Opinion: In-office work mandates are really all about control, not efficiency or value

Recent research led by Pitt professor Mark Ma and graduate student Yuye Ding sheds light on the complex reasons behind organizational leaders’ decisions to force employees to return to working in-office. And it turns out that managers’ motivations diverge significantly from the commonly stated objectives of improved productivity and financial performance.

Ma told me in an interview that the push for more in-office work is more closely associated with managerial desires for control and a tendency to attribute organizational underperformance to the workforce, rather than evidence-based strategies aimed at enhancing corporate value.

Reports from organizations such as Hubstaff and Thumbtack reveal that remote work can lead to higher efficiency and productivity, challenging the assumption physical office presence is inherently more productive. Furthermore, insights from McKinsey and Aquent highlight that remote and hybrid models done right foster high-performing teams and support diversity and innovation compared to in-office models.

However, the imposition of rigid, top-down return-to-office mandates without employee consensus can have detrimental effects, including increased turnover and diminished morale, as outlined in the Return-to-Office Playbook by McLean and Company and other industry research .

Ma’s study delves deeper into the motivations behind decisions among S&P 500 companies to push for full-time in-office work. The research does not find a significant link between CEOs’ financial stakes in their companies and the implementation of such policies, suggesting that financial incentives may not be the primary driver of these decisions.

Are managers using return-to-office mandates as a diversionary tactic, to shift blame for poor organizational performance away from strategic or managerial shortcomings and onto the workforce? Ma and Ding find support for this hypothesis in a correlation between return-to-office mandates and poor stock performance. This may indicate that such mandates serve as an excuse for underperformance to shareholders and the market, despite their questionable efficacy in addressing the root causes of the underperformance.

The research also suggests that return-to-office mandates reflect a desire among certain leaders to reassert control and authority within the organization. That’s particularly true in cases where CEOs exhibit power-seeking behavior, as measured by the gap between CEO pay and the salary of the next-highest-paid executive officer.

A pivotal aspect of the analysis involves employee satisfaction. The study leverages extensive data from platforms such as Glassdoor to gauge the repercussions of return-to-office mandates on employee sentiment. The findings reveal a noteworthy deterioration in job satisfaction, work-life balance, and perceptions of senior management after implementation of return-to-office mandates. These outcomes challenge the conventional wisdom that in-office work enhances collaboration and company culture, suggesting instead that such mandates are more likely to harm employee morale and organizational harmony.

Do return-to-office mandates inherently bolster firm productivity and shareholder value? Ma and Ding found no significant evidence that they do. This revelation critically undermines another foundational argument in favor of banning remote work.

The study illustrates the cognitive biases influencing leadership decisions regarding return-to-office policies, particularly status quo bias and confirmation bias. Status quo bias induces leaders to cling to familiar office-centric models despite evidence supporting the efficacy of alternative work arrangements. This inclination toward the familiar can cause leaders to disregard evolving workforce needs and emerging workplace trends, potentially stifling innovation and adaptability within their organizations.

Confirmation bias further compounds decision-making challenges as leaders selectively acknowledge information that reinforces their preconceived notions about work models. This leads to decisions that favor personal beliefs over objective analysis of comprehensive data.

The insights from this study offer a research-based perspective to challenge and reconsider the efficacy and motivations behind return-to-office mandates. As we navigate the post-pandemic world, understanding the nuanced impacts of return-to-office decisions on employee satisfaction and organizational performance are paramount.

This knowledge empowers us to advocate for more evidence-based, flexible, and inclusive work arrangements that align with both employee wellbeing and organizational objectives. By leveraging these insights, organizations will create work environments conducive to both employee fulfillment and organizational success, challenging the status quo and embracing the potential of flexible work models.

Gleb Tsipursky serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts . He is the author of Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams .

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.