Over the past few years, many knowledge and white-collar workers grew accustomed to morning routines that no longer involved beating traffic or rushing to a commuter train. In large, congested cities that returned as much as 10 to 15 hours of personal time every week back to the worker.
The COVID-19 pandemic forced many workplaces across the globe to adopt remote and hybrid schedules, shattering long-held assumptions about the permanence of office life, albeit reluctantly and with resistance. Now, as more and more employers begin calling their people back in, a new conflict is taking shape: Companies hold the legal and managerial power to require employees to be on-site, but the flexibility genie is out of the bottle for workers who have the luxury and ability to work from anywhere.
The old way, for many companies, was simple: a traditional nine-to-five workday within the confines of an office building. It’s the management by sight attitude: If I can see you sitting at a desk, I know you’re working. You arrive when I tell you to, and you don’t leave until the clock says you’re done.
But then came 2020, when the pandemic forced organizations to adapt almost overnight. Schedules became more fluid, Zoom calls replaced many in-person meetings, and it suddenly became normal for employees to catch up on emails in their kitchen or work from the quiet of a home office. Need to disappear for 20 minutes to run the kids to school or stroll the dog? No problem. Just make sure the work is getting done as always.
Spotify, for example, has embraced remote work — and even doubled down on it — with Katarina Berg, its CHRO, explicitly stating that its employees are not “children.”
“You can’t spend a lot of time hiring grownups and then treat them like children,” said Berg. “Work is not a place you come to, it’s something you do.”
But that mindset is becoming an outlier, with corporate behemoths like JPMorgan, Toyota, and Amazon are reeling back work-from-home privileges and demanding a more substantial office presence.
JPMorgan Chase’s ‘getting things done’ tact
According to Reuters, JPMorgan Chase is asking hybrid staff to return to the office five days a week starting in March. Not surprisingly, “hundreds of staff comments” poured in to the bank’s internal message boards, raising concerns about costs and mental health implications of a rigid in-office model.
The bank’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, has consistently insisted that working face-to-face fosters a stronger culture, provides better learning opportunities, and ultimately leads to higher productivity. JPMorgan’s leaders have argued that in-office work allows for “brainstorming and getting things done” more efficiently than remote arrangements. One can certainly see a measure of truth in that; in-person collaboration can spark an immediate sense of camaraderie and creativity.
I agree with that. The caveat in this conversation is that I work fully remotely, with a very small team, and I won’t disagree that it can be isolating at times.
Still, a swift return to the old model can easily stir discontent, as evidenced by the outpouring of comments on JPMorgan’s intranet site. According to Reuters, the negative remarks centered on “increased commuting and childcare costs, as well as concerns about mental health and stress.” It’s one thing for a company to reinstate on-site policies — those policies are entirely within its rights — but quite another to do so without offering meaningful solutions to the new challenges that might arise for employees. Indeed, the “new” workforce has already adapted to remote and hybrid systems. A sudden pivot back to five days on-site can undercut the sense of trust many employees have cultivated in their workplace.
Toyota’s threat to ‘terminate employment’
Bloomberg reports a similar stance from Toyota, which plans to bring employees back to the office four days a week, Monday through Thursday, starting in September. Like JPMorgan, Toyota leadership emphasizes the benefits of in-person collaboration for efficiency, mentoring, and growth. However, what stands out is how strongly Toyota underscores that failing to comply could lead to “termination of employment.”
Toyota states this is “not designed to reduce headcount” but is instead meant to strengthen its culture. Whether or not that is reassuring to staff remains an open question. The reality is, after years of telework, some employees — especially those who relocated away from centralized office hubs — may see these mandates as abrupt and burdensome.
Amazon’s return policy
Meanwhile, CBC reports that Amazon is also requiring its global workforce to go back full-time, a policy that has ruffled a few feathers. One Amazon engineer, Seattle-based CJ Felli, highlighted the lack of data to support the idea that sitting at a desk five days a week automatically translates to superior collaboration.
“Whenever we ask for data,” Felli tells CBC, “they never are willing to provide it.” If there’s one constant that defines Amazon, it’s a data-driven approach to decision-making, so employees’ skepticism on this matter is not surprising.
Felli’s sentiment underscores a broader frustration: If the bottom line is truly about delivering value, are there hard metrics proving that mandatory office attendance offers an advantage over hybrid models?
Proponents of a broad-based return to the office say that a central gathering place fuels creativity, drives quicker decision-making, and provides intangible cultural benefits. Face-to-face mentoring can be invaluable for younger workers or new hires in complex fields.
Outcomes-based, not location-based, measure of success
The rub, however, is that remote and hybrid work have already proven themselves for many employees who found they are more productive when they can better manage their time. Several years of telework taught organizations that not everyone needs the same type of environment, that measures of success can be outcomes-based, and that location might not matter as much as we once believed.
In the quest to remain competitive for top talent, companies must remember that flexibility is one of the most in-demand workplace benefits. CBC highlighted a staffing agency’s survey in which a majority of workers prefer at least two or three days of remote work. While this preference aligns with employees’ desire for work-life balance, many employers have decided that office attendance is crucial to preserving their pre-pandemic culture.
It’s not that these employers are acting maliciously. Some are simply trying to restore a sense of normalcy after the upheavals of the last few years.
They have a legitimate right to require attendance. However, employers who eliminate flexibility risk losing the very people they want most to keep.
A step backward?
One compelling reason to retain some hybrid options is the continuing war for talent. While the battle might seem easier at the moment for employers, with choppy economic waters, that’s not a permanent state of affairs. During the pandemic, employees discovered alternative work options that might better suit their lifestyles — working for a company headquartered in a different state or country, freelancing, or pursuing jobs that respect family obligations.
For those whose needs changed, the idea of returning five days a week might feel like a step backward. If a competitor offers flexible arrangements, your best employees might go there instead. That’s a business risk no firm can ignore.
The competitive edge of offering hybrid or flexible schedules extends beyond simple employee satisfaction. It broadens the pool of applicants by removing geographic constraints. If someone with an impeccable résumé is living hundreds of miles from your headquarters — and would prefer not to relocate — hybrid and remote models open the door to recruiting that talent.
Is it fair? No. But, as the owner of one of my previous employers once told me, “Life isn’t fair.” Some workers get more perks than others.
The arrangement might also help sustain diversity initiatives, as people with disabilities or those who serve as primary caregivers at home might flourish under flexible schedules. Ultimately, work is about achieving tangible results, and for many roles, that can be accomplished in a variety of settings.
In-person remains critical
Still, none of this is to say there’s no place for in-person gatherings. Many workers, especially younger ones, welcome office life for the social connections and for receiving mentorship in real time. Hybrid schedules can be an excellent compromise — offering targeted face-to-face days for collaborative projects or training sessions, while leaving other days for quieter, more independent tasks at home.
Such a model can show employees that employers value their autonomy without sacrificing the benefits of physical proximity.
Companies such as JPMorgan, Toyota, and Amazon carry considerable clout, and their decisions wll influence broader industry trends. But as they push their staff to return to the office in greater numbers, they might also spark dissatisfaction, and possibly, resignations. Perhaps that’s the paradox: The more aggressively companies enforce their attendance mandates, the more likely they are to lose the very talent they want to cultivate.
Some hard-nosed managers might even welcome resignations from people unwilling to return, arguing that their stance shows a lack of commitment or even laziness.
There’s no question employers have the right to require in-office attendance. That’s not up for debate. But it’s equally true that employees are used to a degree of freedom unknown to previous generations.
So, what should corporate leaders do? They might start by truly listening to their people. Conduct surveys and focus groups to determine what sort of hybrid schedule (if any) might best fit the company’s mission without burning out employees. Share data and reasoning behind any decision to expand or reduce remote work so people understand the rationale. At the end of the day, a little transparency goes a long way toward employee buy-in.
It’s clear that many organizations are hungry for the level of control they once had, where “business as usual” meant bustling cubicles every weekday. And in many places, that might still make sense. However, it’s not just about whether workers can be forced back — they absolutely can — it’s also about whether they want to stay.
If a company can’t reconcile its desire for on-site camaraderie with the growing employee demand for flexibility, then it risks losing out in the ongoing fight for talent. Now, as the corporate world attempts to find the right balance, it must decide whether it’s worth trying to shove the genie back into the bottle — or whether it’s time to accept that workplace flexibility, in some form, is here to stay.
