life balance – and they tend to stay in their jobs longer. These gains do not come at the expense of productivity, which appears roughly equal (and sometimes higher) for remote-capable workers.

That said, companies cannot simply declare “everyone back” without consequences. Surveys show forcing office work risks stress, disengagement and turnover. The evidence suggests the smarter strategy is a managed hybrid: give workers autonomy while ensuring strong communication, team culture and support. As one UK expert put it, “hybrid work is now the most in-demand benefit” and has “improved job satisfaction and retention” without hurting productivity.

In 2024, the weight of data favors flexibility. When companies align hybrid policies with good leadership and employee well-being programs, they create a win-win: happier, healthier staff – and healthier bottom lines.

Sources: Recent surveys and studies from Gallup, Stanford, Nature, Statistics Canada, the U.K. government and others. All data cited are from 2022–2024 focused on the U.S., U.K. and Canada.

Reference List

Most Viewed

Scroll to Top