This MTF Research Report examines how a frozen sample of 100 public US management vacancies from eight 2026 Fortune 100 employers disclosed work arrangement and travel expectations. It is a dated, purposive snapshot, not a census of the Fortune 100 or the US labour market.

Report number: MTF-RR-2026-09-10-01
Publication date: 10 September 2026
Author: MTF Institute Editorial Team
Reviewer: Igor Dmitriev
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22687450
Archival PDF: download the report

Abstract

We manually coded 100 unique vacancy pages captured on 10 August 2026. Sixteen vacancies explicitly stated a vacancy-specific work arrangement: nine on-site, four hybrid or flexible, and three remote. Twenty-seven explicitly addressed travel: 18 said travel was required or possible and nine said no travel. The remaining 84 work-arrangement records and 73 travel records were coded as not explicitly stated. These absences are disclosure findings, not evidence that a role lacked a location or travel condition. Employer templates strongly influenced disclosure. The report converts the findings into the practical PLACE-6 vacancy-review framework.

Research question

How explicitly did the 100-vacancy corpus disclose work arrangement and travel expectations, and what should candidates verify before investing in an application?

Scope and sample

The evidence base contains 100 unique public vacancy URLs from Amazon, Apple, Alphabet (Google), UnitedHealth Group, McKesson, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and CVS Health. The employers were in the 2026 Fortune 100 when the original sample was assembled. Vacancy counts are unequal and range from five to 18 per employer.

This report reuses the frozen corpus to answer a new question. It does not claim that the sample represents every management vacancy, employer policy or actual working arrangement. Public pages may change after capture.

Method

Each captured vacancy body was reviewed for vacancy-specific statements about remote, hybrid, flexible or on-site work and about required, possible or absent travel. Coding was mutually exclusive within each dimension.

We excluded navigation modules such as “Explore remote jobs” and “Include eligible remote jobs,” generic benefit text such as on-site wellness centres, and relocation boilerplate that did not state the job's work arrangement. “Not explicitly stated” means the captured page did not contain qualifying text under this method. It does not mean the employer offered no flexibility or required no travel.

The supporting workbook contains all 100 observation IDs, employer, title, role family, public source URL, capture date, codes and bounded evidence excerpts. Full vacancy bodies are not redistributed.

Findings

Work arrangement was explicit in 16 of 100 vacancies

Work-arrangement code Vacancies Share
On-site 9 9%
Hybrid or flexible 4 4%
Remote 3 3%
Not explicitly stated 84 84%

The 16 explicit disclosures do not estimate the prevalence of remote, hybrid or on-site management work. They measure what these captured pages stated under a strict coding rule.

Travel was addressed in 27 of 100 vacancies

Travel code Vacancies Share
Travel required or possible 18 18%
No travel 9 9%
Not explicitly stated 73 73%

Travel disclosures ranged from fixed percentages to local, domestic, international or occasional travel. The “required or possible” category does not imply equal burden.

Disclosure was concentrated by employer template

Employer Sample Arrangement disclosed Travel disclosed
Apple 18 1 4
Alphabet (Google) 15 0 0
Amazon 13 0 1
UnitedHealth Group 13 4 13
McKesson 12 5 8
Microsoft 12 2 0
JPMorgan Chase 12 0 1
CVS Health 5 4 0

The employer differences should not be read as a ranking of flexibility or transparency. They show that page design and template fields materially affect what a candidate can see.

Interpretation

The main practical finding is a disclosure gap. A vacancy can explain strategy, systems and leadership expectations while leaving the weekly place of work or travel burden unclear. Candidates should not convert missing text into a favourable assumption.

Explicit “hybrid” wording also needs a second question: how many days, in which location and under whose policy? “Remote” needs a geographic boundary, time-zone expectation and travel rule. “On-site” needs the actual site, schedule and any multi-site responsibilities. Travel percentages need a period, territory and explanation of overnight or international travel.

Practical application: PLACE-6

Use PLACE-6 before tailoring an application or accepting an interview.

Check Candidate question Evidence to retain
P — Primary workplace Which site or approved remote geography applies? vacancy text or recruiter confirmation
L — Local cadence How many days and which hours are location-bound? stated weekly pattern
A — Away-from-base travel What percentage, territory and overnight pattern is expected? range and examples
C — Change authority Can the arrangement change, and who decides? policy boundary and notice
E — Expense and equipment Which travel, workspace and equipment costs are covered? written policy or offer term
6 — Six-month fit Is the arrangement sustainable for six months, not only week one? personal constraint test

A worked candidate test

Suppose a vacancy says “hybrid” and “up to 20% travel.” Before accepting an interview, record three assumptions: three office days per week, one overnight trip per month and a specific metropolitan base. Ask the recruiter to confirm or correct each assumption. Then calculate monthly time and cost under the confirmed pattern. This turns a broad label into a decision you can evaluate.

Do not ask for confidential employee data. Do not assume that a recruiter can override policy. Preserve material terms in the formal offer or approved documentation.

Implications for employers

A concise vacancy-specific block can reduce avoidable mismatch:

  • primary work location and eligible geography;
  • expected in-office cadence;
  • travel percentage, territory and overnight pattern;
  • schedule constraints and multi-site responsibility;
  • whether the arrangement is role-specific or policy-dependent;
  • the point in the process when details will be confirmed.

Clear disclosure does not remove the need for discussion. It makes the discussion more efficient and reduces the chance that candidates self-select on a false assumption.

Limitations

The sample is purposive, dated and unequal across eight employers. It is not a labour-market estimate. Public templates may omit actual practice or include fields that apply inconsistently. The manual coding used strict evidence rules but remains interpretive. Travel categories combine different intensities. Role-family classification is coarse. The report does not test application outcomes, employee experience or policy compliance.

Reproducibility and integrity

The archive contains a searchable PDF and a supporting workbook with 100 coded observations, bounded evidence excerpts, public source URLs, employer and role-family summaries, method and limitations. No full vacancy text is redistributed. AI is not an author or evidence source. The reviewer checked sample size, unique URLs, coding boundaries, arithmetic, source traceability and public claims.

Learning pathway

MTF Institute's Advanced Executive Program in Management & Business Administration includes leadership, strategy, finance, commercial management, operations, technology and people decisions, plus a career launchpad. Learners can apply PLACE-6 when evaluating roles and translating career constraints into an evidence-based decision. The programme is professional, non-degree education and does not guarantee employment or promotion.

Sources