The Push to Return to In-Person Work
The following contribution is from the LevelUP portal Why LevelUP? Here’s how it is defined: LevelUP has been providing innovative talent management solutions to its clients since 2012. Since then, we have grown to offer talent acquisition and management services to companies around the world, from Fortune 500 brands to fast-growing startups. Today, we combine innovative technology with the best of industry experience to meet your talent needs.
As one of the largest privately owned minority business enterprises, we offer you customized services ranging from RPO and contingent workforce management to HR consulting, all customized to your organization’s needs.
As Amazon announces its return to a five-day workweek in the office, the future of remote work is under new scrutiny. While some industry leaders are pushing for a full return to the office, the reality of workplace trends is more nuanced and complex. Financial services leaders such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs were the first to advocate for bringing employees back to the office full-time.
This initiative has spread across industries, with influential voices such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Nike CEO John Donahoe criticising remote work. Over the past year, companies such as Boeing, UPS and Abbott have also tightened their remote work policies.
Why some companies are adopting “office-first” policies
Many leaders believe that in-person interactions foster creativity and problem-solving, and see collaboration and innovation as key drivers for a return to the office.
They argue that office environments can reinforce company values and team cohesion, strengthening corporate culture.
In addition, there are concerns about productivity, with the belief that certain tasks can benefit from face-to-face communication and immediate feedback. These factors combined have led some organisations to push for a full return to office work.
Not all companies are backtracking
Despite the media emphasis on large corporations returning to the office, it’s critical to understand that this trend is not universal. As Stanford’s Professor Bloom notes, “For every high-profile company canceling work from home, there are others expanding it, but they don’t get as much media attention.”
Hybrid and remote work not only aligns with modern employee expectations, but also offers lasting benefits in productivity, cost savings, and talent retention—factors that make a full return to the office unlikely for many organizations.
While some companies may backtrack on flexible work policies, others will tighten them to differentiate themselves from their competitors
Why many employers won’t follow Amazon’s lead
Flexibility fosters loyalty
One of the main reasons hybrid work remains so enduring is its role in talent retention. Workers across all industries — especially younger generations entering the workforce — prioritize work-life balance, flexibility, and mental health over traditional office perks like free snacks or ping-pong tables.
According to Buffer’s most recent report on the state of remote work
98% of the 3,000 remote workers surveyed around the world prefer to work remotely at least some of the time.
Strict return-to-office mandates, like Amazon’s, can breed dissatisfaction and even lead to quits, especially when employees have grown accustomed to the benefits of remote work.
Hybrid work models boost productivity
While Amazon leaders point to in-person work as a driver of collaboration and innovation, tasks that require deep focus (like writing, coding, or analyzing data) are often done more effectively in the quiet, uninterrupted environment that remote work provides.
It is well documented that remote and hybrid models can match or exceed the productivity of traditional office environments.
Increased Productivity with Hybrid Work
A Gallup survey of more than 200,000 US employees found that 31% of leaders and 52% of hybrid workers reported increased productivity with hybrid work.
Similar trends are seen in the UK and Asia Pacific, where hybrid models are also credited with increasing productivity.
Hybrid models deliver long-term financial benefits
For companies that have already made the shift to hybrid work, the cost savings are too compelling to ignore. Maintaining large office spaces for full-time staff comes with high overhead costs, including rent, utilities, and maintenance.
By having fewer people in the office on a daily basis, many companies have been able to reduce the size of their offices and redirect those savings to other areas such as technology, wellness programs, or employee development.
Hybrid work empowers underrepresented groups
Hybrid work plays an important role in accommodating employees with disabilities, caring responsibilities or people from different socioeconomic backgrounds who might struggle to perform traditional office roles.
McKinsey research suggests that hybrid work environments can also ease the burden
of people who may feel compelled to hide aspects of their identity, including disabilities, gender identity or sexual orientation. Their findings show that underrepresented groups, including LGBTQIA+ employees, women and employees with disabilities, have a higher preference for hybrid work and are more likely to leave their jobs if they do not have that flexibility.
Hybrid work drives positive ESG performance
Hybrid work strengthens ESG (environmental, social and governance) performance by delivering tangible benefits across all three pillars.
Environmental impact: Research from Cornell University and Microsoft reveals that fully remote workers reduce emissions by 54%, while hybrid workers reduce emissions by up to 29% when working from home two to four days a week.
Social benefits: Hybrid work promotes work-life balance, increases job satisfaction, and supports DE&I initiatives by addressing different employee needs.
Governance improvements: Hybrid models improve resource management, reduce costs, and enhance transparency and accountability through better communication and digital tools.
Why top talent might resist full-time office mandates
One reason remote and hybrid work has remained such a powerful negotiating tool is the shifting power dynamics between employers and employees.
In industries with high demand for specialized talent, candidates now have more leverage—companies that meet flexibility expectations are the ones that will thrive.
Even with a slight cool-down in the tech sector, remote and hybrid work remains a key bargaining chip for top candidates.
With the tech industry leading the share of remote employees worldwide, many workers now see flexible work arrangements as a permanent expectation.
This is further evidenced by the fact that only 7% of large tech companies require full-time office attendance, a figure that has been steadily declining over the past year and a half.
Amazon employees are expressing deep discontent with the new mandate, with many planning to leave the company
Within 24 hours of the announcement, frustrations erupted on social media and internal platforms like Slack.
Staff criticized the abrupt shift away from the hybrid model, seeing it as a step backward, not a return to pre-pandemic norms. Many are resisting the loss of flexibility and are considering a “soft resignation” as a response.
Some even believe the mandates are subtle strategies to prompt voluntary resignations, reducing headcount without the negative press of layoffs.
Overall, the consensus is that these policies do more harm than good, with many seeing the policy as out of sync with employee needs and modern work preferences.
The way forward
Companies that remain inflexible about remote or hybrid work arrangements may risk alienating current and future talent.
To mitigate this, they must find innovative ways to incorporate flexibility within their work models. This could include implementing flexible start and end times, compressed workweeks, or discretionary remote days for personal appointments or focused work.
As we navigate this changing landscape, it is critical to recognize that businesses are still grappling with these complex decisions.
The workforce has fundamentally changed, with shifting expectations around flexibility, work-life balance, and what constitutes an effective work environment.
Business leaders are making these fundamental decisions based on a multitude of factors, including organizational culture, economic considerations, industry-specific needs, and competitive pressures.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and what works for one company may not be right for another. However, regardless of the specific approach, certain principles can guide decision-making in this new era of work.
Key takeaways for business leaders:
– Periodically evaluate and adjust work policies based on employee feedback and business results.
– Invest in technology and processes that support flexible work arrangements.
– Focus on outcomes rather than physical presence as a measure of productivity.
– Consider the broader impact of workplace policies on talent acquisition, retention, and overall business strategy.
By embracing the complexities of the modern workplace and remaining open to evolving strategies, companies can create environments that foster productivity, innovation, and employee satisfaction over the long term.
Why valuable employees often leave after a tightening of return-to-office rules
The following contribution corresponds to the portal of one of the leading publications covering American SMEs, Inc.co, and the author of the article is Bruce Crumley, who is a former correspondent and Paris bureau chief for Time magazine. He has also worked for Fortune, Sports Illustrated, Agence France-Presse and as a freelancer. He divides his time as unequally as possible between Biarritz and Paris.
According to recently published studies, many companies that impose stricter return-to-office rules lose some of their most valuable and difficult-to-replace employees.
Following recent announcements by several large companies that they will tighten return-to-office rules, there has been much speculation that 2025 could see a widespread push by companies to end work-from-home arrangements.
But companies that scale back remote options may regret the consequences. New research indicates that companies that flex their return-to-office muscle often lose their most valuable and hard-to-replace employees.
This year saw a general reduction in work-from-home and hybrid arrangements, with large companies like Starbucks following earlier decisions by UPS, the Washington Post, and defense company RTX that required people to spend more time in the office.
That gradual decline in workplace flexibility fueled further speculation that there could be a broader corporate push to eliminate remote arrangements altogether.
Those odds increased with Amazon’s bombshell announcement in September. CEO Andy Jassy said employees are expected to spend all five days of the week in Amazon’s offices starting Jan. 2. That prompted many employees to threaten to quit instead — and some have reportedly already done so.
According to a University of Pittsburgh study, such a reaction to significantly stricter or full-week RTO mandates is not new, nor is it limited to tech giants.
The newly updated working paper “Return to Office Mandates and Brain Drain”
says that companies that restrict their remote work options “experience abnormally high staff turnover” afterward.
Worse, the resulting surge in departures often involves companies’ most valuable workers, including “female employees, more experienced employees, and more skilled employees.”
The reason? Those veteran employees often find it easier to land new jobs with more flexible work rules elsewhere, often with a bump in pay.
In addition, some of those employees who are parents or caregivers at home simply can’t make raise or full-office work mandates work.
But the problems created by restrictive RTO rules don’t end there
Researchers said those same mandates frequently make it difficult to fill open positions, as many top candidates similarly prioritize more flexible arrangements.
Recruits who accept the positions often command higher salaries, but they may also require training that on average takes 33 hours and costs more than $1,250 per new employee.
The study was conducted by identifying S&P 500 companies that imposed RTO restrictions
between April 2020 and June 2023, and then examining three million LinkedIn profiles to see how their employees reacted to them.
The result was a 14 percent increase in attrition rates, typically among high-value workers, a 23 percent increase in the time taken to fill those vacancies compared to pre-RTO recruiting, and a 17 percent drop in hires for open positions.
“RTO mandates could cost companies their best employees who are hard to replace,” the study notes. “These mandates could also make it harder for companies to attract new talent, further worsening the brain drain.”
The findings largely match the findings of a report earlier this year by the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan
Their analysis indicated that attrition rates for senior and highly valued employees rose after large companies such as Apple, Microsoft and SpaceX imposed stricter RTO rules.
Those departure numbers may support speculation that arose after Amazon’s announcement, when commentators claimed that some of the company’s decisions to eliminate remote work may be a means of reducing headcount without formal layoffs.
Either way, negative employee reactions appear to have little effect in deterring employers from plans to require workers to spend more time in the office.
While only 4 percent of bosses cited increasing RTO as a priority in a January survey by the business group Conference Board, that view had changed considerably nine months later.
When asked in an October survey about their current work plans for 2025, 21 percent of respondents said they expected to operate full in-office work regimes, compared with 14 percent who had already implemented those rules.
The number of bosses planning three- to four-day in-person work mandates for next year rose slightly to 73 percent, compared with 71 percent now operating under those rules. No bosses said they currently allow fully remote arrangements, and none intended to do so in 2025.
That suggests a broad, company-wide initiative to reinstate five-day office requirements in 2025 doesn’t appear to be brewing
But it also indicates that companies seem intent on continuing to gradually tighten their RTO requirements, even if it may cost them key employees as a result.
New leadership advice from CEO Stephanie Mehta
How Return-to-Office Policies Are Impacting Employees in 2024
The following contribution is from Forbes and the author is Kara Dennison, SPHR, CPRW, EC is an executive career and leadership coach and organizational strategy consultant who writes about career advancement, leadership, job searching, employee engagement, corporate culture, and the future of work. She has spoken about the great resignation, how the traditional job search is broken, the coaching leadership style, and ghost jobs. Inspiring Workplaces named her one of the 101 Most Influential People in Employee Engagement Globally for both 2023 and 2024. Dennison is the CEO of Optimized Career Solutions and offers executive branding and career coaching for job seekers alongside her husband, Jack Dennison. She also advises Fortune 500 organizations on leadership development and organizational strategy, driving employee engagement and productivity. Dennison graduated with a double major in Business Administration and Marketing from Eastern University. She is a Certified Senior HR Professional (SPHR), Certified Professional Resume Writer (CPRW), and Certified Motivation Consultant (EC). Follow Kara Dennison, SPHR, CPRW, EC for ongoing insights on the job market, ways to advance your career, or ways to improve your company culture.
A recent ResumeBuilder survey found that 8 in 10 employers lost talent due to return-to-office mandates.
This has been a hotly debated topic in the post-COVID business world as companies and their workers struggle to find common ground with a preferred work arrangement.
Top employees have quit, and there is growing concern that leaders imposing RTO policies have ulterior motives. These motives are damaging office dynamics, hurting employee satisfaction, and as a result, limiting the success of organizations that implement them.
The Hidden Agenda Behind RTO Mandates
As the world slowly emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations began implementing return-to-office policies.
These policies forced workers back into the office five days a week. It started as a trickle in 2022 but soon became a wave. Major companies like UPS, Boeing, and JPMorgan Chase made headlines with their RTO mandates. However, this trend is far from universal.
A 2024 report from Flex Index said that 82% of Fortune 500 companies still offer flexible work. Only 18% require full-time in-office work.
The push for RTO has many drivers
These include the desire to boost collaboration, maintain company culture, and increase productivity.
However, RTO policies have not been without controversy. They often create friction between employers and employees, largely because employees have become accustomed to the benefits of remote work.
One of the most striking claims in recent studies is the use of return-to-office orders as a smokescreen to reduce headcount.
A survey by BambooHR found that a quarter of VPs and C-level executives and a fifth of HR professionals admitted that they expected voluntary turnover following the implementation of a return-to-office policy.
This strategy was not explicitly communicated internally or externally. Industry observers say it could be viewed as “back-channel layoffs.”
The survey also found that companies may have anticipated a higher voluntary turnover rate with return-to-office mandates, as 37% of leaders believe their organizations began layoffs last year due to fewer employees quitting than expected.
This way of reducing staff has raised ethical questions. It also raises concerns about the long-term impact on employee trust and company culture.
RTO Mandates: A Yardstick for Measuring Productivity
For many organizations, the transition back to in-office work has been met with resistance from employees.
Remote work offers employees flexibility and work-life balance. Flexibility and work-life balance have become highly valued among today’s professionals.
BambooHR’s 2024 Return to Work Report shows that 90% of workers who prefer remote work cite these factors as primary reasons. Additionally, 51% of remote work supporters say it helps them with family obligations.
As many as 74% of respondents enjoy not having to commute. However, with RTO mandates, it seemed like companies weren’t taking their employees’ needs into account.
In fact, 70% of surveyed companies with flexible work schedules plan to increase the days employees must work in the office by 2025. However, some companies fear that this could weaken their leadership team and hamper succession planning.
Faced with this conundrum, a different work culture is slowly emerging, one that lacks trust in employees themselves. Most CEOs believe they have good reason to advocate this. They point to productivity as the main reason workers are returning to offices. According to CEOs, employees are not as productive as when managers monitor them at their desks.
This pressure to return to the office has given rise to a phenomenon known as the “green state effect.”
It refers to the tendency of remote workers to keep their messaging apps always open. This shows an “on” state to imply constant work.
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of remote workers admit to this. Remote workers feel pressure to maintain this constant online presence, even when they are not working.
Within the office, employees also feel pressure to demonstrate productivity.
Around 42% of employees surveyed admitted to showing up at work just to be seen by their boss or manager.
Many also report walking around the office just to be seen (37%). Others plan meetings with office colleagues (35%) to help office visibility.
Some even adjust their schedules to arrive earlier or leave later than their managers (33%). These actions reflect increasing pressure on employees and the culture is training employees to “show” productivity and presence, regardless of the actual outcome.
The Impact on Productivity and Work Quality
In a globally distributed team, establishing a performative culture, whether in-person or remote, can lead to workers feeling micromanaged.
Micromanagement reduces employee engagement levels. Based on these findings, executives need to rethink their management philosophy. It should aim for results, not just visibility.
Despite the push for RTO, the data does not support the belief that in-person work is more productive.
According to the same BambooHR survey, both in-person and remote workers claim to spend about 76% of a typical 9-to-5 shift actively working. Workers spend the rest of their time on non-work activities. In fact, in-person workers tend to spend about an hour more socializing than their remote counterparts. This implies that the intense need to demonstrate presence will not make any difference to the bottom line. Basically, it could hurt it.
This is why leadership and HR They must re-evaluate their policies and look for ways to measure efficiency and productivity
Creating a culture focused on realistic outcomes, rather than focusing on vague expectations of visibility and perpetuating a performative culture.
As 22% of HR professionals have already admitted to not having any metrics in place to measure the success of their RTO policies, this should be prioritized before lasting cultural damage is done.
Bridging the gap: The challenge of hybrid work environments
A major challenge for organizations in the post-pandemic era is connecting remote/hybrid workers with their in-office peers. More than two in five (44%) hybrid/in-office employees say they have a weaker relationship with their remote colleagues.
They are closer to those they see in the office. Since the implementation of RTO mandates, 26% of workers say a larger gap has developed between remote and non-remote workers.
This growing gap creates serious challenges
It hurts team cohesion, collaboration, and company culture. Organizations must find new ways to connect employees. They must ensure equal opportunities for everyone, no matter where they work.
The role of compensation in the RTO debate
While the workplace is a crucial factor in employee satisfaction, compensation remains a top concern. BambooHR’s Employee Happiness Index reports show that employee happiness hit an all-time low at the end of 2023.
Compensation compared to inflation was the biggest influence on workplace happiness for 59% of employees.
The RTO mandate has added another layer to the compensation debate. Additionally, 43% of workers surveyed said their employers have asked more employees to come in person, with no offers of pay raises.
This disconnect has increased employee expenses without compensating them, causing them further hardship during a particularly tough economic period. This continues to increase distrust and resentment among employees.
Top RTO Strategies to Consider
Understanding and accommodating employees’ diverse needs and preferences regarding the workplace is critical. There is no longer a one-size-fits-all solution.
Embrace Individual Preferences
To find what works for your organization, try conducting surveys or small focus group discussions to get employee input. Companies need to recognize that employees have different circumstances.
Some thrive in an office, while others are more productive at home. Factors such as commute time, family responsibilities, and personal work styles should be considered.
Tailoring solutions to individual needs can not only help increase employee satisfaction and retention, but will also allow your organization to hire top talent, rather than just the top talent within a 30-mile radius.
Transparent and Clear Communication
Transparency is key when implementing RTO policies. Organizations that clearly explain why they make decisions foster better collaboration, maintain company culture, and are better able to meet the needs of workers.
Equally important is defining how the success of these policies will be measured. This can include productivity metrics, employee satisfaction scores, or team collaboration indicators.
Regular updates and open forums for feedback can help maintain trust. They can also address concerns early.
Provide flexibility
Offering hybrid options provides a middle ground that can meet the needs of both employer and employees. This could include days in the office for meetings and team projects, balanced with days working remotely for specific tasks.
Flexibility could also apply to work hours. This allows employees to adjust schedules to personal needs, but also ensures core hours when the team is available.
Create equitable policies
Workforces are more distributed now. It’s critical to ensure that all employees have equal opportunities, no matter where they work.
This includes fair consideration for promotions, participation in important meetings and decisions, and equal access to career growth. Managers should be trained to avoid proximity bias, as it can unintentionally favor workers who work in the office over those who work remotely.
Invest in technology
Companies should invest in technology that enables seamless collaboration to support a hybrid work model.
This goes beyond basic video tools and includes project software, virtual whiteboards, and platforms for asynchronous communication.
The goal is to make a digital workspace as effective as a physical one. It should allow remote workers to fully contribute and stay connected with their office colleagues.
Focus on building culture
Maintaining a strong company culture in a distributed work environment requires intentional effort. This may involve online team building, all-staff meetings, or creating digital spaces for informal chats.
Companies should focus on strengthening core values and fostering a sense of belonging that isn’t tied to physical proximity.
Recognition programs, mentoring opportunities, and cross-functional projects can help build connections—and they do so across different modes of work.
Consider compensation adjustments
RTO can greatly impact employee finances, as it can increase transportation and childcare costs, as well as work-related purchases.
Companies should take these factors into account when setting compensation, which may include location-based salary adjustments, benefits for commuters, or stipends for home offices.
It’s also important to ensure that pay remains fair, both for in-office and remote workers. The focus should be on value and outcome, not physical presence.
Embracing Flexibility and Employee-Centric Approaches
Companies are grappling with the complexities of the post-pandemic workplace. A one-size-fits-all approach to RTO is unlikely to work. The most successful companies embrace openness, not oversight. They move away from micromanagement to an environment that values and implements employee feedback.
We live in a changing environment, and many workers are facing increasing mental and emotional burdens
Only companies that are open, communicative, and trust their employees will earn their employees’ trust and loyalty.
This mutual trust that we are seeing broken in corporate America through this debate is what is needed to bring organizations and their employees together, and what will lead to continued success.
.
Companies tighten remote work policies amid growing employee resistance
The following contribution is from TechGig portal which is a division of Coolboots Media Private Limited, India’s largest digital products company. We are India’s largest and fastest growing developer community with 5.4 million software professionals. We are an innovative and enthusiastic tech community of super active developers who love to compete and showcase their skills, learn new technologies and stay up to date with the latest tech updates to grow in their career.
We curate tech updates, deep insights into the latest technologies, organize exciting skill contests and help developers improve their skills in next-gen technologies. Our coding events Code Gladiators and Geek Goddess are well known in the tech industry. We provide our readers with the latest software updates, deep insights into programming languages, gadget advancements and a quirky take on all things tech in our podcasts and videos. We help developers learn, compete and grow in their career.
Author is Gaurav Sharma
This shift has come about for a variety of reasons. Some employers assume that employees are more effective working from the office.
Research indicates that some companies are concerned about the lack of work, specifically due to the inappropriate use of flexible working through the guise of a “coffee badge” where employees simply clock in and out of work.
Companies tighten remote working policies in the face of growing employee resistance
As far as 2025 is concerned, one of the key trends that has emerged with the COVID-19 period is the resistance that is building against remote working among employers.
According to the new survey, around 70% of employers are projected to aim to restrict or even decrease the level of remote working by implementing stricter RTO policies.
Regaining control of the workforce
This is a big shift, as years ago when a remote or hybrid work model was in place, many companies are now trying to regain control over their workforce
The survey of over 700 bosses was conducted in October and found that three out of four organizations are struggling to enforce mask wearing due to staff riots.
While it is doubtful that this approach of summoning workers back to the office will be beneficial, this response from most employers raises two critical concerns:
Firstly, forcing talented employees who benefited from working from home previously and incentivizing them with better pay and a higher chance of promotions will of course cultivate the discrimination gap and push back any possible progression up the career ladder for groups such as disabled workers and women, only to do the same or more work than their white and/or childless office counterparts.
Another concern is that this is another example of micromanagement, which is when leaders and managers foster a lack of trust in the workplace
Management records every action of their employees and treats them as if they were mere workers on a spreadsheet, rather than adults who can be trusted and respected to do their jobs.
This shift has occurred for a variety of reasons
Some employers assume that employees are more effective when working from the office. Research indicates that some companies are concerned about work lapses, particularly due to the inappropriate use of flexible working, manifested in the appearance of “coffee-shopping,” where employees simply come and go from work.
Companies and organizations are beginning to root out this type of behavior through stricter attendance and monitoring systems.
This is counterproductive to office interactions, as it fails to strengthen company culture or improve the morale of cohesive teams; instead, it fosters a toxic environment of remote transactions rooted in fear and minimal compliance with rules.
And it must be acknowledged that the long-term consequences of pressure to come into the office are not limited to certain companies.
Looking back, we have seen how the entire labour market landscape has been transformed since the pandemic: 57 per cent of employees foresee an increase in flexibility, mentioning it as one of the prerequisites they look for before applying for a particular job and are willing to change employers for a remote or flexible location or position.
Equality, trust and culture can be damaged in the long term
While forcing employees to return to the office for more days or full-time may be a quick fix, it could be a short-sighted measure that damages equality, trust and culture in the long term.
However, the picture is not so simple: by 2025, analysts predict that a large number of employers will further limit remote work.
Organizations will have to tread carefully, on the one hand, in an attempt to address employee expectations and, on the other, to allay fears and concerns about productivity.
It is therefore easy to claim that the work setup will change even further in the coming years due to improved storming policy strategies among companies.
The future of workplace trends: How will large corporations set the standards for office work mandates?
The following contribution is from the JetSpace portal which specialises in serviced office spaces in Brighton and Shoreham-by-Sea. We believe that many businesses need their own dedicated space in which to base their teams and serve their clients more effectively.
We are not distracted by providing co-working spaces which, for many growing or established businesses, are only a short-term solution.
And by offering all-inclusive office spaces to rent in Brighton and Shoreham Airport on flexible terms, our clients avoid the hassles of long-term rentals and are free to reach for the sky.
Anyone who has followed American politics over the past six months will be familiar with the phrase “we are not going back”.
The defiant campaign slogan of Kamala Harris’ ultimately doomed presidential bid seemed to suggest that times had changed and the world was looking to move forward. It turns out that America was going backwards.
Without wanting to dwell on the politics of the American presidential race, does the slogan’s failure to convince ordinary Americans to turn their backs on the norms of years past reflect broader societal trends, particularly in the workplace?
Weren’t we told that the remote work revolution imposed by the Covid pandemic was, in fact, the future of work?
The growing number of announcements of return-to-office mandates by major companies suggests that perhaps office workers have gotten ahead of themselves.
The future of workplace trends is a hotly debated topic of discussion among business leaders, HR professionals, and workforce analysts, primarily because we find ourselves at a critical moment in determining the direction of travel.
The recent rise of companies forcing staff to spend more time in the office has led to significant changes in workplace dynamics, forcing an exploration of how these policies might influence office environments and employee morale.
Large corporations, with their substantial influence, appear poised to set the benchmark for office mandates
Which could lead to a more widespread return-to-office movement in the long term. But what are the driving forces behind these mandates, and how will they impact talent retention and hiring strategies?
As companies strive to balance organizational needs with shifting workforce expectations for remote work, understanding these dynamics is vital to fostering a productive and positive work environment—and for SMEs to find their own place in the food chain.
Why are companies imposing return-to-office mandates?
Motivations behind changes in corporate culture
The reasons driving companies to impose return-to-work mandates are multifaceted. First, there is a prevailing belief that in-person work improves business productivity.
Many employers argue that spontaneous interactions and face-to-face collaboration lead to more innovative solutions and accelerated problem resolution.
Furthermore, there is a strong perception that physical presence in the office fosters a cohesive corporate culture, strengthening relationships between colleagues and aligning people with the company’s mission.
Another important consideration is the potential to optimize the use of commercial real estate
Which remains a considerable expense for many corporations. By bringing employees back to the office, companies are looking to justify these costs.
In addition, there is concern about effective management and support for employees, as some managers feel more confident leading when they can directly and frequently interact with their teams.
Ultimately, these motivations are intertwined with the desire to maintain control and oversight in a rapidly changing work environment.
The broader impact of fewer office workers commuting to their workplaces
Has naturally led to pressure from companies that previously relied on the office worker economy and this has also contributed to efforts to stifle the remote work revolution.
It is well known that coffee and sandwich chain Pret a Manger suffered such a large drop in sales at its thriving inner-city locations in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic lockdowns that it gave its name to the Pret Index, which measures Pret sales in shopping districts compared to pre-pandemic figures.
Spoiler alert: they weren’t great, although locations in the suburbs are flourishing.
Impact on employee morale and productivity
The implementation of return-to-work orders can have a variety of effects on employee morale and productivity.
For some, the structured environment of an office improves concentration and efficiency, leading to better performance.
However, many employees have of course become accustomed to the flexibility of remote working and all the work-life balance benefits that come with it.
Consequently, being forced back into an office environment tends to reduce job satisfaction for these workers. Morale and stress
Then there are the commutes and rigid schedules associated with office work, which can lower morale and increase stress levels, potentially leading to burnout.
On the other hand, proponents argue that the office environment fosters a sense of community and belonging that can improve morale.
Many younger workers, in particular, have found that fully remote work makes them feel isolated and actually miss the company culture of daily face-to-face interactions with colleagues.
Not to mention the fact that Gen Z staff are far less likely to have a proper dedicated workspace at home which they likely share with family or flatmates.
However, the key surely lies in finding a balance
Hybrid work models can offer a middle ground, allowing employees to enjoy both the advantages of in-person work and the flexibility of remote work, thereby keeping morale and productivity high. But do employers agree?
Past and future work dynamics
The long-term effects of return-to-work orders on workplace dynamics are likely to be significant.
These orders could lead to a split within the workforce, distinguishing between those who thrive in an office environment and those who prefer the autonomy of remote work.
This split could result in a migration of talent, as employees will seek out employers who provide more flexible remote work policies.
It is also pertinent to consider that non-customer-facing administrative staff who work remotely may be viewed with disdain by those who run the warehouse or shop floor.
It’s no coincidence that companies like Amazon and Starbucks are among some of the most prominent companies that are increasing their in-office staffing requirements.
After all, why is it that the accounts payable clerk can enjoy the luxury of working feet from their bed, without needing to interact with other people, while the coffee-making barista can just do their job in the workplace with multiple daily human interactions?
This growing emphasis on in-person work may reshape hiring strategies
As companies look to attract talent willing to commit to regularly attending the office. Over time, this could influence the demographic makeup of the workforce, potentially impacting diversity and inclusion initiatives in certain areas.
Workplace dynamics may also shift toward more hierarchical structures, as in-person mandates may reinforce top-down management styles.
Conversely, organizations that embrace hybrid models can cultivate a culture of trust and empowerment, allowing employees to manage their work time more independently.
Of course, different companies in different sectors have different ways of working, but sometimes dynamic companies in younger industries can influence the wider working world.
Consider that 20 years ago most office roles required staff to adhere to a relatively rigid dress code, while the casual dress culture of new media and tech start-ups has become more accepted in companies outside of sectors that still fiercely adhere to the suit and tie (think bankers, estate agents or sales reps).
Indeed, research suggests that only 7% of UK workers regularly wear business attire to work today.
Talent retention and recruitment strategies
Balancing flexibility and corporate needs
Talent retention and recruitment strategies depend on being able to offer staff competitive pay, conditions and benefits.
As such, companies are recognising that offering a degree of flexibility is not just a perk, but in many cases a necessity to attract and retain top talent.
Why shouldn’t today’s workers value a work-life balance that allows them to seamlessly integrate their personal and professional responsibilities?
Anyone who worked in 2020/21 will likely have experienced it, and remote and hybrid working models have become a core element of many companies’ talent strategies in the wake of the pandemic.
However, companies must also ensure that their operational goals are met
This requires setting clear expectations and performance metrics that can be achieved regardless of the work environment.
In the case of hourly paid staff, regardless of their performance, they could easily relax more working from home than in the office under supervision.
This shows how outdated it is to measure performance by hours “worked” rather than output.
Forward-thinking companies should set clearly defined goals and objectives against which all staff can be measured, and may opt for a combination of flexible working hours or rotating office days to meet both employee desires and company productivity goals. Productivity should always be the measure and not hours of screen time.
The role of salary in employee decisions
Salary will always be a crucial factor in employee decisions regarding job offers and retention.
While flexible work arrangements have gained prominence, compensation is often the primary consideration for many employees when evaluating job opportunities.
Some workers may be willing to accept lower wages in exchange for remote work options that improve their work-life balance, particularly those raising a young family.
Conversely, higher wages may be necessary to attract talent to positions that require stricter office mandates.
Offering Competitive Salaries
For multinational giants, offering competitive salaries is vital, especially when competing with smaller companies that may offer more attractive remote work policies.
However, organizations must evaluate how much more they must offer to make in-office positions attractive. Understanding the sweet spot between salary and flexibility can significantly influence hiring strategies.
While the number of companies that demand office work will ultimately dictate how many opportunities there are for employees who aren’t interested in the traditional 9-to-5 schedule,
Just as stores can inflate prices when they’re confident no one will undercut them, companies will be more confident in requiring office staffing the more common it is.
And at that point, the need to offer higher salaries to remain competitive becomes less necessary. If we consider the «big four» accounting and auditing firms, it’s easy to imagine a world where one of them loses staff to a rival if it’s considerably less flexible with its staffing demands, without significantly increasing compensation.
This may be why, when looking at their office work requirements, each company has very similar policies today.
You can see the currently agreed office working demands from Deloitte, EY and KPMG in this list of leading firms and their return to office strategies, while PwC’s requirements are outlined in a recent press release.
As things stand, there isn’t much to choose between them, but PwC’s decision to mandate a minimum of two days a week in the office to three might upset some employees and push them into potentially welcome acceptance by its competitors – unless, of course, they follow suit.
PwC’s decision basically throws down the gauntlet to see whether its rivals follow suit or seek to benefit by being more flexible and attracting some of their best talent. Time will tell which direction Deloitte, EY and KPMG choose.
Are hybrid working models still a competitive advantage?
We know that offering hybrid working models has been seen as a major competitive advantage for companies when it comes to attracting and retaining talent.
By offering a mix of on-site and remote working, companies can cater to a wide range of employee preferences while also being seen as forward-thinking and adaptable. Incorporating hybrid models also allows companies to access a wider talent pool, as geographic location is no longer a barrier.
Employees benefit from the opportunity to maintain personal commitments while also engaging in meaningful in-person interactions in the office, which can foster a balanced work-life dynamic and result in higher levels of engagement and productivity.
For companies in expensive cities like London, being able to hire from further afield also saves costs
As employees who work primarily remotely are not expected to commit to the exorbitant cost of commuting in this country.
If we take the classic commuter belt town of East Grinstead as an example, an annual rail pass to travel to central London five days a week costs over £3,300, meaning the salary offered must be significantly higher to offset this cost than if the employee could work from home at least part of the time.
The idea of “London weighting” of wages loses relevance if staff in London companies do not need to be in London.
So, in principle, remote and hybrid workers can offer significant cost savings, particularly when combined with reduced costs related to the facilities provided to house workers five days a week. Shouldn’t this drive companies to embrace remote working more, rather than reduce it?
The divide: large corporations versus SMEs
Multinationals’ influence on industry norms
Large corporations exert considerable influence in setting industry norms, including workplace trends and policies.
The substantial resources of large multinationals and their global reach allow them to implement and propagate practices that smaller companies could emulate.
When these large corporations enforce a return to offices, it may signal a change that other companies might want to follow, less fearful of losing staff as a result. After all, if it is an accepted practice in large companies, the arguments against office-based work mandates are harder to promote.
However, while multinationals may be trendsetters, not all organisations will imitate their approach.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often have the agility to offer more personalised and flexible working arrangements, leveraging this as a selling point for talent recruitment and retention.
Obviously, this flexibility will be particularly attractive to employees seeking a balance between professional responsibilities and personal life.
The influence of multinationals could lead to a bifurcation in work culture, with some industries adhering to traditional office-based work models while others embrace hybrid or remote work environments.
Consequently, this divergence could redefine industry standards, offering diverse avenues for companies to attract and retain talent based on their unique strengths.
Benefits of Remote Work for Smaller Businesses
In addition to being able to attract talent that might otherwise be unenthusiastic about being based in a corporate office full- or even part-time, offering remote work also allows smaller businesses to reduce the overhead costs associated with maintaining large office spaces.
Savings on commercial real estate can be redirected toward other strategic priorities, such as employee development or technology investments. Meanwhile, recruiting efforts can extend beyond geographic boundaries, in order to access a broader talent pool.
Additionally, as mentioned above, by allowing employees to work in environments where they feel most comfortable and focused, productivity gains are often realized.
This autonomy can lead to higher engagement and better performance outcomes. Therefore, embracing remote work should offer smaller businesses a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining skilled professionals, while optimizing operational efficiency.
It seems corporate giants fear that unlike previous data suggesting productivity improved when staff were allowed to work remotely, there is now evidence to suggest that not having staff in the office leads to reduced performance.
Of course, data can be cherry-picked to prove anything, but there are credible sources to back up this theory.
Ultimately, though, every person works differently and how remote workers are managed will determine their productivity.
Large companies find it harder to manage the needs of thousands of employees across different departments and job roles, so blanket policies are often put in place that simply cannot fit everyone.
SMEs, on the other hand, can manage and supervise people working remotely more effectively and adapt as needed.
Many small business bosses can quickly get a feel for how their team works best by simply talking to them to find the optimal balance.
This can help them gain an edge in recruiting and retaining talent, as employees feel more valued and may even have a say in their own working patterns.
Future trends in workplace policies
The future is likely to be shaped by a combination of flexibility and structure, as organisations continue to seek to align their operational needs with employee expectations.
Hybrid working models aren’t going away, but they may become less flexible for many companies.
Meanwhile, companies working with a fully remote workforce may find that the system has an upper limit on staff numbers, beyond which it is unsustainable. More employees, more problems.
The fact that we are starting to see greater divergence in standard working practices between large corporations and SMEs will likely influence these trends.
As multinationals push for wholesale policy changes, smaller companies can – and probably should – continue to innovate, providing flexible solutions that prioritise employee satisfaction and organisational agility.
It’s an interesting crossroads for the world of offices and how we fill them
But one thing we do know is that if you want somewhere you can base your business and welcome staff and clients, JetSpace’s serviced offices in Brighton and Shoreham offer the flexibility to choose the working models that best suit our business.
Why the full return to the office is gaining ground
The following contribution is from the HRD Connect portal which is a leading online publication for HR professionals covering HR, talent, L&D, and HR technology topics. Our vision is to empower HR leaders to become strategic architects of the business world.
The full return to the office is gaining momentum among large companies like Boots, Laing O’Rourke and others.
But why this shift? Explore the reasons behind this trend and how to make the transition easier for employees.
The full return to the office trend
The trend of working in an office full-time is gaining ground among large companies. Boots, Laing O’Rourke and Rockstar are all getting their employees into the office five days a week, showing a larger shift in the way companies think about work.
A KPMG survey found that 64% of CEOs around the world believe everyone will return to the office by 2026
The shift to in-person work is being championed by some who argue that face-to-face interactions can foster creativity, improve collaboration and strengthen company culture in ways that are difficult to replicate remotely.
While remote work has proven to have benefits in terms of individual productivity, some organizational leaders argue that the office environment offers unique advantages for team dynamics and long-term business growth.
A Virgin Media O2 Business Movers Index report also shows this trend: four in ten companies returned to working in the office five days a week in 2023, and 92% implemented some form of mandatory office-working policy.
What employees think about it
There has been a mixed reaction to the return-to-office movement.
The MARCO New Customer 2024 Report shows that 40% of global respondents actually prefer traditional office-based working, and in the UK, 40% of workers prefer full-time in-person work.
There is also a generational shift, with the same report showing that younger generations prefer in-office experiences, and 64% are willing to work for a company that doesn’t offer hybrid work options.
Why leaders want everyone back in the office
Senior leadership teams are advocating for a full return to the office for a number of reasons.
One significant advantage is the improvement of company culture. Informal conversations, brief meetings, “chat moments” and spontaneous get-togethers help build a sense of teamwork and friendship, which is important to keep employees happy and productive in the long term.
In-person interactions also facilitate mentoring and professional development, especially for junior staff who haven’t built their networks and want to learn from their more experienced colleagues.
The duty of senior staff to nurture and support more new employees cannot be neglected, as it helps develop the leadership pipeline and train junior staff faster.
Physical proximity in an office environment can facilitate spontaneous interactions that can spark creativity and innovation.
In-person collaboration often allows for real-time brainstorming and problem-solving sessions, which some people find more dynamic than their virtual counterparts.
Working in an office can also help some people better separate their work and personal lives. Having a dedicated workspace can make it easier to “unplug” from work when at home. This can create a healthier balance between work and personal time for some employees.
However, the effectiveness of in-office versus remote brainstorming can vary significantly depending on factors such as team dynamics, individual work styles, and the nature of the tasks at hand.
Beyond the cultural element
In addition to benefits related to company culture and learning and development, working in the office also has other comprehensive operational benefits.
For starters, it can significantly improve a company’s ability to protect sensitive information and maintain cybersecurity.
The controlled environment of an office allows for stronger data protection measures and reduces the risks associated with remote work on potentially insecure networks.
During remote work, companies faced challenges with employees using personal devices, insecure home networks, and potentially compromised physical environments.
Now, returning to the office allows organizations to implement enterprise-grade security systems uniformly across all workstations.
This includes advanced firewalls, regularly updated security protocols, and physical security measures that are simply not feasible in home environments.
Additionally, a full return to the office can lead to more efficient resource allocation.
With employees on-site, companies can optimize their real estate investments, ensuring that expensive office space is fully utilized. This can lead to long-term cost savings as organizations can better align their physical assets with their operational needs.
The shift to remote work initially led many companies to question the value of their office spaces, with some considering downsizing or eliminating offices altogether.
However, a full return to the office presents an opportunity to reimagine and optimize these valuable assets.
Companies now have the opportunity to design spaces that truly enhance collaboration, creativity, and productivity in ways that were not previously possible.
This could include creating more flexible workspaces, investing in state-of-the-art meeting rooms with advanced audiovisual equipment, or developing specialized areas for different types of work.
Additionally, centralized office spaces can lead to less duplication of resources across multiple locations, streamlining operations and potentially generating significant cost savings on equipment, utilities, and support services.
Addressing resistance
Employers face several challenges when implementing a full return to the office. A key challenge is addressing employee preferences for the flexibility of remote work. Many staff members have adapted to and value the autonomy of working from home, which may cause hesitation about returning to full-time office presence. This situation could potentially impact employee satisfaction and retention.
A key strategy is to implement a hybrid office-based work model that balances office attendance with flexibility.
This could come in the form of offering flexible schedules, allowing employees to choose their office hours within certain parameters.
Improving office amenities and creating an engaging work environment can also make the prospect of returning more appealing.
Clear communication about the benefits of office work, coupled with a gradual return, can help employees adjust to the transition.
Offering incentives
Organisations could also consider offering incentives for office attendance, such as team-building events or exclusive professional development opportunities.
Regular employee feedback sessions can help adjust policies and address concerns.
Importantly, for those facing specific challenges, offering support such as commute assistance or childcare options could ease the transition.
By combining these strategies, companies can work towards a solution that respects employee preferences while meeting organisational needs.
The legal details
Employers should also think about the legal implications of mandating a return to the office. Changes to the working arrangements of those who were hired on a remote or hybrid contract can be seen as significant alterations to employment conditions, potentially leading to disputes or legal challenges.
In the UK, the Employment Rights (Flexible Working) Act 2023 has expanded employees’ rights to request flexible working arrangements. This legislation allows eligible employees to submit requests for flexible working from their first day of employment, rather than after 26 weeks as previously required. Employers are required to consider these requests and respond within two months.
To address these legal considerations effectively, employers should begin by thoroughly reviewing existing employment contracts and offering letters to understand agreed working arrangements.
Consulting legal experts can help assess the implications of changing working policies. With this foundation, employers can develop a clear policy for handling flexible working requests in line with the new UK law.
It is critical to consider individual circumstances and be prepared to make reasonable adjustments where necessary. Throughout this process, it is essential to engage in open dialogue with employees about any proposed changes to working arrangements.
Finally, employers should meticulously document all decisions and rationales relating to changes to working arrangements or responses to flexible working requests. This comprehensive approach helps employers minimize the risk of disputes while supporting employee needs and preferences in the changing work landscape.
Case studies: corporate approaches to full return
Several corporations have adopted different strategies to facilitate a full return to the office. Boots, for example, has mandated that its 3,900 head office workers return five days a week starting in September.
To facilitate this transition, Boots is upgrading its office IT systems, improving Wi-Fi, creating quieter spaces, and improving parking and food options.
This approach aims to make the office environment more attractive and conducive to productivity.
Similarly, Laing O’Rourke and Rockstar have also mandated a full-time return to the office. These companies emphasize the importance of in-person interactions to maintain corporate culture.
Why workers are still winning the battle to return to the office
The following contribution is from the BBC, the world’s leading public service broadcaster. We are impartial and independent, and every day we create distinctive, first-class programmes and content that inform, educate and entertain millions of people in the UK and around the world.
The author of the article is Alex Christian, who is the features correspondent.
Even amid redundancies and a slumping economy, employees are resisting management demands to be in the office – and often winning. How?
For almost three years, workers and employers have been clashing over the return to the office. Employees who came to appreciate the flexibility of remote working in the pandemic era are not backing down from their fight with companies that want them back to their desks.
It is, in some ways, strange that this battle is still ongoing, especially as the labor market has become more employer-friendly over the past few months.
At the height of the Great Resignation, employers faced a prolonged hiring crisis with talent shortages. With workers leading the way, many demanded hybrid and remote work policies as part of their employment packages.
But as economic uncertainty has led to a series of mass layoffs over the past year, many large companies have called their employees back to work. In many cases, they have backtracked on their earlier promises of flexible working, and some have demanded a full return to offices.
Yet employees, not companies, seem to remain the ones dictating the rules for returning to offices.
In many cases, they are ignoring calls to work in person, complying with orders with fierce resistance, and even causing staunch supporters of in-person work, such as large financial institutions, to relax their demands.
CEOs are digging in, too
And many of them have announced recent plans to double down on return-to-office mandates, even threatening disciplinary action or termination for workers who refuse to comply.
Intuitively, in an unstable economic climate, it would seem that power has swung decisively back in favor of employers on this issue. In reality, the situation is more of a stalemate, with employees holding a surprising, if slight, advantage. The Power Struggle
Early in the pandemic, employers expected their workers to be out of the office for a few weeks, but that soon turned into months and then years.
Many employees found a remote work arrangement they grew to love intensely and ultimately refused to give up when offices began to open again.
Over time, even major investment banks, which were overwhelming supporters of a full return to offices, reduced their real estate footprint, despite issuing repeated instructions for workers to return.
At the height of the Great Resignation and the ensuing prolonged staff shortages, it made sense for organizations to adapt to employee demands if they wanted to attract and retain staff.
According to Gallup survey data, 67% of American white-collar employees were working from home at least partially in September 2021, and 41% were doing so exclusively.
These new habits seemed right and fair, and work was still getting done. Any kind of change was therefore perceived as a cost: if going back to the office is good for my manager, then it must be bad for me – Ayelet Fishbach
However, as the economy began to slow down in 2022, employers regained some power.
Many managers began asking their workers to return to the office.
“Leaders think that if they’re going to drive next-level performance in their organizations, the best way is to have people together for at least part of the work week,” says Jim Link, chief human resources officer at the Virginia-based Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).
Yet the request has often been met with employee backlash, even as the pendulum of power began to swing away from the workforce.
When mandates first began to be implemented, workers threatened to quit if bosses brought them back—in some cases, they did. As a result, some employers backtracked. In the big tech sector, for example, Apple relaxed its return-to-office policy following employee criticism, allowing teams to select which mandatory third day of the work week they would come into the office on.
This particular disagreement between employers and employees has led to a power struggle that has lasted for years
Says Ayelet Fishbach, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, US.
“Over time, workers found a new way of doing things that stuck,” she says. “These new habits seemed right and fair, and the work kept getting done.
So any kind of change was perceived as a cost: If going back to the office is good for my manager, then it must be bad for me.”
Many workers have made it clear that they don’t want a full-scale return to the office. However, in late 2022, as an economic downturn loomed and layoffs mounted, companies across all sectors began to backtrack on flexibility, imposing more days in the office and fixed schedules.
Some companies that had previously confirmed a work-from-anywhere policy, such as the ride-sharing company Lyft, have reneged on those promises and demanded that their workers return to the office.
Still, even in the current culture of job cuts, many workers aren’t heeding the call to return to a commuter lifestyle. Instead, they seem broadly united in their push for flexible office policies and have held firm on the issue.
Bosses are pushing workers to return — in some cases putting a lot of pressure on them — but few have heeded the calls to return.
Goldman Sachs, for example, first ordered workers to return full-time in person in February 2022.
Yet a year later, in January 2023, the investment bank’s office attendance was still 10% to 15% lower than pre-pandemic levels. And in May, corporate employees at Amazon and Starbucks’ U.S. offices loudly protested those companies’ return-to-office mandates.
The resistance goes beyond big companies: In June, data from Kastle Systems, which measures revenue in office buildings, showed that average workplace occupancy among 41,000 U.S. companies hovered around 50%.
Part of the continued resistance, says Shrm’s Link, is because many workers are aware that they remain in demand, even during a period of massive staff reductions.
“There remains a large number of job openings, particularly in sectors where there remains a skills gap — technology companies and financial investment, despite their layoffs. That remains a source of strength for employees, who continue to prioritize flexibility.”
Fischbach agrees that some return-to-office orders may be stalled because worker productivity also remains high and middle managers may be more willing than senior leaders to allow well-functioning teams to work from home.
“Compared to executives who look at the long-term vision of the organization, managers are more likely to focus on the day-to-day — and they know that workers are perhaps even more productive working from home.”
What happens next?
In an attempt to break the stalemate, the ongoing power struggle is changing how employers are implementing policies.
As employees continue to defy mandates, some companies are now issuing ultimatums, turning in-person attendance into a disciplinary issue.
But the struggle to get workers back into the office may be protracted, experts say. “While employees have learned that they can be just as productive on a day-to-day basis working from home, employers are still looking more toward the future opportunities that in-person work provides,” Link says.
«It means that workers will likely continue to voice concerns about a full return to the office, while managers are unlikely to stop asking their employees to return.»
Workers are likely to continue to voice concerns about a full return to the office, while managers are unlikely to stop asking their employees to return – Jim Link
Stalemate may persist even in the face of layoffs
Ryan Luby, a senior expert and associate partner at New York-based consulting firm McKinsey & Company, says that while rising unemployment may provide employers with greater leverage leading to increased office attendance, workers’ expectations for flexibility are here to stay.
He cites a July 2022 McKinsey survey of 13,532 workers around the world showing that flexibility is second only to pay as a motivating factor for staying in a job.
“In a world where flexible working is the way it is, employees can have time to work, rest and play. Add to that the office location, if that’s not fantastic and better than working from the kitchen table and getting more sleep, people won’t want to go there.”
Employers are aware of this, too, Luby adds. So in a still-competitive job market (the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 339,000 jobs were added to the economy in May 2023), many are still offering flexibility as a recruiting tool.
“Hiring managers still need to cater to the preferences of top talent, and they tend to expect flexibility,” she says.
As long as the disconnect between employer and employee preferences continues, a hybrid work policy is likely to be a middle ground. Still, workers and their bosses are unlikely to easily agree on how many days (or which ones) they should spend in the office.
As more companies eschew remote work and settle for a structured, three-day hybrid model, workers continue to prioritise their flexibility: a 2022 survey of 30,878 knowledge workers around the world by workplace insights firm Leesman, seen by BBC Worklife, shows that 41% intend to be in the office just one day a week, rather than three.
Employers are likely to always be outnumbered by these workers (meaning employees are the ones prolonging the return-to-office process) and, for now, they hold the upper hand.
“We expect disagreement between leaders’ and employees’ expectations on how often they should attend the workplace to continue,” says Link. “In many cases, return-to-office mandates are contentious – it’s an ongoing negotiation.”