©Mike Marchetti via Canva.com
January 9, 2025
Are Return-to-Office Pushes About Encouraging Some Employees To Quit?
One hidden motivator behind the push toward return-to-office (RTO) policies appears to be encouraging some employees, hopefully those less committed to their jobs, to quit in order to avoid layoffs.
A recent survey of 1,504 full-time U.S. employees, including 504 human resources professionals, from BambooHR showed that 25% of VP and C-suite executives and 18% of HR professionals admitted they hoped for some voluntary turnover as they’ve expanded RTO requirements. If employees quit, organizations don’t have to pay out severance and possibly unemployment.
The survey still found managers indicating that the main goals of their company’s RTO mandate was improving employee development (52%), improving customer interactions (49%), and improving company culture (46%).
A survey of 1,551 U.S. business execs taken in September from ResumeTemplates.com found about one in 10 (8%) admitting a primary reason behind RTO requirements is to encourage employees to quit. Of those seeking staff cuts, the aim is to eliminate those they perceive as less dedicated (54%), underperforming (48%), or lazy (43%). Additionally, the strategy was seen as a way to reduce costs (48%) and avoid layoffs (also 48%).
Similar to the BambooHR survey, the bigger drivers of mandated increased in-office work days were boosting productivity (70%), fostering collaboration (65%), improving employee oversight (50%), and making better use of office space (42%).
RTO mandates rolled out slowly as the pandemic abated, with 2023 seeing a wave of call-backs to the office, which continued into 2024. Per the Flex Index Q4 report, which analyzed the state of flexible work, 32% of U.S. firms require full time in-office for corporate employees. Over the past two quarters, the percentage of companies requiring three days per week in office increased to 28% from 19%.
The big risk is losing talent with demands for increased in-office attendance.
A Gartner survey from last year found 74% of HR leaders citing RTO mandates as a source of conflict. Lack of work-life balance ranked among the top five reasons employees quit, particularly for women, millennials, and high-performers. High-performing employees reported a 16% lower intent to stay in the face of on-site work requirements.
Gartner wrote, “High-performers may feel especially resentful about mandates, particularly if they maintained performance or over-delivered during the pandemic. They may perceive RTO mandates as a signal of mistrust from management.”
Amazon earned headlines in September after declaring it was mandating employees return five days per week at the start of 2025. A survey of 1,065 Amazon employees conducted in November by the Strategic Organizing Center (SOC), a labor union coalition, found that nearly half (48%) claimed to have already applied for new jobs, while 68% were “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to leave Amazon within the next year.
BambooHR’s survey found that 28% of employees would consider quitting if RTO policies occurred at their company.
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy and other senior leaders have framed the decision to fully return to the office as a crucial way to boost collaboration and innovation, arguing that the existing in-office requirement had only “strengthened” that belief. “When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant,” Jassy wrote in September.
The debate continues on whether in-office attendance improves performance. The BambooHR survey found close to half (48%) of post-RTO workers say their work results have improved since going back to the office. More than two in five (44%) hybrid/in-office employees also believe they don’t have as strong a relationship with remote colleagues as those they see in the office more often. However, nearly two in five (39%) workers say they get less work done in-office because of socializing with coworkers.
Discussion Questions
Do you see more benefits than risks in companies using return-to-office mandates to encourage resignations and avoid layoffs?
How confident are you that back-to-office pushes are worth the effort?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Doug Garnett
President, Protonik
Carol Spieckerman
President, Spieckerman Retail
David Biernbaum
Founder & President, David Biernbaum & Associates LLC
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
Which Tech Will Solve In-Store Inventory Woes?
Three major tech lineups are looking to solve retail inventory problems. Which is most suited?Will Ford’s New Retail Experience Deliver Results?
Ford is revamping its global dealership model, in terms of physical space and other aspects. Will…Will Target’s Rebalancing Act Solve its ‘Sloppier’ Stores Problem?
Target is making an operational move to take fulfillment duties away from certain stores. Will this…
Companies need to understand why their employees like work from home. I don’t believe it’s primarily about working from home — but about working without the constant suveillance filling office spaces today. Whether the boss looks over your shoulder or your computer counts your keystrokes or records what it believes is “productive”, when employees work outside the office they can just get their work done. If return to the office is to be productive, companies need to change HOW their offices work — not merely demand employees come back. As to reducing workforce? Companies should directly deal with issues of who stays and who goes. An indirect method like will not lead to a good result — and is highly likely to hurt the morale of all employees.
I don’t believe the “return to office” program is aimed at getting employees to quit, but I am pretty sure it is a handy tool for companies to get rid of unwanted employees.
The employees who argue that they don’t want to come to work in person are probably not the right ones for your organization. They are not committed.
Commitment is crucial for organizational success because it drives employee engagement and productivity. When employees are committed, they are more likely to align with the company’s goals and work collaboratively to achieve them. This dedication can lead to higher morale, better performance, and a stronger, more cohesive team. The fact that you come to work in person reflects at least a minimal degree of commitment.
Covert intentions such as getting employees to quit to avoid layoffs will ultimately undermine the stated benefits of improving company culture. Actions need to be consistent with intentions.
The short answer is absolutely yes. RTO mandates seem regressive at this point, particularly when handed down by tech companies, yet they are indeed an effective way to prune the workforce. If you read between the lines in various corporate press releases and earnings transcripts, the RIF logic is baked in. RTO initiatives also help companies rationalize investments in physical spaces and workplace upgrades, even after the fact. Even so, it can be downright demoralizing for employees to see a return to old-school productivity and seat-time logic when results are what matter most. Have any of these companies quantified actual dips in results that can be directly attributed to work-at-home policies? In the absence of that data, RTO policies come off as punitive, domineering, and regressive.
Return to office policies can be a good reset for organizations to reassess their talent and teams. Employees have been away from physical structure for too long and should welcome the opportunity to reconnect with their colleagues–especially younger workers who need mentoring. Learning the unspoken dynamics of corporate life is critical to achieve success. What is said in meetings vs what is discussed outside of the “room” often influences key decisions and culture. In turn, organizations do need to look at ways to accommodate life-balance flexibility. Perhaps tying work at home days to performance requirements can level-set the playing field and provide incentive for high performers.
RTO is a hotly debated topic and there are interesting points on both sides of the argument. As a manager and executive experiencing both, leaders must consider multiple dimensions to this decision. For example, does a CEO really want his top sales teams to be in-office HQ everyday vs co-located at the client site? If so, I can tell how this movie ends. I had a chance to speak with a CEO of a tech company who hosted a happy hour for all HQ employees every other Thursday in the office courtyard. I asked him what he thought the ROI was on these events? His answer was clear, confident and emphatic, “it’s the best $5 grand I spend on employees.” From culture building to networking connections to having impromptu meetings on key topics, it was a creative and fun way to bring people together. And employees loved it. I realize connectivity technology has radically changed, but the formative years of upskilling emerging leaders with social learning is critical. This is where soft leadership skills are developed, challenged and refined. Anyone can learn how to code or run a cashflow analysis in a remote setting, but molding future leaders is a contact sport. It requires years of in-person meetings and varied experiences. So, CEO’s need to look at their businesses and determine how they manage RTO relative to what’s best for them, from roles, to level within the company, to upskilling, to culture, to winning in the market. Like all tough decisions, it’s not one dimensional.
Your point about sales’ participation in RTO is one of those patterns that represents the real world nuances behind the headlines. Multiple big tech companies have exceptions for a certain functions (e.g. sales) that represent acknowledgement (to a certain extent) that specific functions are better suited for alternate arrangement.
That said, I do not believe the main focus of RTO policy is to drive attrition; however, I believe we will see a very interesting trend for those employees that select out of companies. A very tight labor market suggests a more targeted impact, primarily affecting high-performing employees who can command a premium for work-from-home flexibility. For the majority of employees who have fewer remote opportunities available to them, the practical reality of the job market will lead them to accept RTO requirements, even if they prefer remote work. In other words, we should see an over indexed transition of the types of employees an organization strives to retail. While this might not show up in large (reported) numbers, it’ll show up in other ways that affect organizational performance over the long term.
Adam – your point is excellent and it will be very interesting to learn the impacts of organizational performance for companies that went full 5 days RTO vs hybrid vs fully remote. To my point earlier, CEO’s need to assess this decision from many angles, i.e. size of company, competing industry, product portfolio, customer base, employee skill sets, geo(s), etc. What works for one company may not for another. Prime example, I’m strategically advising a Founder/CEO of a tech post startup that is fully remote. I can tell you RTO is not even on the radar and has had limited impact to the company’s hockey stick revenue and EBITDA growth.
I’m in the camp that the company you work for dictates the decision to work in an office or remotely. We were forced to go remote in Covid. When we came out of the pandemic, many companies tried to maintain the remote work routine. For some companies, the “experiment” didn’t create the results they wanted. So, try something else, and in this case, it’s back to work at the office – for all the reasons listed in the article.
At the same time, leadership must understand the mindset of their employees and motivate and coach them appropriately.
While companies genuinely believe that having employees physically together in an office is critical to business success, others absolutely use RTO, co-location, etc as a tactic to reduce staff, especially higher-paid / senior staffers.
Reaction to these moves are going to be divided by age group. And one can argue this one many ways, from “it fosters teamwork!” to “I have a saner work / life balance now”.
At the risk of going over old ground, we will be feeling the effects of Covid lockdowns for a long time, and BTO will succeed here and fail there…Not to mention the “here they come” effects of AI in the white collar workplace.
What I see is empty city centers, and how state and local government reacts to that will be very interesting to watch.
Corporate RTO yields different levels of impact, especially where culture intentionally drives working together in teams. Some companies thrive on the energy of a united buzzing workplace with short-form communication, eye contact, and the nuances of in-person conversations. Outcomes are often getting things done quick, confidently, in alignment, and more effectively.
I expect most companies fall into the camp of bracing for unfortunate but small amounts of attrition from RTO, while remaining companies hold some indifference to the impact departures, because it suggests the people who remain will be most committed to the cultural cause. The outcomes will show interesting results for workers as they’ve made their choices, and 2025-2026 unfolds.
I can see advantages of office work and remote work, and I think most employers are trying to balance the two. Strict return to office policies do have an impact on morale and retention, but this is a matter for employers and employees to work out between them.