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 hav
