Should companies force employees back to the office?

When offices emptied during the pandemic, many companies found that much work could go on from home. Years later, employers are split. Some require staff to return full time, some ask for a few days a week, and some have gone fully remote. The decision affects commutes, housing, city centres, careers and how people feel about their jobs.

Supporters of in-office work argue that some things are harder at a distance: learning from colleagues by watching and asking, building trust, spontaneous problem-solving, and a shared culture. They say newer employees are especially disadvantaged when no one is around to teach them, and that managers can better see and support their teams in person [check: add a study you trust].

Supporters of remote work argue that many people do focused work better without commutes and office noise, that flexibility helps parents, carers and people with health conditions, and that employers can hire from a much wider pool. They also note that return mandates can cost companies good people who simply go elsewhere.

Many firms land in between, with hybrid schedules that bring people in on set days. Even then the questions continue: what is the office for, who decides, and whether rules should be set by company, team or individual. The evidence on productivity is mixed and depends heavily on the job, the company and how remote work is managed.

It also helps to remember that offices differ as much as people do. A small team in one city, a company spread across countries, and a job that needs special equipment each point toward a different answer, and a rule that fits one may fail another.

If you take part in this debate, it helps to say what kind of work you mean, whether you are thinking of full-time or hybrid, and what measure of success you would use, such as output, retention, learning or well-being.