As ever, context is king!
If the business can articulate (ideally with real data) why employees need to be in the office rather than at home, particularly if there is to be a mandated/set number of days, fair enough I guess.
If not, which is much more likely to be the case, why should the employees believe that the decision is rational and based in fact, rather than irrational and based on mistrust?
If managers can only manage by seeing someone sat in front of them, maybe more manager training is required, rather than a RTO mandate…?
@HRJoy Absolutely, context matters. Remote/hybrid working will make more/less sense to different industries. It genuinely depends, and there’s no one size fits all.
However, regardless of the industry, what I’ve most recently seen is:
- ‘Hope and guess’-approach
I find leaders are too quick to act on their own biases and preferences, or ‘hope and guess’ that in-office working will improve whatever issue they’re trying to solve (i.e. no real data to prove it, as HRJoy mentioned).
- No ACTUAL commitment to making it work
Also, organisations can struggle with remote working because they’re not dedicated to making it work. Remote working requires active consideration in terms of onboarding, communication, collaboration, employee engagement, training, and lots more. If you don’t have the tools, policies and processes tailored to fit and encourage the hybrid/remote working, then of course you’ll get sub-par, ad hoc, performance and engagement.
- Lack of practical considerations
The next thing I’ve noticed is that leaders are quick to go “mandate!” without thinking about the practical stuff to bring everyone back…
- Can you actually fit all staff and employees in the facilities you’re bringing them in to? If an org has grown, you might have too many bums and too few seats.
- Are you ready for potential health & safety considerations? Ensuring policies are still up to date, processes to access, office reminder tours, fire evacuation training, fire marshals, etc.
- Are you invertedly creating unfairness brought by contractual changes or employees personal circumstances? If the T&C’s have been changed to suit hybrid/remote working, a mandate will likely create a rift between those contractually obliged to attend, and those who are not. Equally, your employees have most likely adapted to hybrid/remote working, and mandating in-office can have an impact on their personal lives and caring responsibilities.
Ultimately, it should be transparent WHY in-office is mandated. Whether it’s to better utilise the building you’ve spend millions on, or because it aligns with the organisational culture and values, or because of some other strategic direction you’re about to take…
Without the rationale and the proper consideration, you’re likely to just get lower engagement and productivity, have staff quiet quitting and eventually lose talent.
Personally, I’m always a fan of focusing on outcome rather than attendance.
@HRJoy Fully agree with you, especially on your point about management. Without proper justification (backed by data, as you said), RTO mandates really do suggest that the manager is going wrong somewhere. I am a big fan of companies that place a real premium on manager training as well - really important that someone who is promoted up isn’t set up to fail due to lack of adequate training!
@nina.johansson Your point about the why resonates with me. I have said to so many people I’ve worked with that I can 100% sympathise with the need to get more people into a building that you’re paying through the nose for. I get it. I mean, it’s like the Spotify executive said, we’re all adults here - if the reason to come back to the office is made clear to me (and it is being shared honestly), I can empathise and I’m much more likely to respond in a positive way!
.