USA 
United Kingdom
When it comes to the return-to-office (RTO) conversation, you’ve probably heard it all before.
At least, this editor’s fingers feel a familiar fatigue while typing out that tired, three-letter acronym. The conversation around RTO and remote, hybrid, or flexible working has bounced around the HR profession for at least the past four years.
It’s been the subject of many a news story, podcast, webinar, long read, and conference keynote, and at this stage, most are exhausted by it. Haven’t we figured by now whether our organizations and their people need to spend some, none, or all their time in the office?
Unfortunately, the answer is no, with employers still making unpopular and controversial calls on in-office expectations – including U-turns from those who have previously described return-to-office mandates as “wrong” (cough cough, Dell.)
It’s refreshing then, when new information and research come to light and offer evidence on how enforcing RTO mandates can impact not just individual employees, but also businesses as a whole.
Enter David Van Dijcke, Florian Gunsilius, and Austin Wright, three researchers at the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago, whose analysis of 260 million resumes alongside company data revealed that strict RTO mandates, when not supported by employees, could be costing companies some of their highest-ranking talent.
Report claims RTO mandates cost Apple, SpaceX, and Microsoft top talent
The “Return to Office and the Tenure Distribution” report focused on three major US tech employers: Apple, Microsoft, and SpaceX. Each reportedly lost a share of its high-ranking workers after implementing an RTO mandate.
At Apple, where workers were told to be in the office one day per week, the drop was 4%. At Microsoft, where staff must spend half their time in the office, the drop was over 5%. And at SpaceX, with a full RTO mandate of five days in the office per week, the drop was 15%.
A first caveat is that Microsoft and Apple both reject the study, stating to Fortune and the Washington Post respectively that it does not reflect their internal data. Secondly, Microsoft’s VP of HR points out that the term “return to office mandate” does not reflect its work model.
It certainly depends on how you interpret ‘RTO’. For some, RTO solely refers to employees being asked to return to the office full time, a-la SpaceX. For others, RTO mandates can include employees being told, rather than asked or encouraged, to come back to the office for any amount of time.
However you define it, the study does appear to lend some valuable support to the line of argument that whether it’s one day a week or five days a week, telling employees where and when they should work will push those who do not want to do so toward competitors or more flexible employers.
It identifies “more pronounced exodus of relatively senior personnel,” highlighting that those who enforce any level of in-office work, but particularly full RTO mandates, risk losing extremely valuable knowledge and face leadership disruption as well as the costs of replacing and developing talent to fill the gaps.
With employers accused of using RTO mandates to “trim the fat” – such as the aforementioned Dell, who’s RTO mandate for workers to spend 39 days per quarter in a recognized US office was described by an employee as a form of ‘Quiet Firing’ – some might lose more than they bargained for.
Flexibility as the path forward
The complexity of the RTO-slash-remote debate is that no two organizations are alike. Each has its own set of operational circumstances, its own culture, and its own structures for controlling employee behavior or allowing flexibility.
“We know that what works for us may not work for other companies,” says Mike Asbery, VP of People Experience at Autodesk, a company which has seen outstanding results by historically embracing a flexible policy to hybrid work, rather than enforcing a specific number of days per week or month as a mandate.
As such, each employer is of course free to pursue whatever balance of in-office and remote work they see fit. However, the research does appear to indicate that despite major differences in the culture and product of all three tech giants, there were “nearly identical effects for all three companies.”
Increasingly, organizations are learning that any gains they make through control and close monitoring are offset by the negative long-term impact on their relationship with employees.
“We understand that many companies have brought their employees back to the office because they are worried about loss in productivity and innovation,” Asbery continues. “They may also have concerns about the impacts of remote work on connection and employee engagement. We monitor these trends closely, however, and do not see any significant negative impacts of our hybrid-first culture.”
Workers are asking for trust, respect, and the autonomy to complete work flexibly. And employers who can offer this will be waiting in the wings to welcome those who depart from less flexible employers with open arms.
“We know a flexible, hybrid-first culture enables our teams to do their best work, regardless of where that work takes place,” says Asbery. “Flexibility gives employees more control over their work schedules and locations, allowing them to better balance their personal and professional lives. This new way of working also helps increase productivity, reduce turnover, and attract top talent.”
Its ‘Flex Forward’ program launched in Spring 2023 included a move to increase physical office space for collaboration, designed to attract workers to the office as opposed to forcing them to be there. Since then, average attendance at key Autodesk offices has since increased year over year.
Moreover, the company’s job postings have received 400% more views and 60% more applicants, including 80% more candidates identifying as female and 50% more candidates identifying as underrepresented people of color.
It seems that even if HR professionals – and even HR journalists – are a little tired of the RTO conversation, it continues to play a major role in shaping the US labor market and where both highly skilled workers and senior leaders choose to do their work.
