Location, Location, Location: Is Senior Hiring Back in its Office-First Era?

For a long time, flexibility has been the default working condition, and it’s proved its merit. Hiring-wise, flexible working opens access to wider talent pools. Executives also enjoy the unprecedented autonomy, which impacts how roles are designed and how candidates evaluate them.

But recently, I’ve heard a large number of firms want to push harder for office presence again, and as a consequence, relocation could be back on the discussion table, particularly for firms based outside London. 

It’s inevitable that a return to the old ways will narrow talent pools, and employers seem comfortable with that trade-off. With hiring conditions tightening, there’s the assumption that executive candidates will be willing to bend to secure the job they want. Whether they will or won’t remains an open question.

Are we going back to where it all began?

For many leadership teams, flexible working creates a kind of distance. Being in the office improves decision-making, strengthens relationships, creates room for spontaneous conversations that shape strategy – all things that remote working can never fully replicate. 

As a result, office presence has moved up the priority list. Senior hires are expected to be seen, accessible, and embedded within the day-to-day rhythm of organisations, because if leadership sets the tone, then leadership needs to be physically present to do so.

This doesn’t mean, however, that there’s going to be an overnight about-face on hybrid working. According to Hays’ 2026 research:

• 55% of employers still favour hybrid models
• 62% are maintaining their flexible work policies
• Just as many employers intend to tighten flexibility policies as expand them (7%)

While flexible models have been stiffening over the last couple of years – with 33% of employees required to be in-office three days a week in 2025, vs. 25% in 2024 – I see this trend as a recalibration of hybrid working, not the annihilation of it. 

Clearly, employers have a burgeoning appetite for in-office executive presence, but how far that appetite goes hugely depends on how candidates respond, how much friction those mandates create during senior hiring processes, and how the broader talent market evolves over the next few years.

A smaller talent pool by design

One thing employers should bear in mind is that when an in-office requirement is fixed, the available talent pool shrinks. 

That effect is particularly visible when roles sit outside London. Executive talent remains heavily concentrated in the capital, so when a position requires consistent presence elsewhere, geography becomes a major deciding factor. For London-based candidates, the role effectively asks for a change in how they live as much as how they work.

Relocation enters the conversation at that point, even if it’s not formally stated. A requirement for high office visibility in a regional headquarters carries an implied expectation that candidates will either move, or absorb a demanding travel pattern. For some, the opportunity justifies that move. For others, the calculation ends there.

Will candidates adapt?

It’s been the norm for a while that roles should flex to meet candidate expectations, especially when those candidates are top-of-the-market. But if in-office mandates continue to rise in popularity, we could soon see talent having to adapt to organisations’ preferred operating style if they want to secure the most attractive and rewarding roles. 

Many executives will be willing to do that, even if it means relocating. Ambition has a way of reshaping practical considerations; the right role can outweigh most inconveniences, particularly when it carries strategic weight, has long-term upside, or offers a step change in influence.

Even so, the response won’t be uniform. 49% of professionals told Hays they would turn down a job that didn’t offer hybrid working, and that’s a lot of talent to miss out on. Those based in London, for example, would have to consider professional access, family considerations, and long-established routines, so unless the proposition is compelling enough to offset those factors, interest tends to cool quickly. 

It could even have negative ramifications for existing talent, with 9% of board-level executives likely to leave their jobs if there’s a lack of flexible working. That figure may not sound like a lot, but it equates to a senior talent drain millions-strong.

The trade-off employers are willing to make

A more assertive stance on office presence will always limit reach. But many firms are comfortable accepting that outcome, prioritising alignment and cultural cohesion over talent pedigree.

From a hiring perspective, that approach produces a more defined group of candidates who are already aligned with the organisation’s expectations. From a market perspective, it reduces optionality, particularly when competing firms are offering similar roles with greater flexibility.

How that trade-off plays out over time will depend on how far candidates are prepared to bend. If more senior professionals begin accepting relocation or increased office presence as a condition of progression, the balance may continue to tilt towards employers. If resistance holds, firms may find themselves revisiting the constraints they have set.

Where this leaves senior hiring

Across the work we do at Hanover, office visibility is showing up as a requirement in more mandates, relocation is reappearing as a consequence, and both are influencing who engages with a role.

Still, most firms are feeling their way through the balance rather than charging headfirst into a full return to office. The challenge lies in understanding the implications of this new appetite, particularly when it comes to accessing the strongest talent in a market that still offers choice at the top end. 

As this year plays out, I’m going to be really interested in seeing how far each side is prepared to go. Whichever way the pendulum swings will decide the power dynamics of leadership hiring over the next few years.

The question I’d like to leave you with is this: How far are you prepared to let location dictate the calibre of talent you bring in? Would you rather hire the best person for the role, or the best person willing to be in the office?