“We offer hybrid working” used to be enough to catch a candidate's eye. Now it's the baseline, and it's not always what candidates mean when they say they want flexibility.
We hear this a lot: a role is advertised as hybrid, three days in the office, but the days aren't fixed, or they clash with childcare, or “hybrid” quietly becomes “in five days a month, mandatory.” Candidates aren't reacting well to flexibility that isn't actually flexible.
What candidates mean by flexibility
Predictability: knowing which days are in-office, set well in advance
Choice over when, not just where: some candidates want core hours, not just remote days
Trust: flexibility that isn't monitored to the point of feeling like surveillance
Consistency: the policy on the careers page matching the policy once you're hired
Why publishing is a particular test case
Editorial and production roles often carry an assumption that “real” publishing work happens in an office, around a desk, near other people. But much of the day-to-day – copyediting, commissioning conversations, proofing, digital production – doesn't require physical presence. Candidates know this, and they notice when a flexibility policy hasn't caught up with the actual demands of the role.
Employer research bears this out: CIPD analysis shows a substantial share of UK employees still have no flexible working arrangement at all, and its flexible working factsheet notes that lack of flexibility is now a recognised driver of people leaving roles or whole sectors altogether.
What we tell employers
Be specific in your requirements. “Hybrid, 3 days in our Bristol office (Tues/Wed/Thurs), flexible on start and finish times” tells a candidate far more than “hybrid working available” – and it filters for people who can genuinely make that pattern work.
The takeaway
Flexibility isn't a perk anymore; it's an assumption. The employers winning good candidates are the ones being specific and honest about what flexibility looks like in practice.