Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Working Conversations podcast where we talk all things leadership, business communication, and the future of work. I'm your host, Dr. Janel Anderson.

So what happens when a company uses its return to office policy as a tool for voluntary attrition? Is it a savvy business move to trim costs and ensure survival? Or is it a failure of creativity and empathy in addressing workforce challenges? As more organizations, from tech giants to government offices, roll out return to office mandates, this question sits at the heart of a growing debate. Today, we're unpacking both sides of the argument. Are these policies a responsible way to balance budgets and rebuild culture? Or are they eroding trust and alienating talent in ways that will backfire long term? Let's dive in now here in the good old U.S. of A.

Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office of his new term as president telling federal agencies to return their employees to the office, “As soon as practicable.” The president directed agencies to end remote work arrangements and require employees to work in person full time. The order does give agencies some flexibility, allowing department and agency heads to “make exemptions that they deem necessary”. And the executive order itself reads as follows, “Heads of all departments and agencies in the executive branch of government shall, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in person at their respective duty stations on a full time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary. This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law”.

So this executive action was expected, particularly after Trump made comments during a December press conference saying that all federal employees should plan to return to the office or else be dismissed from their jobs. So? So it was not unexpected. Trump's return to office executive order is part of a broader effort to cut the size of the bureaucracy of the US Government.

But it is not just the US Government, of course. In this return to office war, many large employers have been issuing mandates for their employees to return to the office as well. And for the past year, even now, as the labor market slows and businesses are less concerned about retention, companies are starting to gain some traction in this area. So anyway, we've been talking about the federal government, but what about the private sector? And what about all those large companies who are calling their people back to the office? Well, let's start with a recap of some of the most notable. First of all, of course, Amazon in September of this past year, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy informed employees of a transition from a three day in the office schedule to a full five day requirement starting in January 2025. Jassy emphasized that in person work enhances collaboration and company culture, stating, “When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant.” So Amazon, another big one leading the way is Salesforce. In October of 2024, Salesforce required employee roles like sales and on site support to be in the office either four or five days a week.

CEO Mark Benoff noted that newly hired remote workers were struggling with productivity and feeling isolated, missing the benefits of office culture. And another big company that we're hearing a lot about these days in this return to office space is Tesla, which is no surprise given his closeness with President Elon Musk's closeness with President Trump these days. So CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk mandated that all employees spend a minimum of 40 hours in the office per week, stating, “if you don't show up, we will assume you have resigned”. This strict policy underscores Musk's belief in the necessary of a physical presence for productivity, which is kind of surprising given how futuristic he is in the rest of the things that he's up to.

And then we've got Boeing. The aviation company has been pushing a five day in office return to work, aligning with its emphasis on in person collaboration for complex engineering tasks. And we can only hope that those complex engineering tasks, if they happen face to face, will lead to more safety. All right, UPS, the United Parcel system mandated a five day in office schedule coinciding with layoffs, which some interpret as a strategy to reduce headcount through voluntary resignations due to stricter in office policies.

Now, I don't want to skip over the dozens and dozens of companies that are mandating a minimum number of days in the office per week, anywhere from two to four. Those companies like Apple, IBM and Zoom are among the companies that I think are getting it right. That is, they are implementing a permanent hybrid schedule for their staff. But that's another episode entirely. All right, let's get back to the employees.

What do the employees think about all this five days in the office every week? Well, 75% of workers with jobs that could be done remotely said that their employer has put in person mandates in place, according to a Pew Research study conducted last fall that released just recently, and that is up from 63% in 2023. So the employees are feeling the squeeze of their employers asking them to come back to the office. But really, as we think about what are the drivers behind this? What is going on here? Well, the big criticism to return to office mandates is that they can be often a way for companies and governments to do layoffs without technically having to fire anyone or pay out any severance.

So people who don't want to return to office will be a source of natural attrition. So if you're trying to reduce headcount, this might be a cost effective way to do it because you don't have to pay severance for anyone. If they don't like the return to office policy and they leave of their own accord, there's no payout except for any outstanding paid time off that they may have coming to them. Now, is it underhanded? Is it shady? Many people think so. Is it backpedaling on promises made several years ago to be permanently remote? Absolutely, if that's what the company had promised. But companies and people change their minds all the time, and sometimes it's of course correction driven by market forces or other factors, it is messy to unpack. And where does this leave all of us? Well, for the federal government, it is particularly complicated. The return to work order has some wiggle room mandating change to happen as soon as practicable and allowing for exemptions as department and agency heads deem necessary.

And if you're wondering, like I was, if practicable is a real word, well, indeed it is. It is an adjective built from the root word practice, and it means, “able to be done or put into practice successfully”. According to an article on Vocabulary.com's when faced with a choice between practical and practicable, look at the context around the word. Do you mean to say that a thing is sensible? If so, choose practical. Do you want to say that it is possible? If so, choose practicable. So from that end quote and so from that we can interpret that the executive order is meant to be done not when it's sensible, but when it is possible to be done. Okay, enough on the finer points of language in that executive order prediction so far is that there will be a significant brain drain on the federal government, especially in technology roles. Government jobs tend to pay less than private sector jobs.

And if someone wants to maintain a flexible work environment, they will probably be among those voluntary terminations that this policy will lead to. But it gets even dicier than that at the federal government level. Many federal workers have had teleworking arrangements in place since long before the pandemic and some unions that represent public sector employees have negotiated telework arrangements into their contracts, according to a recent story on National Public Radio. Now, these agreements, these contractual agreements with the unions would be very hard to break. So as far as the federal government goes, I don't think this is going to be cut and dry. I think it will be drawn out and messy, quite likely resulting in the opposite of the cost cutting measures that it was intended to be. I see lawsuits and counter lawsuits ahead in this space that get very expensive, very messy and very drawn out. So I think there will be quite a distance to go before this is all going to unpack and unfold in any meaningful way with the federal government.

But let's unpack this further. So these return to office mandates are seen by many as forcing voluntary attrition, like we were just talking about. So, and these corporations, when we look at the private sector who are doing this well, they need to be accountable to their shareholders for the money that they spend. And if this indeed is a cost saving measure for those companies who need to trim salary costs, well, perhaps it can be interpreted as a responsible thing to do. Now, the other side sees this as a bit more of a bait and switch from their employers. They were promised a permanent remote work environment and they made life choices in accordance with that. And now their employer is backing out of their word with what feels like shady business practices. And this gets us to that central tension in the return to office mandates, whether using these policies as a tool for voluntary attrition is whether using these.

This gets us to the central tension in the return to office mandates, whether using these policies as a tool for voluntary attrition is pragmatic corporate strategy or a shortsighted move with long term consequences. So again, let's unpack both sides of the debate here. So let's look first at the return to office as a possible business strategy, a responsible one at that. Well, first of all, we have cost control through attrition. For many companies, layoff comes with a significant cost, including severance packages, legal fees and reputational damages. So encouraging voluntary attrition through return to office policies is seen as a softer, less costly way to reduce headcount. Companies also argue that this strategy prioritizes employee agency and free will. Those who are unwilling to comply with the new policy have the choice to leave rather than being forcibly terminated.

We can also look at shareholder accountability. So corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns on the investment to the shareholders. So if return to office policies help Trim workforce expenses without direct layoffs. Without direct layoffs, it can be framed as a strategic way to meet financial targets while preserving shareholder value. And you know, an argument can also be made for rebuilding culture and productivity. Advocates of return to office argue that in person, work fosters collaboration, innovation and team cohesion. If employees resistant to the shift leave, then the companies retain a workforce that is more aligned with their vision of work culture, potentially improving that work culture and possibly long term productivity if productivity happens on site more effectively. And then of course, post pandemic adjustments.

The pandemic led to rapid hiring in some industries, particularly in tech. And many companies now are facing overstaffing or or misaligned skill sets in this shifting economy. So return to office policies are allowing these organizations to recalibrate without explicitly signaling layoffs. So those are some of the reasons that it might make sense for companies to do return to office policy as an attrition move. Now let's look at the opposing side. Return to office as shortsighted or potentially harmful approach to business. And the very first and top of the list reason here is erosion of trust and morale. So employees often view return to office policies as thinly veiled attempts to force resignations, which can breed resentment and erode trust between employers and employees.

Because even those who leave with agency leave behind their co workers who are now overworked, stressed and potentially still upset about the return to office policies. Now this perception could damage the employer brand, making it harder to attract and retain top talent, especially in industries where flexible work is highly valued. A second reason that this might be shortsighted or a harmful approach is the talent drain and brain drain. So employees who leave during return to office mandates might not be underperformers, but in fact might be the high value individuals who prioritize flexibility. So losing such talent could really hurt organizational performance much more than anticipated. And replacing skilled employees is costly and time consuming. So if those positions do need to be backfilled, that might backfire. And it's not guaranteed that new hires will align with company culture or productivity expectations anyway.

And then we do have reputational risk as part of what might be short sighted or harmful in all of this. So companies that enforce rigid return to office policies are being labeled as out of touch with the evolving expectations of a modern workforce and with the future of work. And this could lead to public criticism, as we've absolutely seen with Amazon, with some of the large banks, with Walt Disney Corporation and others. And then of course there is the potential misalignment with employees needs so surveys are consistently showing that many employees value remote and hybrid work arrangements. And ignoring those preferences could lead to disengagement, lower productivity, or employees quietly quitting, or just having presenteeism where they come into the office as a sign but don't get much done. And then there's also potentially overstating the office benefits. So critics of return to Office argue that collaboration and innovation are not necessarily tied to physical presence and that many companies thrive during the pandemic with a fully remote workforce. So forcing return to office might overlook the reality that flexibility can coexist with strong performance and strong culture.

So those are the two sides of the argument. First of all, that the return to office is a responsible business strategy. And then secondly, that return to office is shortsighted and harmful. All right, well, let's look at a possible third angle, a middle ground. Maybe both sides of the argument are right here. So strategic alignment. The truth might lie in how companies communicate and implement these policies. If return to office is presented transparently as a cultural reset rather than as a cost saving tactic, it could be more palatable to employees because the employees who want to be part of an in person culture will then come back to the office and the employees who don't want to be part of an in person culture will then leave

So companies might also benefit from using hybrid models, as I am a proponent of, which blend those in person collaboration days with remote flexibility. But it really needs to be that it needs to be a cultural reset or whatever business reason other than cost cutting in order for strategic alignment like this to really resonate with staff. A second area of middle ground is in taking an employee centric alternative. So again, instead of mandating return to office for cost cutting, when organizations explore other ways to align with employee needs while addressing financial constraints, should it be that cost cutting really is important? They can suggest things like voluntary buyout packages, reduced work weeks with again reduced salaries, or rolled redesigns, you know, part time work and more flexible work. So again, if it really is cost cutting that is at the heart of it, be transparent about it and get creative with your staff. There are plenty of employees who would take a buyout package. Again, that might not necessarily be as big as a severance package, so it might not be as hard of a financial hit to the organization or reduce the number of hours they work in exchange for reduced salary, or partner with somebody on filling a full time position by only working half of it.

Now also we need to think about the long term impacts as we study that middle ground. If the labor market tightens again and skilled talent becomes harder to find like it used to be. Companies that enforce strict return to office policies might really struggle in filling those roles. So balancing immediate cost savings with long term workforce health is really a delicate act. Now we've mentioned the brain drain that's inevitable when return to office RTO mandates are in place. So when you're looking for top talent down the road, that RTO might really be a roadblock to attracting and retaining new talent. So where do we think all this is going to land? Well, as we look to the future of work, I predict that full time return to office mandates are designed to fail for one simple reason. They don't align with evolving expectations of the modern workforce. The pandemic fundamentally changed how and the pandemic fundamentally changed and reshaped how we view work, proving that flexibility and productivity are not mutually exclusive.

Employees have experienced the autonomy and the work life balance that remote work can offer and they're not willing to give it up without good reason. Mandates that ignore this shift risk alienating top talent and driving attrition. That's far more costly than any perceived cultural benefit of in office presence. So I believe the path forward lies in embracing hybrid and flexible work work arrangements. These models acknowledge the value of face to face collaboration absolutely, while respecting employees desire for autonomy and less commute time. Companies that succeed will be those who create thoughtful policies grounded in data and in dialogue with their employees to find the balance between organizational needs and employee well being. Hybrid work isn't just a compromise, it's an opportunity to redefine productivity and engagement for the long haul. The question isn't whether flexibility will remain a priority for workers, it's whether companies will adapt fast enough to make it a strategic advantage rather than a liability.

So there you have it my friends. That's where I land on this debate of why return to office will fail. All right, so thanks so much for joining me on today's episode of Working Conversations. If this topic resonated with you or you have ideas for future episodes, I would love to hear them from you. As always, stay curious, stay informed, and stay ahead of the curve. Tune in next week for another insightful exploration of the trends that are shaping our professional world. And if you learned something on this episode or you simply enjoy the content, please subscribe to my channel over on YouTube, subscribe to the podcast on your podcast platform player of choice, and follow me over on social media. These are all excellent no cost ways for you to support me and my work.

You'll find links to my social media over on the show notes page. That's janelanderson.com/201 for episode 201. If this topic resonated with you again, or if you have ideas for those future episodes, I would love for you to drop me a line. Until next time, my friends. Keep thriving and keep working toward the future of work that we all want and deserve. Take good care.