Microsoft Gets it Right
At Least for Microsoft
Recent headlines screaming about "the end of remote work" have seized on Microsoft's shift toward a three-day-a-week policy. But as usual, the headlines are somewhere between rage-baiting and misleading.
I think Microsoft actually gets it right, which might surprise some readers. But they're using data to navigate workplace policy rather than falling victim to executive gut feelings or peer pressure from other CEOs.
Why the Headlines Miss the Point
Every week, I find myself getting outreach for help from people caught between two equally dogmatic camps:
"Five days a week in office is more productive and will restore our culture, because I believe it to be so,” often stipulated by a CEO.
"Unfettered individual choice is the way to go – remote is the future.”
Reality is far more nuanced, but nuance doesn't generate clicks. For five years, I've been in the middle of this tug of war, and my own views have evolved as I read the research and listen to what's working – and what's not.
Here's what I know today: Every organization is unique. If your CEO is copying Amazon's policies, they better hope they can handle Amazon's churn rates and have a line of talented people outside the door. Most don't.
What Microsoft Actually Did
Let's cut through the noise. Microsoft didn't institute a draconian return-to-office mandate. Here is what they did:
Shifted from "half the week" being the default to three days a week as an "expectation"
Applied this to employees living within 50 miles of a Microsoft office
Announced a phased rollout starting February 2026
Maintained that flexibility remains "core to Microsoft's fabric"
Most importantly, they didn't make this decision in a boardroom based on what worked for the CEO 20 years ago.
The data-driven difference
Dawn Klinghoffer, who leads People Analytics at Microsoft, has been studying this for years before the pandemic even started. I had a chance to talk with Dawn about her findings before the rumor mill kicked up, so I understand the background on the decision and really respect her work.
She’s also gone public in a highly-recommended interview with David Green. As she notes:
"We've been studying different work patterns and the impact on engagement, or now thriving, for years... Satya has always said, 'We want to use data, not dogma, to make the decisions on how we work.'"
Dawn’s team measures what they call thriving: whether people are “energized and empowered to do meaningful work.” Here's the evolution of their findings:
Pre-pandemic: Remote workers were often more engaged than office workers – but at that time remote work was an exception, granted to people with compelling personal reasons who were "thrilled that they were able to meet their career goals” and work at Microsoft.
During the pandemic: Everyone went home, and the playing field was leveled. No significant differences in thriving between remote and office workers.
Two years ago: The data started shifting. "We started to see that folks that were coming into the office were thriving a little bit more than folks that were working remotely." More recently, that relationship strengthened – to the point of being strong internal evidence that they’ve held for a while and contemplated how to act upon it.
Dawn Klinghoffer, Microsoft’s Head of People Analytics
Moments that matter, not making execs feel good
Microsoft didn't just measure attendance – they studied when in-person connection actually mattered. Dawn's team was among those that identified specific "moments that matter" that I’ve tapped for years – times where physical presence created meaningful value:
Onboarding new employees and focusing on social connections
Building social capital and getting to know colleagues – minimum guidelines for gatherings
Starting new projects and establishing working relationships – project kickoff and major milestones
"There were some aspects of onboarding that were really important to do in person, coming together to build social capital, getting to know folks that you're working with, starting a new project... that in-person connection couldn't be replaced."
The key insight now? Microsoft’s data shows that people who come in three plus days a week thrive more than those that don’t. Importantly, as Dawn notes,
“Flexibility has always been core to Microsoft's fabric... So, the best of both worlds is to come into the office three days a week and you still have two days a week of flexibility.”
Why this approach works – at least for Microsoft
Microsoft’s approach gets that hybrid does, in fact, work. I asked Nick Bloom if his views had changed since that column. His response? “There is no rigorous academic research finding that 5-days in person is better than hybrid for performance."
The typical challenge with hybrid work is that most organizations put out a policy and nothing more. We know policies alone don’t improve work: they simply act as a guideline or, in the case of five day mandates, a stick.
Smaller organizations and those born remote-first have a far easier time being fully flexible: they’ve invested in ways of working, often from the beginning, that are digital-first and built systems around collaboration and culture that combine the best of time in-person and virtual connection.
Larger organizations often struggle, and have nearly from the start: stating a policy that allows flexibility, stipulating travel funds for distributed teams that come together, saying they’ll invest in new ways of working – and then pulling back on all of those investments when the economy tightened.
Those that swung furthest out – towards unfettered individual choice – created their own challenges: the coordination tax among teams. Combine that with a lack of investment in support, training, space redesign and travel funds and you have a challenge on your hands. But going backwards is also hard: you’re trying to unscramble an egg.
Microsoft recognizes and is balancing three issues, I think far more successfully than most:
Unfettered individual choice doesn’t work, the coordination tax is too high. We’ve known for over 5 years that most people want to be together in person with their team 2-3 days a week – we need to make that easier.
Teams are the center of where work gets done. While I’d love each team to build their own norms, too often leaders won’t invest in creating norms for their teams – they’ll rely on corporate guidelines. Sad, but true.
Different business units, groups of functions and countries need the freedom to deviate: "Every business is a little different at Microsoft... our data center roles, they couldn't work from home. Different businesses have different needs."
An expectation of employees that they come together as a team three days a week, depending on the business unit and geography, fits within that framework at an organization with the complexity and scope of Microsoft.
The transition itself will undoubtedly have some bumps — loss of engagement in the near term, especially if managers forget about the flexibility aspect. Microsoft is also positioning itself solidly between Amazon pushing full-time office mandates and smaller, more nimble rivals who will see this as an opportunity.
The Broader Lesson
Microsoft's journey illustrates something critical that most organizations miss: smaller companies and those "born remote" have an easier time being remote-first. Larger, established companies need to invest—modestly but meaningfully—in supporting new ways of working.
Firms that weren’t born remote but made modest investments – like Airbnb, Allstate, Atlassian, Capital One, Dropbox, Synchrony Financial and Zillow – have made it work quite well, often in ways that are unique to their organization.
Most larger companies don't make those investments. We'll spend millions on customer experience while making minimal investments in employee experience, despite knowing one drives the other.
Those that made the investment are now off to the next level of challenge: how to redesign with AI. But they’re not doing battle with their own employees over days of the week in office while trying to engage them in a deeper transformation.
The Real Headline
The story isn't "Microsoft forces employees back to office." It's "Global company uses five years of rigorous data analysis to optimize for employee thriving while maintaining flexibility."
That's a less clickable headline, but it's far more useful for leaders trying to navigate these decisions thoughtfully.
The future of work isn't about rigid mandates or absolute flexibility—it's about using data to understand what actually helps people and organizations thrive. Microsoft shows it's possible to do both.
What do you think — did Microsoft get it right? If you were Satya Nadella, what would you have done?
Data over Dogma
Excellent and balanced as always 👏👏