How do remote and in-person hiring practices influence equity grant structures and counteroffer dynamics in 2025-2026?

Question

Rohan Kapadia · Accepted Answer

The short answer
Remote and in-person hiring practices significantly influence compensation and equity structures. Employers tend to offer higher starting salaries for in-office roles, while equity grants for new hires are becoming more conservative and increasingly front-loaded. Counteroffers remain relatively uncommon, partly due to employees’ limited understanding of employer wage policies.
Why this question comes up
This question arises as organizations adapt to evolving work arrangements, balancing remote flexibility with in-person presence. Understanding how these practices affect compensation and equity is crucial for talent acquisition, retention strategies, and managing compensation equity across different work modalities.
What the data shows
A 2025 study indicates that individuals are willing to accept a 25% reduction in compensation in exchange for remote work. Despite this, employers generally offer similar wages for both remote and in-person roles, suggesting a disconnect between employee preferences and employer offerings. In 2026, a majority of managers are willing to increase starting salaries for in-office roles, with 66% prepared to do so, and 59% offering up to 20% more for full-time office attendance. This reflects a trend toward incentivizing in-person presence through higher initial compensation.
Regarding equity grants, data shows a downward trend, with values for new hires dropping approximately 10% year-over-year across top job families. Additionally, there is a notable increase in front-loaded vesting schedules, with 25% of new hire grants being front-loaded in 2024, up from 7% in 2022. This shift suggests a more conservative approach to equity compensation and a strategic move to align incentives more immediately.
Counteroffers are relatively rare, partly because some employed workers have imperfect beliefs about their employer’s wage policies and may not ask for a counteroffer even when presented with a better external offer. This indicates that the dynamics of counteroffers are less influenced by the availability of higher offers and more by employees’ perceptions and understanding of internal wage policies.
When this answer changes
These dynamics can vary depending on factors such as company size, industry, geographic location, and role seniority. For example, larger organizations or those in highly competitive sectors may adopt different compensation strategies, and geographic differences can influence salary and equity norms. Additionally, roles at different levels of seniority may experience divergent trends in how remote or in-person work impacts compensation and equity.
Common mistakes
A common misconception is that remote workers always receive higher compensation and more favorable equity grants than in-person workers. In reality, data shows that employers often offer higher starting salaries for in-office roles and are adopting more conservative equity strategies overall. The relationship between work modality and compensation is complex and influenced by multiple factors beyond just remote or in-person status.
Practical next step
Professionals should review their current compensation structures and consider how remote and in-person work arrangements might influence salary and equity offers. This week, assess whether your organization’s pay practices align with these trends and identify opportunities to ensure equitable treatment across different work modalities.