Summer flexibility: what employees value and what Baltic employers offer

2026/06/16

Remote work is mainstream. A compressed working week is not.

Employers are once again asking people to spend more time in the office. There are understandable reasons for this. It is often easier to build relationships, welcome new colleagues, solve complex problems and learn from each other when people are physically together.

But the return-to-office discussion sometimes overlooks an important fact: not everyone ever left the workplace.

Production employees, customer service teams, healthcare professionals, drivers, warehouse workers and many others continued to work on site throughout the pandemic. Their jobs depend on equipment, customers, products, secure systems or a particular physical location. For them, working from home has never been a realistic alternative.

For many office-based employees, however, the pandemic changed what seemed possible. Work that had always been tied to one desk could suddenly be done elsewhere. Some people discovered that they concentrated better at home. Others valued the time saved on commuting or the ability to organise work and family life more easily.

In summer, the attraction is particularly easy to understand. If the work allows it, answering emails from a home office, a summer house or even the garden can feel very different from commuting into the city on a warm morning.

In our previous article, we looked at holidays and additional paid days off. This time, we focus on two other forms of summer flexibility: the freedom to choose where to work, and the possibility of completing the week’s working hours in four longer days.

We also look at the more difficult question: how can employers offer flexibility fairly when some jobs can be done remotely and others cannot?

The people have spoken

We asked our LinkedIn followers which form of summer flexibility they would value most. The poll received 87 votes. It is not a representative labour-market survey, but it provides an interesting signal.

The most popular choice was not additional leave. It was greater control over where work is done. Flexible working hours came second, while almost one-quarter of respondents preferred four longer working days followed by a free Friday.

The result suggests that flexibility is not only about having more free time. It is also about having more control over how work fits into life.

Remote work is widely available across the Baltics

Figure Baltic Advisory’s 2025 Compensation Survey shows that remote work is already firmly established in all three Baltic countries.

At first sight, employee preferences and employer practices appear to be well aligned. Work-location flexibility was the most popular option in our poll, and nine out of ten or more participating organisations in each Baltic country offer remote work to at least some employees.

However, the phrase “at least some employees” matters. It does not mean that everyone can work remotely, or that eligible employees can work away from the workplace whenever they choose. In many organisations, remote work is available only for certain roles and for a defined part of the working week.

The Baltic model is approximately two remote days per week

The detailed survey results show a strikingly consistent Baltic pattern. For executives, managers and professional roles, the median permitted remote-working time is 40% of working time in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In a standard five-day week, this means approximately two days remotely and three days at the workplace.

This may be the clearest finding in the comparison. The share of employers offering remote work differs slightly, but the typical model is almost identical. Full-time remote work is not the dominant arrangement. Instead, the Baltic market has settled around a structured hybrid model.

This is also consistent with broader European practice. Eurofound’s 2025 case studies found that structured hybrid arrangements commonly allow two or three remote days per week, or around 40–60% of working time. [1]

The purpose of this model should not be simply to divide the week mathematically. Ideally, remote and office days serve different needs. Tasks requiring quiet concentration, writing, analysis or individual preparation may work well remotely. Onboarding, relationship building, creative problem-solving and some forms of learning may benefit more from physical presence.

A better question than “How many office days do we require?” is: “What should we do when we are together, and what work can be done better elsewhere?”

What does research say?

Research does not support the simple conclusion that either the office or the home is always better.

A large randomised trial involving 1,612 employees found that working from home two days per week improved job satisfaction and reduced resignations by one-third, without damaging performance ratings or promotion outcomes. [2]

At the same time, experimental research has found that virtual communication can make creative idea generation more difficult, partly because attention becomes more narrowly focused on the screen. [3]

These findings are not contradictory. They suggest that different tasks benefit from different environments. A good hybrid model is therefore an intentional work design, not a reluctant compromise: remote work for concentration and individual tasks, shared workplace time for collaboration, learning and relationships, and clear expectations about availability and outcomes.

Working from another country is possible, but less common

In summer, work-location flexibility does not always mean working from home. For some people, it may mean working from a summer house. For others, it may mean spending a few weeks in another country while continuing to work.

Remote work from another country is available to at least some employees in 55% of Estonian organisations, 49% in Lithuania and 45% in Latvia.

Even so, “work from anywhere” rarely means literally anywhere. Cross-border remote work can create questions related to taxation, social security, insurance, data protection, cybersecurity and the employer’s legal obligations. Employers therefore often limit the number of days, restrict the countries involved or require prior approval. [4]

It is also important not to assume that everyone wants to use flexibility in July or August. One employee may value working from a summer house, while another would rather spend a longer period in Malta or Spain in November. Where possible, an annual framework gives people more real choice than a summer-only privilege.

Workation is not the same as a holiday

Workation — working remotely from a holiday destination while combining work and leisure — is available to at least some employees in 30% of Estonian organisations, 28% in Lithuania and 27% in Latvia.

The Baltic pattern is very similar. Workation is no longer unusual, but it is not yet a mainstream benefit either. Around seven out of ten organisations do not offer it.

If a person is attending meetings, answering emails, meeting deadlines and remaining available, that person is working — even if the laptop is open beside a swimming pool.

The largest gap concerns the compressed working week

The strongest difference between employee interest and employer practice appears in the compressed working week. In our LinkedIn poll, 24% of respondents selected four longer working days and Friday off. Yet this option is available to at least some employees in only 6% of Latvian organisations, 5% in Estonia and 3% in Lithuania.

The terminology matters. A compressed working week does not usually mean fewer working hours. It means completing the same weekly hours in fewer days — for example, four ten-hour days instead of five eight-hour days. This is different from a reduced four-day week, where total working hours are reduced, often while pay remains unchanged.

The attraction is easy to understand: a longer weekend without reducing total working time. For the employer, however, the arrangement raises practical questions about customer coverage, production and shifts, fatigue, safety, meetings and fairness between roles.

This may explain why employee interest is much higher than employer adoption. The free Friday is attractive. Redesigning the working week is much more difficult.

The fairness problem: some people can work under a palm tree, others cannot

Suppose office employees are allowed to work from their gardens, summer houses or another country. At the same time, customer service teams, warehouse employees, production workers and other on-site roles must remain at the workplace.

From the office employee’s perspective, remote work is a practical and low-cost form of flexibility. From the on-site employee’s perspective, it may look as though one group is receiving freedom that another group can never access.

This does not mean that employers should remove remote work. Taking flexibility away from one group does not improve another group’s working life. But it does mean that employers must think beyond identical treatment.

Fairness does not always mean giving everyone the same benefit. It means giving people meaningful options that fit the reality of their work.

What can employers do?

1. Design flexibility around the work, not status

Remote work should depend on whether the work can be performed remotely without harming service, security, collaboration or results — not on seniority, proximity to management or assumptions about trust. Employers should also explain clearly why some roles require physical presence. A transparent reason is usually perceived as fairer than inconsistent exceptions.

2. Offer choice across the year, not only in summer

Summer flexibility is attractive, but not everyone values the same season. Where possible, define an annual framework: a number of remote days from another location, flexible periods or individual days that employees can use when they value them most. This supports both the parent who needs flexibility in July and the employee who would rather travel in November.

3. Create meaningful alternatives for on-site roles

A machine operator cannot work remotely, but may value more control over time. Depending on the work, alternatives may include:

• more influence over shift preferences and easier shift swapping;
• predictable schedules published earlier;
• flexible start and finish times;
• seasonal hours or shorter Fridays where operations allow;
• additional paid recovery time or a personal day;
• additional compensation or practical support during difficult peak periods.

The goal is not to calculate a perfect euro-for-euro equivalent. It is to recognise that control over time is valuable even when control over work location is impossible.

4. Let people choose between forms of flexibility

One person may prefer two remote days per week. Another may value flexible starting hours. A third may prefer an additional day off or the ability to take a longer break in winter. Within clear operational boundaries, a menu of meaningful options can create more perceived value than a single universal policy.

5. Pilot difficult arrangements before scaling them

A compressed working week is a good candidate for a limited pilot in one team or during a quieter period. Measure service quality, output, deadlines, fatigue, absence, customer feedback and team coordination. The result may be positive, negative or suitable only for certain roles — all three outcomes are useful.

6. Communicate the principle honestly

Saying that “everyone can work from anywhere” when large parts of the workforce cannot do so is likely to feel excluding. A more credible promise is:

7. Ask employees what they actually value

Preferences differ by life stage, role, commute, family situation and personality. A short survey or focus-group discussion can reveal whether employees value location, hours, predictable schedules, extra leave or seasonal arrangements most. The objective is not to fulfil every individual wish, but to avoid investing in flexibility that people do not particularly value while overlooking options that would make a real difference.

Equal treatment does not require identical arrangements

A customer service employee may need to be present because customers arrive physically. A production employee may depend on equipment. An analyst may be able to complete most individual work remotely. These differences are real.

Trying to pretend that every role can have the same arrangement may lead either to operational problems or to the removal of useful flexibility from everyone. A more mature approach distinguishes between identical treatment and equitable value.

For office-based roles, flexibility may mean choosing the work location. For on-site roles, it may mean more control over shifts, working hours, leave timing or recovery. The solutions are different, but the underlying promise can be the same: give people as much reasonable control over their working lives as the work allows.

The office and remote work do not have to be opposites

The debate is often presented as a choice between two positions: either people return to the office, or they work wherever they wish. The Baltic data suggests that real working life has settled somewhere between these extremes.

Remote work is widely available, but the typical model is around two days remotely and three days at the workplace. Working from another country is possible in roughly half of organisations. Workation is offered by just under one-third. The compressed working week attracts clear employee interest but remains rare in employer practice.

The central question is no longer whether the office or home is inherently better. It is what combination of location, working time and shared presence best supports results, collaboration and people’s ability to organise their lives.

Our small poll provides one clear summer message: people value the ability to choose where they work. Baltic employers have already responded to this preference to a considerable extent. Remote work is no longer a special exception. But it is usually offered within a structured hybrid model — and across Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that model looks remarkably similar:

approximately two days remotely and three days together.

The next step is not necessarily to offer more remote work to everyone. It is to design flexibility more deliberately — and to ensure that employees who cannot work remotely are not left outside the conversation.

Sources and notes

1. Figure Baltic Advisory 2025 Compensation Survey, benefits and flexible-work modules. The employer percentages indicate organisations offering the option to at least one employee group. The 40% median refers to executives, management and professional roles.
2. LinkedIn poll conducted by Figure Baltic Advisory, 87 votes. The poll is directional and not representative of the Baltic labour market.
3. Eurofound (2025), “Shaping the future of work: Inside Europe’s hybrid work strategies.” https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/publications/all/shaping-future-work-inside-europes-hybrid-work-strategies
4. Bloom, N. et al. (2024), “Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance,” Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07500-2
5. Brucks, M. S. & Levav, J. (2022), “Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation,” Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04643-y
6. European Labour Authority / EURES (2023), “What’s the latest on cross-border telework and social security?” https://eures.europa.eu/whats-latest-cross-border-telework-and-social-security-2023-11-13_en