Flexibility Gets a Role Considered. The Work Itself Gets It Accepted.

We recently conducted a LinkedIn poll asking technology professionals which factor would most influence them to accept a new role.

Of the 92 people who voted, flexible working options were the clear winner, attracting 52% of the vote. Salary and benefits followed at 24%, career development at 14%, and team and leadership at 10%.

The result tells employers something important. But it does not tell the whole story.

One commenter made a fair point: before salary, flexibility or progression enter the equation, people need to actually like the job.

And they're right.

No amount of working from home will make up for uninteresting work, unclear expectations, poor leadership or a role that takes someone's career in the wrong direction.

Flexibility is a filter, not the entire decision

For many technology professionals, flexibility now helps determine whether a role makes it onto the shortlist at all.

A developer, cyber specialist, data professional or project leader might be genuinely interested in the work. But if the arrangement is unnecessarily rigid, they may decide not to apply, or withdraw before an employer has the opportunity to explain the role properly.

That does not mean every candidate expects to work remotely full-time. Nor does it mean every position can offer the same arrangement.

It means candidates want clarity, trust and a reasonable explanation of why office attendance is required.

Australian research supports the continuing importance of this. The Australian HR Institute's 2025 research found that more than 80% of surveyed HR professionals expected hybrid working to either increase or remain stable over the following two years. The most common arrangement was approximately three days per week in the office.

There is also evidence that well-managed hybrid work does not have to come at the expense of performance. A randomised study involving 1,612 employees at a technology company found that working from home two days per week improved job satisfaction and reduced resignations by one-third, without negatively affecting performance ratings or promotions.

But a flexible bad job is still a bad job

Flexibility may get someone's attention, but the substance of the opportunity still matters.

Candidates are also asking:

• Is the work meaningful and genuinely interesting?
• Will I be learning skills that keep me relevant?
• Do I trust the person I'll report to?
• Is the role clearly defined?
• Will I have the tools and authority to do the job properly?
• Can I see where this opportunity might lead?

This is particularly relevant in technology, where roles and required skills are changing quickly. The World Economic Forum expects almost 40% of the skills required at work to change by 2030. Separate research shared by the Forum found that 67% of surveyed workers prioritised remaining skilled, relevant and employable over remote working.

That is the balance employers need to understand.

Candidates are not necessarily choosing flexibility instead of good work, development or leadership. They increasingly expect those things to exist together.

What should employers take from this?

A strong technology opportunity needs more than a hybrid label in the advertisement.

Employers should be able to explain:

• what the person will actually work on;
• why the work matters;
• what they will learn;
• how the team operates;
• what good performance looks like; and
• how flexibility works in practice.

If a role genuinely requires significant time in the office, be upfront about it, and explain why. Candidates are more likely to consider a clear and credible business reason than a policy that appears to exist simply because it always has.

Flexibility cannot rescue a poorly designed role.

But when the work, leadership and career opportunity are already strong, it can be the factor that helps the right person say yes.