For decades, a seemingly trivial issue \u2014 who gets the best parking spot and office \u2014 has ignited officewide tension. Employees grumble over who gets to park where and how offices were allocated (or who got an office with walls in the first place), exposing deep resentments about favoritism, status, and fairness.<\/p>\n
These days, a new \u201cparking spot\u201d fight is emerging \u2013 not over the office lot, but over who gets to work remotely and how often. As companies grapple with return-to-office mandates and hybrid schedules, decisions about who works where are becoming a flashpoint.\u00a0Research confirms what many business leaders already sense: inequality in remote work is growing.<\/a>\u00a0High-income, highly educated employees are far more likely to have remote options, while most others are not. For jobs paying around $30,000, remote work is rare; for those earning over $200,000, more than 30% offer part- or full-time flexibility. Many of the executives we talk to in our executive education programs mention fairness (or the lack thereof) as a significant concern associated with work-from-home. Employees required to come into the office feel they are being treated unfairly, which\u00a0can undermine engagement and morale<\/a>. In this new world, work will not be uniform \u2014 it will be personalized. But with personalization comes the challenge of maintaining fairness in the increasingly customized work arrangements. How should organizations address this?\u00a0<\/p>\n In general, there\u2019s no shortage of felt unfairness in the workplace. Everyone knows that people within the same organization often earn different salaries. Other benefits \u2014 like health insurance or leave policies \u2014 are also unequally distributed. So why is who gets to work remotely such a concern? And what can leaders do to address it?<\/p>\n Research shows<\/a>\u00a0that are more likely to accept unfavorable decisions if they perceive fairness in the decision-making process. In practice, this is difficult because fairness depends on many factors: (1) whether reasons for the decision were clearly explained, (2) whether it was applied consistently, (3) whether people had enough time and resources to adapt, (4) whether their input was solicited and considered, and (5) whether they were treated with dignity and respect. Even if most of these conditions are met, one or two unfair elements can strongly shape overall perceptions of fairness.<\/p>\n When it comes to remote work, simply stating that a job\u00a0can<\/em>\u00a0be done remotely is not enough to justify\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0someone gets that benefit. So, here are three key factors to ensure custom hybrid work arrangements gain wider support:<\/p>\n Unequal treatment becomes more legitimate when it is seen as instrumental to a greater goal. Leaders need to communicate clearly that remote work is a productivity strategy. That means explaining, with specificity, how working from home enables better focus, faster execution, or higher-quality output\u2014and<\/em>\u00a0how these benefits help the team or organization perform better overall.<\/p>\n Too often, work-from-home arrangements are framed in terms of individual preference or convenience. Instead, they need to be justified in terms of value creation. If remote work doesn\u2019t clearly contribute to better outcomes, it shouldn\u2019t be allowed. But when it does, employees\u2014both remote and in-person\u2014deserve to understand why.<\/p>\n People are more likely to accept unequal arrangements when they have a voice in the process. Rather than decreeing top-down policies, companies should engage employees\u2014across roles, functions, and work modalities\u2014in conversations about what hybrid work should look like.<\/p>\n Conversations can take the form of surveys, listening sessions, cross-functional working groups, or even informal feedback loops. The gold standard of involvement is for employees to know that their views were\u00a0seriously considered<\/em>. When employees see that their perspectives are reflected in policy decisions, they can directly see that their input was taken into account, leading them to view decisions as fair. The bigger challenge is to show people that their input was seriously considered even when it was not reflected in policy decisions. When this is the case, leaders must provide reasonable explanations\u00a0 and in a reasonable tone of voice.\u00a0<\/p>\n 3. Invest in improving the in-office experience\u2014for real<\/strong><\/p>\n To those who must be on-site, hybrid work can feel like a raw deal. That\u2019s why organizations need to go beyond surface-level perks (free snacks won\u2019t cut it) and focus on creating meaningful improvements to the work experience in the office.<\/p>\n This could include better-designed spaces for collaboration, clearer schedules for shared presence, or streamlined workflows that reduce friction and frustration. The goal is to make in-office work genuinely more productive and purposeful. Such changes are significant to employees not only substantively, but also symbolically. After all, it conveys to employees that they are being treated with dignity and respect.<\/p>\n Hybrid work is here to stay. But its long-term success will depend not just on technology or policy\u2014but on the fairness of the process of planning and implementing it. By explaining decisions clearly, taking employees input seriously, and improving work for those on-site, leaders can build hybrid systems that feel less like a divide\u2014and more like a shared enterprise.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Fortune Global Forum<\/strong> returns Oct. 26\u201327, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.<\/a><\/p>\n1. Clarify how and why the new work structure (remote, hybrid or in office) adds value\u2014for everyone<\/strong><\/h3>\n
2. Involve employees in shaping hybrid policies<\/strong><\/h3>\n