Flex and BCG: ‘Don’t follow Fortune 100 headlines when setting your workplace strategy’

The debate around the pros and cons of flexible working continues, with new research from Flex and BCG suggesting that more US firms are offering employees to work from flexible locations (66%) compared to 33% requiring a full-time office presence. 

The Flex Report Q3 2025, which shared joint research from Flex and BCG covering 9,000 US firms, found that businesses offering fully flexible working arrangements grew revenues 1.7x faster than mandate-driven firms from 2019-2024. 

To understand how and why flexibility impacts performance, UNLEASH spoke exclusively to Publisher of the Flex Index and CEO of Work Forward, Brian Elliott, to find out more.

Flexibility as a “competitive weapon”.

There’s a growing gap between large and small companies on workplace flexibility, according to Flex and BCG’s recent report.

While 67% of companies under 500 employees offer full flexibility, only 11% of those over 25,000 do the same. 

The report shows that the businesses leading the ‘return to office’ charge are mainly the Fortune 100 – and most others aren’t following suit. 

This being said, 71% of Fortune 100 firms offer employees flexibility, with 35% offering a 3-days hybrid pattern, and 45% requesting either four or five days in the office – meaning 29% are required in the office full time. This highlights that although many Fortune 100 companies are offering, requirements are getting tighter. 

“Larger companies are falling back on monitoring, while smaller more nimble companies focus on outcomes – and it appears to be paying off,” Elliott says exclusively to UNLEASH.

In fact, the joint research shows that fully flexible companies grew revenues 1.7x faster than mandate-driven peers between 2019-2024. Even adjusting for industry and size, flexible firms maintained a 1.3X growth advantage.

As a result, Elliott warns: “Don’t follow Fortune 100 headlines when setting your workplace strategy. 

“The companies making the loudest return-to-office announcements aren’t the ones driving growth. The data consistently shows flexibility improves company performance through better talent access, higher engagement, and outcomes-focused management.”

Instead, Elliott suggests that smaller organizations should treat flexibility as a “competitive weapon.” 

You’re competing for talent against larger firms that are voluntarily handicapping themselves,” he adds.

“If you’re at a large organization, recognize that your size advantage in other areas doesn’t extend to talent attraction and retention around workplace policies.”

The links between policies, work-life balance and AI

Since early 2024, businesses requesting mandatory office days have increased by 12%, according to Flex’s and BCG’s data – yet attendance has risen by only 1-3%.

For Elliott, this highlights a “persistent gap” between RTO demands and employee behavior, which signals deeper management issues.

“While this gap might narrow as the job market weakens, it’s not going to zero,” Elliott explains. “Policies alone don’t drive behavior change. Managers facing performance pressure won’t terminate solid performers over attendance compliance.”

He continues to highlight that this disparity isn’t just driven by people wanting work-life balance, but rather that one-size-fits-all rules requiring four or five days in office can impede collaboration.

HR leaders should stop focusing on universal policies and start enabling purpose-driven time together,” he advises. “Co-located teams will naturally spend 3 days a week in the office if their manager makes that time meaningful: project kickoffs, collaborative sessions, team building.”

What’s more, distributed teams should have a different approach, with quarterly gatherings rather than weekly mandates. 

Elliott adds: “Develop team-centered norms rather than organization-wide policies. Help managers understand the difference between coordinating co-located teams (who benefit from regular face-to-face time) and distributed teams (who need intentional but less frequent gatherings). 

“The key is making time together purposeful rather than prescribed.”

Flex and BCG’s data also shows that there is a link between firms that have been successful in adopting flexible work and those prioritizing their AI journey. 

For Elliott, these businesses view both aspects as “fundamental redesigns of how we work,” rather than just new tools or debates about where employees work.

He shares: “They know that a memo from the top, whether it’s an RTO mandate or a command to use AI tools ‘or else’ won’t change how teams do their jobs. 

“Instead, they’re focusing on teams as the center of the organization: getting leaders to set norms for purpose-driven time together, and acceptable use of AI. They know their senior leaders have to be directly involved: setting the tone through hosting anchor days in office, and getting their hands on the tools their teams are using. 

“They’re outcomes-oriented, setting goals for teams and measuring progress, not activity monitoring. And last, they’re investing in training and development – change isn’t free.”

HR leaders should therefore approach flexibility and AI as a “management philosophy shift,” that requires “investment in new capabilities, team-level adaptation, and leadership modeling,” rather than just another technology or policy problem. 

“Organizations that master this approach don’t just implement new tools,” Elliott concludes, “but they build competitive advantages through better management practices that compound over time.”