The Best Return-to-Office Policies Aren’t One-Size-Fits-All

CURT NICKISCH: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Curt Nickisch.

It’s wild how things have changed in just three years. If a company a few years ago had let employees work from home two days a week, that firm would’ve been seen as progressive, incredibly trusting, an amazing employer. But today, if that same firm were to do exactly the same and require workers go into the office three days a week, it could be seen as heavy-handed, unnecessarily rigid. That’s the fundamental shift that many leaders are struggling with now. Some want to bring the 2019 office back in the name of collaboration and company culture, but many employees resist losing the flexibility and autonomy they gained in the COVID era.

What’s the right trade-off? Well, today’s guest says it doesn’t have to be one or the other. That you can bring workers back to the office and still give them flexibility and independence.

Here to explain is Kimberly Shells, a senior director in the Gartner HR practice. With her colleague Caitlin Duffy, she wrote the HBR article, “Return-to-Office Plans Don’t Have to Undermine Employee Autonomy.” Hey, Kimberly,

KIMBERLY SHELLS: I am so happy to be here with you today, Curt.

CURT NICKISCH: So what are companies getting wrong as they try to transition workers back to the office?

KIMBERLY SHELLS: Organizations are really struggling with how to facilitate the return. When should employees be in the office? How often? On what days? How should it work? They’ve made the decision that they want employees to be on site more often, but they haven’t figured out the how. And what they tend to get wrong is instituting a one size fits all approach from the top down. This type of approach, it fails to account for employee and team preferences, it doesn’t feel very inclusive. In fact, it feels restrictive and inflexible.

It will also not drive the results organizations are looking for when mandating more in office time. Now, when we think about leading organizations, organizations that are getting it right, they’re doing something different. They are shaping their return-to-office approach to help employees feel that they still have a sense of control and agency over their decisions and behaviors. They are also intentionally facilitating interpersonal connections, not simply leaving it to the physical space and assuming that connections are happening. They are also fostering more inclusive onsite work environments. The sum of it is: the organizations that are getting it right, they are looking to create a workplace environment that employees will want to be a part of. The strategies of organizations getting it right, they are pulling people into the office, not pushing them in.

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah. One question is why are companies making people come back if they’ve been functioning without being in the office so much anyway?

KIMBERLY SHELLS:  Well, we know that autonomy is a great thing based on our research for organizations. Our research has found that autonomy not only reduces workers’ fatigue by 1.9 times, but it also makes them 2.3 times more likely to stay with the organization. So there are some legitimate pockets of productivity issues, but overall, our research doesn’t suggest that there is a fire that is burning.

Oftentimes, it’s more of a preference for leaders in organizations. And when they don’t have visibility into employees’ work lives, those concerns certainly come about. And again, our research doesn’t suggest that there’s a fire burning and we’ve got to bring folks back into the office. But it certainly has been the way that many organizations have responded to some of these concerns about productivity and collaboration in some of those areas.

But with these return-to-office mandates, what they’re saying is everybody has to come in on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or everybody has to come in every day. So it’s sort of a broad way to address maybe some pockets of challenges.

CURT NICKISCH: Your research surveyed a lot of workers and a lot of employers, so maybe you can tell me a little bit about who you talked to and the data you got. And then the results on how workers are feeling about those policies.

KIMBERLY SHELLS: Yeah, we’ve done some research looking at thousands and thousands of employees. And I will have to tell you overwhelmingly, they are not thrilled about these return-to-office mandates. According to our research, 67% of employees feel that going to the office requires more effort than it did pre-pandemic.

And personally, Curt, I have to say that there is something to this. I work remotely, and I can still remember the first few times that I went into the office. I was a mess, I was so out of practice, I left my phone at home, I lost a gold earring in the chaos. So there is something to employees feeling like it requires more effort than it used to. But not only that-

CURT NICKISCH: Yeah, I have heard people say, “Do you believe we used to do this every day?”

KIMBERLY SHELLS: I know. I know. Even the commute alone, it is a challenge, right? We have become accustomed to the flexibility and the autonomy over these past few years. And interestingly, our research also found that 60% of employees say the cost of going into the office outweighs the benefits. So employees are not particularly happy with these mandates. And so what that means is that leaders and organizations have to navigate the return-to-office transition in such a way that it leaves employees feeling like the onsite experience is one that they want to be a part of because it has intrinsic value. So just having a return-to-office mandate, throwing it out there and not having intentionality around it, and really having employees see some of the benefits is a real miss.

CURT NICKISCH: Your research showed that when companies do implement these mandates that it can feel like an about-face, like they’re going back almost on a promise, or that they’re not being consistent with their values.

KIMBERLY SHELLS: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, organizations have been renewing, reviewing, articulating, disseminating their corporate purpose. And really they’ve been evolving it to be more human-centric focus, things like inclusion and wellbeing and growth. And so for a lot of employees, telling them that they now have to come back into the office, it can feel like an about-face in terms of where the corporate purpose has been evolving and heading, and what they’ve been accustomed to. And they really feel that way when they have not been sought in terms of their feedback, their perspectives. When these decisions are made on high and they have not been involved in those decisions, it can feel contrary to what the organization says they’re about and what it feels like they are about.

CURT NICKISCH: This has got to be kind of scary for leaders, right? It sounds like a power struggle. Your research suggests that it doesn’t have to be as much of a power struggle as it seems. What are some examples of implementing a return-to-office mandate or policy in a way that’s done strategically that maintains autonomy, but also helps you further some organizational goals?

KIMBERLY SHELLS: Through our research, we have identified really three areas that leaders and organizations should focus on to navigate the return-to-office transition in a way that can strengthen employees’ connection to the organization, while also addressing some of the concerns that we know leaders have.

Leaders in organizations, they need to shape their return-to-office approach to help employees feel that they still have a sense of control and agency over their decisions and their behaviors. So really giving them more of a balance of structure and freedom to preserve employee autonomy. And that means that leaders provide guidelines, not requirements, but guidelines. They empower managers and teams to co-create flexible working patterns versus this sort of one size fits all approach. It also means that organizations offer meaningful benefits like commuting subsidies, free or subsidized onsite childcare, food options onsite.

But they also must be intentional about helping employees build connections that can lead to personal and professional growth. We know how important growth is and how employees want growth. When we think about shifting employee expectations, that is high on their list, and we also know it’s a retention driver.

But leaders cannot simply rely on the physical space as the defacto conduit to connection. We have to help employees build connections to each other by designating, for example, a number of team days per year, not per week, right? Because we want to make sure that leaders and managers are focused on projects and work streams that offer opportunities for meaningful growth through connection and collaboration. It’s not about, is it Monday or Wednesday? It’s about the project life cycle and what’s happening on the project that offers the most meaningful opportunities for team members to connect and learn from each other?

But not only that, another area that we have found through our research is important in terms of the return-to-office transition is leaders also need to make inclusion foundational to the onsite experience. What we learned through our research is that remote workers actually experienced 10% higher inclusion than onsite workers. They feel more inclusive at home.

So organizations need to equip leaders and teams to foster an inclusive culture. And I have to tell you that organizations have room to run here. Only 50% of employees say that their onsite environments feel inclusive. So we have to equip leaders and teams to do a better job with that. At the end of the day, when you think about these strategies, again, they work to pull employees into the office, not simply push them in. And those are the things that successful organizations are doing.

CURT NICKISCH: So let’s go through a couple of these options or things that companies can do and just talk about why you think they work based on the research insights that you have. One of those is childcare, right? Which was a big issue before the pandemic, and clearly a huge benefit to employers if they were able to offer that. So what’s a way that this is being done now that helps solve the problem here?

KIMBERLY SHELLS: One of the big benefits of some of the actions that organizations can take, you know, defraying the costs of coming into the office more regularly. We know 60% of employees say the cost of going into the office outweighs the benefits. So perks really help to defray those costs, making the onsite experience more attractive. You mentioned things like free or subsidized onsite childcare, and even pet care. Those things can actually amplify autonomy by providing more financial freedom and freedom with your time. Someone else is managing the pets and the kids, which is not necessarily the case when working remote.

These perks really help to address some of the concerns that employees have about coming into the office more often. And those organizations that are really taking into account employee feedback and their concerns, and they’re really taking a data-driven approach to their return-to-office policies, they are looking for ways to address the concerns that they’re hearing through that feedback loop.

CURT NICKISCH: Lunches, food service, that was another one that you mentioned.

KIMBERLY SHELLS: Yeah, so having free or subsidized food on site, certainly defrays costs for food. When you think about the cost of lunch today, so going into the office more, you’re talking about more expense. So to the extent that organizations understand that and provide those sorts of things, it certainly makes the office more attractive.

Leading organizations like Airbnb and Edgewell, they are really cocreating flexible work patterns. Other organizations like Google are providing free commuting services. Many organizations are offering onsite food options. And for those organizations, we’ve all heard about some of the large organizations and the big public figures who are saying, “Everyone will come back into the office.” But if that’s all you do and you don’t address the challenges, you’re going to run into serious issues.

We’re talking damage in terms of trust, we’re talking damage in terms of attrition. We’ve got to really think about how to make it work, not just the mandate itself.

And I mentioned Airbnb and Edgewell because in addition to some of those subsidies that we’re talking about, they are examples of organizations who are thinking co-creation in terms of flexible working patterns, not simply, “Here’s the mandate and good luck with that.”

CURT NICKISCH: In your research, you also mentioned offsites, which used to be a big thing when you went into the office every day, you would go on a retreat or everybody would go somewhere else and it would feel special, and now that people really aren’t in the office that much, offsites are maybe a little bit of a world away, and you say that they’re a useful tool. Can you tell us more about that?

KIMBERLY SHELLS: I mean, one of the imperatives that we talk about in the article is around facilitating connection, and we know it matters. Connection is the bridge to personal and professional development. Which again, is important to employees, it’s a retention driver. And bringing people together is certainly the way or one way that we can facilitate those connections. Offsites, where teams can gather to foster meaningful social connections, where they can learn from each other. And have access to informal networking opportunities – networking opportunities that may lead to mentorship or a high visibility project or a stretch project are critical. But it’s a miss that organizations are making today.

It seems to be a relic of the past, but it is something that we are encouraging organizations and leaders to bring back because it provides another avenue to facilitate the connection that we know really matters in a hybrid work environment. And yes, it is something that organizations are not doing as much of as they used to, but we see it as a real miss. And we would encourage organizations to think about the annual or biannual offsite where they can bring teams and employees together to really facilitate and foster connections, more connections.

CURT NICKISCH: So to underscore this, what is the question that leaders should ask themselves – because every case is different, every company is different, but they have options in front of them. What would you tell them to sort of think through or what questions should they ask as they consider their return-to-office policies?

KIMBERLY SHELLS: The first question is, is the return-to-office policy the answer to the concerns that are staring them down? So as opposed to sort of a knee jerk reaction that, “Oh, we have to bring everybody in because we have concerns around productivity or collaboration.” Are there other things that we could be doing to address those concerns?

If they decide that the return-to-office mandate is the response that they are going with, then it is about understanding how people feel about it, how do we do it? And the how we do it should not just be a discussion that is happening at the C-suite level. We have to bring employees into the conversation. The thing that leaders and organizations need to do is to take a data-driven approach to the mandate. So asking the question, have we gathered the right feedback?

Another question that they want to ask is, how do we do this in such a way where the organization can accomplish its goals and at the same time, we can make sure that we are providing an employee experience that our employees demand today? These are some of the immediate and first questions that we would recommend leaders and organizations be thinking through.

And in fact, we just profiled a global organization in the financial services industry, really a best practice case in terms of how to successfully implement a return-to-office strategy. They went through a comprehensive data-driven process to arrive at and to deploy their return-to-office guidelines. They were intentional about putting together principles about what’s best in person versus virtually? Principles like purpose-driven, data-backed, flexibility and connection, a test and learn posture.

They also used evidence-based inputs to map various work activities. They looked at internal survey data, focus groups, external vendors and research, business leader feedback, employee feedback. And in the end, they created activities that they termed, “we care activities.” And these were activities that drive incremental value when done together in person: group problem solving and collaboration, activities around onboarding, social connection, coaching, and performance conversations. They said, we care about coaching and performance conversations, and we want those to happen in person.

But they also identified activities that they called, “you decide activities.” And these are activities that generate as much value when done virtually or distributed: virtual team meetings, individual focused work, that deep work, data analysis, routine work or administrative work. Those are activities that can be done virtually and create as much value. So what they said, it’s not what can we do on onsite versus remote? It’s more about which ones, which activities drive greater value when done remotely or when done onsite?

CURT NICKISCH: You mentioned the word feedback in there, right? What do you say to leaders where they have maybe brought everybody back and realized they’re making a mistake? What do you recommend for companies as they kind of feel this out?

KIMBERLY SHELLS: Yeah. Well, the thing I would say, Curt, is that it really does behoove organizations to get this as right as possible coming out of the gate. That certainly doesn’t mean that leaders and managers can’t course correct and continue to improve upon their return-to-office policies. But when you consider that in a survey of Gen Z employees, 65% said whether or not they work flexibly would impact whether they stay at their organization. And 53% cited it as a reason they were currently looking for a job. We must steer clear of requirements and really provide guidelines. We have to have a feedback loop that must be a part of the return-to-office transition. It’s the only way to know how the change is impacting the workforce, what’s working well and what needs to be reevaluated. And there are many ways that we can collect that feedback.

Organizations can include a battery of questions in their engagement survey. They can conduct pulse surveys, they can gather manager feedback, they can conduct focus groups with a cross section of representative employees. So yes, they’re able to course correct, but they must do it by gathering and really listening to feedback. And being willing to make some changes.

And they’ve got to be transparent, more transparent with employees. That’s an area where a lot of organizations are getting it wrong. So yes, they can course correct, but it is better to get it as right as possible out of the gate because the risks are high. Risk for attrition, risk for disengagement, an erosion of trust. These are very real risks, and we want organizations to really, really do their best work upfront in terms of rolling out these policies so that they can avoid some of the potential damage.

CURT NICKISCH: Kimberly, this has been great. Thanks for coming on the show to share Gartner’s research and the insights that have come out of that.

KIMBERLY SHELLS: It has been a pleasure being with you today, Curt. Thanks so much for having me.

CURT NICKISCH: That’s Kimberly Shells, a senior director in the Gartner HR practice, and a co-author of the HBR article, Return-to-Office Plans Don’t Have to Undermine Employee Autonomy. You can find it at HBR.org.

And we have more episodes and more podcasts to help you manage your team, your organization, and your career. Find them at HBR.org/podcasts or search HBR in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Thanks to our team, Senior Producer Mary Dooe, Associate Producer Hannah Bates, Audio Product Manager Ian Fox, and Senior Production Specialist Rob Eckhardt. Thanks for listening to the HBR IdeaCast, we’ll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I’m Curt Nickisch.