The Return-to-Office Fiasco Continues

Hybrid still isn’t working. That’s the title of a new Harvard Business Review article. The authors’ make their case: “Studies published in the past few years—looking at the effect of remote work on collaboration among software engineers, the quality of ideas generated by IT workers, and the productivity of data-entry workers—show that remote and hybrid work arrangements have a dampening effect on performance.”

They go on to state that while most organizations want employees back in the office, for a myriad of reasons, they are unable to return, and hence organizations need new strategies for optimizing hybrids. Their primary recommendation revolves around… Wait for it… “more and tougher rule enforcement.” Really?

While I have respect for nostalgia, wishing things to be like they were by trying to replicate the past in a world that’s changed is wrong-headed and perhaps lazy leadership.

The context for work has dramatically changed for almost all knowledge workers. Technology advancement, affordable housing, transportation challenges, wellness and work/life integration AND much more has drastically altered our work environments. So, while calling for a return-to-office works well for management comfort, it’s dated.

Of course we want performance to increase along with better collaboration, innovation, adaptability, improved wellness, etc. However, applying past structure to a changed context essentially puts the burden of a regressive policy on the shoulders of workers. Why not think about how to lead and work differently to better navigate this now?

The question is answered differently if it is: “How might we use hybrids to make us ALL way more productive?.” People are THE source for insight. If execs sincerely asked and listened to the possible solutions, it could result in a leadership/worker renaissance, including the clever use of AI!

The return-to-work execs will be remembered as warmed over command and control management and the action of lazy leaders. It’s easier to romanticize the past rather than being creative, and innovative by leading differently.

It may take another decade to see how this plays out. But a flat out return-to-office, five days per week mandate is as dumb as thinking we can revive manufacturing by wishing we could do things we did 60 years ago. It’s nostalgic, but not sustainable or innovative.

Think Big, Start Small, Act Now,

- Lorne

Garrett’s View: Y’know, people abusing or taking advantage of the work-from-anywhere allotments have done such a disservice to so many others who have used the upgrades in technology to make it equally if not more productive. This sounds like a cultural character problem. You can’t blame a jail for enforcing stricter rules, or needing to revert to command and control, if the inmates are buck wild and breaking the institution. That being said, people just need to know what they’re signing up for, and leaders need to recruit talent that align with their values, purpose, mission, and are trusted to perform. This fiasco can probably just be curbed at the hiring desk.

- Garrett

AI Response: The Harvard Business Review article argues that hybrid work dampens performance, citing studies on software engineers, IT workers, and data-entry employees, but its solution—stricter office mandates—ignores the irreversible shifts in work dynamics. Research shows 58% of Americans now work remotely at least part-time (Pew Research, 2023), and 64% of workers would quit if forced back full-time (FlexJobs, 2023). Instead of clinging to outdated models, leaders should reimagine productivity by leveraging AI, flexible policies, and employee input—a Stanford study found remote workers 13% more productive, with higher satisfaction (Bloom, 2022). Mandating office returns reflects lazy leadership; the future lies in adapting to evolved worker priorities like affordability, wellness, and tech-enabled collaboration. Innovation thrives when leaders listen, not dictate.

The Return-to-Office Fiasco Continues

Search Blog Posts:

Follow Us: