Great article Brian! I love all of the different sources you provided. What’s really interesting is the compliance piece. So I have to wonder if these companies are not going to enforce their mandates then what is the point? I would just love to get all of these CEO’s in a room with truth gas to find out the real reason behind their returns 😀
I've heard CHROs make exactly this point, at which time the communication moves from a mandatory statement to guidance -- we think given that the following activities are better in person, if you're co-located with your team, 3 days a week is about right (Diageo talked about this on a panel with me publicly)
I also know a few places (ahem, Big Tech) where the lack of compliance is used to basically nail down a case for termination of someone whose performance wasn't good in the first place.
Otherwise, yeah, all you're doing is ticking off the GOOD performers!
In a world still shaking off old patterns, we are reminded that presence is not measured by proximity, but by purpose. True work — like true connection — arises not from bodies in buildings, but from minds and hearts engaged in meaning. To chase appearances is to water mirages; to trust in authenticity is to nourish real harvests.
How might we redefine belonging and contribution, so they grow not from where we stand, but from the depth of how we show up? ∞
I think the big push for getting everyone back in the office is more about control and CEOs wanting to set a precedent so others follow suit, making it easier for them to mandate it.
I recently saw a post where one CEO claimed it was about helping Gen Z’s careers and well-being, but does anyone really buy that? CEOs haven’t shown much concern for employee well-being before, so it’s hard to believe that’s their real motivation now.
I can get the push for Gen Z / new employees being 2-3 days a week if they are co-located with their team. That’s more defensible and that generation is the one most likely to want hybrid.
But I’ve talked to too many CHROs who’ve told me about the CEO wanting control, griping resentfully about non-compliance or coming back from a CEO meeting all fired up.
I agree they prob should be in the office at least some of the time. My argument is that I highly doubt they are all the sudden concerned about the career progression and well-being of them.
CEOs like Jamie Dimon are angry about the work from home. They don’t trust their employees are working. I read something where he was calling his people on Friday just to see if they would answer their phone and said most times, they did not.
Great article Brian! I love all of the different sources you provided. What’s really interesting is the compliance piece. So I have to wonder if these companies are not going to enforce their mandates then what is the point? I would just love to get all of these CEO’s in a room with truth gas to find out the real reason behind their returns 😀
I've heard CHROs make exactly this point, at which time the communication moves from a mandatory statement to guidance -- we think given that the following activities are better in person, if you're co-located with your team, 3 days a week is about right (Diageo talked about this on a panel with me publicly)
I also know a few places (ahem, Big Tech) where the lack of compliance is used to basically nail down a case for termination of someone whose performance wasn't good in the first place.
Otherwise, yeah, all you're doing is ticking off the GOOD performers!
In a world still shaking off old patterns, we are reminded that presence is not measured by proximity, but by purpose. True work — like true connection — arises not from bodies in buildings, but from minds and hearts engaged in meaning. To chase appearances is to water mirages; to trust in authenticity is to nourish real harvests.
How might we redefine belonging and contribution, so they grow not from where we stand, but from the depth of how we show up? ∞
RTO mandates seem to erode trust.
The organization I work for introduced a 50% mandatory onsite presence in March this year.
All those who bought property in rural areas feel not being heard.
All who were hired with “work from home whenever you need it” slogans feel tricked.
Managers start working against HRS fearing to lose diamonds.
I like measures like team days, which worked pretty well. No policy needed.
Working out the new RTO policy kept dozens of mid/high managers very busy for min. 1 month.
Organizations should not burn cash by policy making. Better invest in building trust.
Thanks for this Chris -- and great example of the wasted energy and loss of engagement that always happens with the command-based approach.
Tell me more about how team days worked at your org?
Hey Brian! Yes, ofc. Gladly!
All project and org teams agree on one presence day a week. Roughly 80% of team mates are in the office on these days.
Alignment meetings and workshops within the teams are concentrated on these days.
Teams select the most suitable dates and the onsite content.
Just one rule applies. Shall be one day a week per team. And as anyone is member of several teams this generates decent office traffic.
Yes! The “anchor day” is a big win. Love the one day a week rule.
It's like reporting on plane crashes while ignoring the thousands of safe landings every day--so good. Thanks, Brian!
I think the big push for getting everyone back in the office is more about control and CEOs wanting to set a precedent so others follow suit, making it easier for them to mandate it.
I recently saw a post where one CEO claimed it was about helping Gen Z’s careers and well-being, but does anyone really buy that? CEOs haven’t shown much concern for employee well-being before, so it’s hard to believe that’s their real motivation now.
I can get the push for Gen Z / new employees being 2-3 days a week if they are co-located with their team. That’s more defensible and that generation is the one most likely to want hybrid.
But I’ve talked to too many CHROs who’ve told me about the CEO wanting control, griping resentfully about non-compliance or coming back from a CEO meeting all fired up.
I agree they prob should be in the office at least some of the time. My argument is that I highly doubt they are all the sudden concerned about the career progression and well-being of them.
CEOs like Jamie Dimon are angry about the work from home. They don’t trust their employees are working. I read something where he was calling his people on Friday just to see if they would answer their phone and said most times, they did not.