According to Daniel Snell, the factors driving return-to office mandates have less to do about productivity and more to due to investor pressure and a desire to gain more control.
The debate about returning to the office has captured headlines and boardrooms. More than 300 University of Liverpool employees went on strike recently over the new requirement of three days of in person attendance per week. Barclays mandated that employees be in the office at least three days per week, and Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and JP Morgan Chase went even further, requiring five-day attendance. HSBC has now considered a global policy requiring employees to be in the office at least three times a week.
Office attendance is an important metric for business leaders who are under pressure to achieve growth. When productivity drops, it can be used to show the board and other stakeholders that there is a real effort being made. When only 10% of UK workers report being engaged at work, this is a reasonable lever to pull. Bring everyone back in, reduce flexible working and increase visibility.
These policies might bring clarity in the short term, but they will not fix the root causes. It is a sad fact that the UK productivity issue predates both the pandemic of Ebola and the move to hybrid working. The office occupancy problem is neither the cause nor the solution to sluggish economic growth. Some businesses will benefit by bringing people back to the office. This can have benefits such as supporting young talent or building team trust. However, this alone won’t deliver productivity.
Why CEOs want mandates
I have spoken to CEOs, department heads and business leaders from a variety of industries. From finance to telecoms, to pharmaceuticals – there is a common theme: Investors are looking for results. When you are overseeing an organization that is not on the right track, it is increasingly difficult to justify a staff that is not being directly supervised. Mandates are a sign of strong leadership in this context. They are decisive, measurable and action-oriented.
Return-to-office mandates, like shiny new AI tools or Revolut’s newest employee tracking system, are just the latest of a series interventions that demonstrate accountability and action.
They can be advantageous in some situations. Working in person has many benefits, from developing young talent to stumbling upon water cooler conversations which spark new ideas. It also helps build trust within teams. One CEO said: “You can build a business from home but not run one”.
The question isn’t where the work takes place, but rather how it occurs – and if managers are up to task”
But bringing back everyone without improving the way work is managed will not solve underperformance. If blanket mandates are used to replace real accountability, it will result in frustrated teams, talent loss, and lower engagement.
Accounting for context
Blanket mandates fail because they ignore the simple truth that people do not work or add value in the same manner or conditions.
Remote working can be a great way to retain and attract top talent and boost productivity. It all depends on the context, including the goals of the company, the nature and scope of the work, and who is being served.
Organisations that fail to take into account this context and fail to properly manage performance are at risk. Trust is eroded, resentment increases, and high-performing employees start to leave. One leader said: “The right mindset is critical. If working from home is viewed as a “dossday”, that mindset will seep into an organization’s psyche and drag down productivity across the board.”
Michael Page’s recent survey confirms this disconnect. Nearly half of employees claim to be more productive at home than in the office. The gap in productivity is not just about where people are sitting; it’s also about how well they know what success looks and feel supported to deliver it.
Focusing on How, Not Where
It is not the place where work takes place, but rather how it occurs and if managers are capable of doing their job. Many UK companies have given up on performance management. They don’t tackle poor performers directly, but instead make them return to work, offer them perks or redesign the office with table football and beanbags.
Attendance in person can be a powerful tool to build high-performing, well-managed teams. But only if the strategy is aligned to a better business outcome and the employees are more productive at work than they are at home.
There is no single-size-fits all policy or approach. “Neither rigid mandates nor unstructured flexibility will save productivity that is waning.”
It’s the messy, harder work that is needed: rebuilding management capabilities, addressing underperformance and providing employees with a clear framework to success. Employees who are high-performing want clarity. High-performing employees want clarity.
What does this mean for leaders?
Accept that no single policy or method will work for everyone. Flexibility and rigidity alone will not save productivity. It’s important to have a culture that puts performance first, where the working arrangements are designed to support the commercial goals and the employees.
Focus on rebuilding the management capability. Teams must be created where all employees understand how their work is linked to the delivery of strategy and feel empowered to contribute meaningfully. Managers need to have the right skills and support in order to create clear goals, hold people accountable, and bring the best out of them.
It may be beneficial to get employees back in the office, but these gains won’t materialise until people understand what is expected of them and how their success will be measured. Leaders who are courageous enough to set clear goals, enforce them, and take tough decisions when needed, will be able to achieve true productivity.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
