Remote employees lead the well-being ranking
Fully remote employees reported the highest well-being in a study of 7,704 workers at a large healthcare organization, according to findings described by the University of Colorado on August 19, 2026. Hybrid staff ranked next, while employees working entirely onsite reported the lowest well-being.
The study, published in Frontiers in Psychology in July 2026, challenges a common reason employers give for requiring office attendance: that distance weakens connection to colleagues and workplace culture. Researchers found little evidence of that effect in their sample. When asked to describe organizational culture, remote workers were slightly more likely than hybrid and onsite peers to use language associated with teamwork, support and inclusion.
The results surprised co-author Stefanie Johnson, a professor of organizational leadership and information analytics at the Leeds School of Business. She had expected hybrid employees to benefit from both home working and periodic in-person contact. Instead, the survey produced a consistent ordering, with the fully remote group at the top.
That pattern does not mean face-to-face interaction has no value. Johnson said it can help colleagues form relationships, particularly near the beginning of a career. Her interpretation was that remote arrangements work better after people know one another.
Well-being links location and retention
Participants completed the workplace survey in 2023. Researchers then compared their answers with actual turnover records one year later. Roughly half of the employees worked onsite, while the remainder were divided between hybrid and fully remote arrangements.
Work location was not a strong direct predictor of whether an employee left. Higher well-being, however, was associated with lower turnover. Remote work correlated with better well-being, which in turn correlated with a lower likelihood of departure. The analysis therefore suggests an indirect relationship rather than evidence that location alone determines retention.
The study did not establish why remote staff reported better outcomes. Johnson pointed to autonomy and flexibility as possible explanations, noting that control over a work environment and daily schedule can be beneficial. Working from home can also remove routine pressures such as commuting, arranging child care, caring for pets and managing travel to an office. Those explanations remain interpretations rather than mechanisms tested by this study.
The organizational setting also matters. All respondents came from one large healthcare employer, so the findings should not automatically be treated as representative of every industry, job or workplace. The supplied account did not describe random assignment to work arrangements, meaning the data show associations among location, well-being and turnover rather than proving that remote work caused the differences.
For employers, the researchers’ practical conclusion is to preserve choice where possible and focus on well-being rather than location alone. The results provide evidence against assuming that remote staff are necessarily isolated—and suggest return-to-office policies may remove a valued form of flexibility without delivering the connection managers expect.
