Work Arrangement Disclosure in 100 Fortune 100 Management Vacancies: August 2026

Abstract

MTF Institute analysed a frozen, diversified sample of 100 management vacancies captured on 10 August 2026 from eight employers in the 2026 Fortune 100. The study asks how often the captured vacancy text explicitly described work arrangement, which labels appeared and how disclosure varied across employers and functional families.

Only 26 vacancies contained an explicit arrangement signal under the stated coding rules: 14 hybrid, seven on-site and five remote. Seventy-four contained no explicit hybrid, remote or on-site signal in the captured text. The result does not mean those 74 roles lacked flexibility; it means the page did not disclose an arrangement in language that met the method. Employer practice dominated the snapshot: all 12 sampled Microsoft postings contained a signal, while none of the 18 Apple or 15 Alphabet postings did.

Report number: MTF-RR-2026-08-22-01
Publication date: 22 August 2026
Author: MTF Institute Editorial Team
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22057356
Archival files: The Zenodo record contains the searchable PDF, 100-row coding CSV and supporting workbook.

Research question

In this defined 100-vacancy sample:

  1. How often did the captured job text explicitly disclose remote, hybrid or on-site work?
  2. Which arrangement labels appeared?
  3. How did explicit disclosure vary across sampled employers and functional families?
  4. What should candidates and managers ask when a work arrangement is stated—or absent?

Scope and method

Sampling frame

The unit of analysis is one distinct management vacancy URL. The frozen corpus contains 100 postings from Amazon, Apple, Alphabet (Google), UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health, McKesson, Microsoft and JPMorgan Chase. All eight employers were members of the 2026 Fortune 100 when the corpus was constructed.

Ninety-nine records were in the United States and one was in Germany. The report therefore describes a primarily U.S. sample, not 100 U.S. vacancies. Employer counts range from five to 18. The roles span 10 title-based functional families: engineering/data/technology; operations/facilities/construction; commercial/marketing/partnerships; programme/project/delivery; legal/risk/compliance; product management; health/care delivery; finance/banking; design/content/experience; and general/organisational leadership.

This is a purposive snapshot designed for diversity across employers and functions. It is not a random sample of all Fortune 100 vacancies or a population estimate.

Inclusion and coding rules

A record was included when it had a unique captured vacancy URL, substantive job text, an identified sampled employer and a title-based management classification in the frozen corpus.

The captured title and body were searched for explicit arrangement language. A record was coded:

  • hybrid for direct labels such as “hybrid schedule,” “hybrid position,” “Work Arrangement: Hybrid,” or a stated requirement of one or more in-office days per week;
  • remote for direct remote labels or a stated zero-days-per-week in-office arrangement;
  • on-site for direct fully on-site or site-based labels; and
  • no explicit signal when none of these rules was satisfied.

One McKesson posting labelled “Hybrid or remote” was counted in the hybrid/flexible category. Multiple-location language was recorded separately and was not treated as remote. The coded file preserves the matched evidence excerpt for each explicit signal.

Validation

The 100 records and 100 source URLs are unique. Employer and functional-family totals reconcile to 100. Every one of the 26 explicit-signal records was reviewed against its captured excerpt after narrowing the rules to remove false positives such as ordinary uses of “site,” “remote monitoring” or references to remote team members.

Results

1. Only 26 of 100 postings stated an arrangement explicitly

Arrangement coding Vacancies Share of sample
Hybrid 14 14%
On-site 7 7%
Remote 5 5%
No explicit signal 74 74%
Total 100 100%

Six postings included multiple-location signals. Location breadth can widen a search area, but it does not by itself establish remote work.

2. Employer-level disclosure differed sharply

Employer Vacancies Explicit signal Hybrid Remote On-site
Apple 18 0 0 0 0
Alphabet (Google) 15 0 0 0 0
Amazon 13 1 0 0 1
UnitedHealth Group 13 5 2 3 0
JPMorgan Chase 12 0 0 0 0
McKesson 12 4 2 1 1
Microsoft 12 12 10 1 1
CVS Health 5 4 0 0 4

The table is evidence about the sampled pages on the capture date, not a permanent employer policy. It nevertheless shows why a candidate should not infer the whole market from one employer's template.

3. Every functional family contained substantial non-disclosure

Functional family Vacancies Explicit signal Sample disclosure rate
Engineering, data and technology 16 5 31.3%
Operations, facilities and construction 15 5 33.3%
Commercial, marketing and partnerships 12 2 16.7%
Programme, project and delivery 12 5 41.7%
Legal, risk and compliance 10 1 10.0%
Product management 9 3 33.3%
Health and care delivery 8 2 25.0%
Finance and banking 7 2 28.6%
Design, content and experience 6 0 0.0%
General and organisational leadership 5 1 20.0%

Functional differences should be interpreted cautiously. Several cells are small, and employer templates are unevenly distributed across functions. The stronger descriptive pattern in this sample is employer-level wording.

What the data does not show

The analysis does not establish actual attendance practice, manager discretion, employee experience, legal eligibility, travel requirements or future policy. “No explicit signal” is a disclosure result, not an on-site classification.

The captured text can also be incomplete relative to a recruiter conversation or internal policy. A label such as hybrid does not state how many office days apply, whether the schedule is fixed, or whether a relocation boundary exists unless the posting says so.

Practical application: the PLACE-5 clarification method

Candidates and managers can turn an arrangement label into five operational questions.

P — Policy wording

What exact label does the employer use, and is it a formal policy or a role-specific expectation?

L — Location applicability

Which work location, employment entity and time zone apply? Does the candidate need to live within commuting distance?

A — Attendance cadence

How many days or which events require presence? Is the cadence fixed, team-defined or manager-defined?

C — Conditions and exceptions

How do travel, customer work, probation, security restrictions, performance events or emergencies affect the arrangement?

E — Evolution and review

Can the arrangement change, who can change it, and how will a material change be communicated and documented?

A candidate comparison table

Question Role A Role B Evidence still needed
Formal arrangement label Hybrid Not stated Recruiter confirmation for B
Office cadence Three days/week Unknown Team-level schedule
Location boundary Within 80 km Named city only Relocation/commute rule
Travel Up to 20% Not stated Customer and leadership events
Change authority Company policy Unknown Offer or policy wording

The table prevents a candidate from comparing a precise arrangement with an optimistic assumption.

What employers can improve

When work arrangement is relevant, job descriptions become more decision-useful if they state:

  1. the arrangement label and applicable location;
  2. the expected attendance cadence;
  3. material travel or site requirements;
  4. whether the schedule is fixed or team-dependent;
  5. the authority and process for changes; and
  6. whether final terms will appear in the offer or employment documentation.

This is not a recommendation to promise permanent flexibility where it cannot be guaranteed. It is a recommendation to separate current expectation, decision authority and conditions clearly.

MTF's salary-transparency study of the same 100-vacancy corpus examines a different disclosure signal. The Degree vs Experience report analyses selection requirements in the same broader research programme.

Readers who want to deepen their ability to connect workforce strategy, job design, leadership and organisational change can review MTF Institute's Executive Certificate in Strategic Human Resources, Leadership & Change.

Limitations

  • The purposive sample covers eight Fortune 100 employers, not all 100 companies.
  • Employer counts are unequal and employer templates influence the observed result.
  • Ninety-nine records are U.S.-based and one is Germany-based.
  • The coding captures explicit text, not actual workplace practice.
  • Vacancy pages and policies may change after 10 August 2026.
  • Functional families are title-based and simplify hybrid roles.
  • The study is descriptive and does not establish why an employer included or omitted wording.

Data and archival record

The Zenodo record contains the searchable PDF, a 100-row coding CSV and a supporting workbook with employer, functional-family and methodology tables: 10.5281/zenodo.22057356.

References