Return-to-Office mandates face resistance
The pandemic changed everything about how we work, and, frankly, the way people experience their jobs will never fully go back to pre-2020 norms. Employees discovered the magic of reclaiming hours lost to commuting, cutting down on office-related expenses, and integrating work more seamlessly into their lives. Asking them to step away from that to return to the office, full time or even part time, can feel like asking them to go back in time.
This isn’t only about preferences either. Employees made real-life adjustments, such as moving farther from city centers, adapting family schedules, and embedding flexibility into their daily lives. When RTO mandates clash with these realities, it’s a demand to uproot their lives. It’s no surprise that workers are pushing back or, in many cases, walking away altogether.
As Diana Soprana Blažaitienė pointed out, the added costs of commuting, childcare, and even work clothes make returning to the office less appealing for many employees. Companies ignoring this risk alienating their workforce.
RTO mandates may deter talent, especially among Gen Z
Let’s talk about Gen Z. This generation grew up in a digital-first world. They are savvy, connected, and deeply aware of the value of time. For them, flexibility is a baseline expectation. They’re not rejecting in-person work entirely, but they do demand workplace policies that reflect the modern realities of work-life integration. When employers roll out RTO mandates that feel rigid or arbitrary, it’s interpreted as being out of touch, or worse, untrustworthy.
Many Gen Z employees accepted jobs under remote or hybrid conditions. Requiring them to return full-time feels, to them, like the rug is being pulled out from under their feet. When trust erodes, so does loyalty. Blažaitienė and others have noted that companies willing to embrace flexibility have a competitive edge in attracting and retaining top talent.
“Simply put, if you want to hire the best and brightest of this generation, your policies need to reflect their expectations.”
Leadership motivations for RTO
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: a lot of RTO decisions are more about executive comfort zones than actual business needs. For decades, traditional office setups gave managers the sense that they were “in control” because they could physically see their teams working. That mindset hasn’t adapted as fast as technology has. In today’s world, productivity isn’t tied to proximity, it’s tied to outcomes. Yet some leaders still struggle with the idea that remote teams can function as well (or better) than in-office ones.
Another factor is office real estate. Companies that own or lease large spaces are feeling the pinch. Empty offices cost money, and they’re a constant reminder of sunk costs. But making major strategic decisions to justify these spaces is short-sighted. Employees don’t care about unused conference rooms, they care about how your policies affect their lives. If you’re pushing RTO because of underused real estate, you’re putting the cart before the horse. Fix the strategy first, and the logistics will follow.
A poorly designed RTO strategy disrupts productivity
Picture this: employees are called back to the office, only to sit in separate cubicles and hop on Zoom calls all day with colleagues who aren’t even in the building. It’s absurd, right? Yet, this is what poorly planned RTO strategies often look like. Without thoughtful consideration of how teams are structured and how collaboration should work, in-office mandates create more problems than they solve.
To get this right, organizations need to think in terms of roles and responsibilities. Which teams genuinely benefit from in-person collaboration? Which projects require real-time interaction? Grouping people strategically, rather than arbitrarily, makes sure office time serves a clear purpose.
Ashley Alexander highlighted how a chaotic transition to RTO disrupts workflows and leaves employees feeling frustrated and undervalued. If you want people to embrace the office, give them a reason to be there—and no, just “showing up” isn’t enough.
RTO mandates impact talent availability and operational costs
One of the biggest advantages of remote work is access to global talent, you can attract the best, regardless of geography. RTO mandates shrink that talent pool back down to local markets, making it harder to find the right people for the job. For companies in smaller cities or less competitive regions, this is especially damaging. Remote work leveled the playing field, letting them compete for top-tier talent. RTO? That pulls them back to square one.
The financial hit doesn’t stop there. Forcing employees back to the office increases costs on both sides. Companies need to invest in maintaining or reopening office spaces, managing relocations, and covering other operational expenses. For employees, the costs of commuting, housing near corporate hubs, and other in-office expenses add up fast.
As Darrin Murriner pointed out, these rigid policies are both inconvenient and a lose-lose situation that reduces opportunities for employees and limits employers’ access to skilled professionals. It’s the exact opposite of what modern organizations should aim for.
Flexible, hybrid models are key for future workplace success
Hybrid models (blending remote and in-office work) strike the right balance. They give employees the best of both worlds: focused, distraction-free time at home and collaborative, high-energy sessions in the office. It doesn’t mandate when or where people work, and instead creates an environment where they can perform at their peak.
For this to work, employees must have a voice in shaping these models. That’s how you build trust and engagement. Teams should tailor their working styles based on their specific needs. For instance, creative teams may benefit more from in-person brainstorming sessions, while engineering teams thrive in quieter, remote setups. Dovilė Gelčinskaitė of Omnisend emphasized this dynamic approach, noting that flexibility is now a competitive advantage. Organizations that embrace it will attract and retain the most talented individuals in the market.
The catch is that flexibility is concerned with more than location, and includes scheduling, task autonomy, and access to resources. A well-designed hybrid policy is holistic, addressing all aspects of how work gets done. That’s the key to future success.
Top-down mandates fail to address workforce challenges
Government RTO policies like those issued by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) set a tough precedent. They mandate strict five-day workweeks for federal employees, which could influence private sector leaders to follow suit. But, just because it’s happening at the government level doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for businesses. These mandates might push costs around, but they don’t solve the real challenges, such as retaining talent, improving engagement, or boosting productivity.
The societal impacts are hard to ignore. Murriner points out that these policies increase traffic congestion and strain urban infrastructure in cities like Washington, D.C., which house large federal workforces. Private organizations have more flexibility and should use it wisely. Through focusing on adaptable, talent-driven strategies, businesses can avoid the pitfalls of rigid government models and position themselves as leaders in the modern workplace.
“What works for a government bureaucracy isn’t likely to work for a fast-moving, talent-focused business. Stay nimble, stay adaptable, and don’t get locked into outdated models.”
A growing need for investment in flexibility and employee well-being
If RTO mandates fail, and there’s a good chance they will, it’s going to send a loud and clear message that the future of work isn’t in rigid, top-down policies. Companies that cling to these outdated approaches will find themselves struggling to attract and retain top talent. On the other hand, those that pivot to flexible, employee-centered models will thrive.
This isn’t a drive to abandon offices altogether, but rather to reimagine them. Use office spaces for what they’re best at—fostering collaboration, innovation, and team-building. Everything else? That can often be done more effectively remotely. As Dovilė Gelčinskaitė noted, a sound strategy makes employees want to come to the office. It highlights the benefits of in-person interaction rather than imposing it as a rule.
Redirecting resources from maintaining underused office spaces to investing in remote work tools, mental health support, and hybrid solutions is a smart play. It shows employees that their well-being is a priority. Fail to adapt, and you risk losing great talent to more progressive competitors. Adapt successfully, and you’ll be the company everyone wants to work for. That’s the real win.
Key takeaways for decision-makers
- Flexibility is a must-have: Employees, especially Gen Z, value flexible work arrangements over rigid office mandates. Organizations must align with these expectations to attract and retain top talent.
- Work-life balance drives retention: Pandemic-era remote work reshaped employee priorities, emphasizing reduced commute times and personal autonomy. RTO policies that disrupt these gains risk increased turnover.
- Rigid policies shrink talent pools: Return-to-office mandates limit access to geographically dispersed talent, increasing hiring difficulties and reducing competitive advantage for companies outside major hubs.
- Cost and productivity trade-offs: Mandating office attendance raises operational expenses (office maintenance, relocation) and disrupts productivity when poorly planned. Organizations should adopt hybrid models to optimize cost-efficiency and collaboration.
- Hybrid models are the future: Balancing in-person collaboration with remote autonomy satisfies modern workforce demands and builds trust. Decision-makers should involve employees in shaping flexible work policies for sustainable success.
