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!
Loving all the thoughtful insights here! I think we can all agree that context is key, and like @nina.johansson and @HRJoy have pointed out, it’s all about having a clear rationale for any return-to-office (RTO) approach.
I’d like to throw another perspective into the mix. The way I see it, a company’s RTO policy should be a reflection of its unique strategic priorities and what makes it successful.
For example, some companies operate best when they have tight control over processes, clear structures, and a strong focus on consistency - think about companies like McDonalds, Aldi, Walmart, Toyota, that rely on streamlined systems and strict quality control. I call them the MACHINES. For them, an in-office setup might support that by fostering a predictable, efficient environment where everyone knows exactly what’s expected and can collaborate in person.
On the flip side, other companies thrive on flexibility, quick responses to change, and empowering their people to innovate independently. I call these ones the NAVY SEALS. These companies benefit from giving teams the freedom to work in ways that suit their needs, whether remote, hybrid, or in-office. In such environments, a rigid RTO mandate could actually stifle the agility and creativity that the organisation relies on.
Then there are those companies whose success hinges on strong connections, both within their teams and with external partners. Think of all the platform-based COMMUNITY-ECOSYSTEM types like Netflix, Apple, Uber, and Airbnb. For them, the ability to work across locations can be crucial - especially when it involves leveraging networks and tapping into diverse perspectives. A hybrid approach that enables people to connect flexibly often aligns well with this model.
And finally, some organisations are complex beasts, managing multiple teams or even business units that need to coordinate closely. I call these the MONSTERS - like Unilever, GE, and Nestle. In these cases, having people in the office a certain number of days each week might help ensure cross-functional collaboration and alignment across departments, making it easier to manage big, interconnected projects.
So, when it comes to RTO policies, it’s not one-size-fits-all, but rather about how a company’s specific strengths, values, and ways of working come together. The key is for leaders to align their RTO policies with what actually makes their company tick - and, as @Moe and everyone else rightly pointed out, to communicate this openly with employees. If people understand the why behind the decision – and it clearly aligns with the company identity and the way they already work – then they’re much more likely to get on board.
@Majid 10000% agreed. One thing this makes me think of is how awesome it is to see a company be up-front about this on their careers websites as well as their job postings. Particularly when I was job-hunting on LinkedIn, I made sure to let the recruiting team know how appreciated that transparency was. First, it said something about their culture and how they felt about trusting both their employees and recruits. Second, and important for me when I was looking for a job, it felt like my time was being respected.
The MONSTERS is a fascinating category as well! Some of the biggest companies on the planet vary their approach based on teams and their priorities, another approach I am very big fan of. I honestly really enjoy being in the office and unexplained RTO policies stand a good chance for just ruining that.
@Moe Just thought I’d use Personio as an example to further illustrate the profound simplicity of the four company identities. I don’t know Personio intimately, but their website mentions a flexible platform for every HR process. Based on that one concept, I’d guess it’s a great fit for the COMMUNITY-ECOSYSTEM model.
If Personio is aligned with this model, it likely prioritises agility (sacrificing some stability) and connectivity (sacrificing some autonomy). This means its focus would be on collaboration, innovation, and building networks to foster shared values and collective responsibility - quite different from a MACHINE business like Toyota or Aldi.
Personio's platform might support these elements by offering tools that enhance communication, streamline workflows, and integrate various HR functions, promoting a connected and fluid organisational environment.
For a company like Personio, it would make sense to empower staff to decide the RTO policy for themselves, with guidance from localised team leaders. Much like a traditional tribal community, the expectation in this model is that every member thinks about the community as a whole alongside their own needs. It’s a vision-driven culture, and this is where COMMUNITY-ECOSYSTEM businesses excel.
If a company has identity anchors, you can often anticipate what kind of culture and expectations you’re stepping into - even before you join! 
.