Why RTO mandates are often hypocritical, according to a business professor

Coming up on four years since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine, workers are still waiting for their “new normal.” Instead, we have a power struggle that seems to have resulted in an impasse.

After what may prove to be a brief hybrid interregnum, CEOs are lined up firmly on the side of return-to-office (RTO) mandates. In a headline-grabbing move that some believe has signaled the death of remote work, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy recently declared that all employees must return to the office five days a week starting in January. Yet the response from Amazon’s workforce—nearly three-quarters of whom are considering leaving the company—suggests that this “death” may be greatly exaggerated.

How could the remote-work wars be resolved without hemorrhaging human capital? To answer that question, we need to dig deeper into the reasons for the RTO backlash. The issue is not as simple as it may seem. While a whopping majority of white-collar professionals say they want to work remotely, at least part-time, the lack of camaraderie and increasing dependence on digital tools have taken an emotional toll on the workforce that is hard to ignore.

Remote work research

According to research I coauthored with Jessica Methot and Emily Rosado-Solomon, remote workers are quietly experiencing nostalgia for the way things used to be, even as they may appreciate the convenience of a commute-free lifestyle. In response, many are burrowing even deeper into isolation, as they bear the emotional discomfort that goes along with nostalgia.

Admittedly, we haven’t seen employees grasping at RTO as an emotional lifeline. This may partly have to do with the rather undemocratic ways in which RTO mandates have been implemented.

Many employees, we’re told, are outraged at a blatant double standard that has seen the corner offices of highly paid executives less occupied than the cubicles of average workers. The most prominent example might be the unique arrangement of newly minted Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol. In addition to a $10 million signing bonus and an equity “replacement grant” worth at least $75 million, Starbucks gave Niccol permission to commute to Starbucks’ Seattle HQ from his home in Newport Beach, California three days a week by private jet. While this extraordinary perk means that Niccol will technically be in compliance with Starbucks’ hybrid policies, it points to an enormous gap in accommodation and privilege that could justifiably cause resentment.

When bosses try to win buy-in, hypocrisy never helps. For instance, unfairness and inequity are nothing new or very surprising when it comes to how CEOs are compensated and treated. As of 2021, CEO salaries were nearly 400 times that of the typical worker. And research has found that perceptions of injustice can fuel counterproductive work behaviors such as slacking off, employee theft, and plans to quit.

Indifference at work

Yet, my research shows that there’s a lot more to the story that isn’t often talked about. In fact, it is possible that leaders do not care if their decisions are unfair or hypocritical.

In a paper coauthored by Caroline Bartel, we theorize that most corporate cultures are characterized by what we call “relational indifference.” Top leaders pay lip service to the importance of positive and productive relationships between employees, but that supposed concern does not affect how they choose to spend their most precious resource: their attention. Words are one thing, but if they’re not supported by explicit organizational norms, expectations, and incentives that are consciously monitored, the message that comes through loud and clear is that none of this really matters.

Relationally indifferent companies cause disengagement and resentment among employees. In lieu of formal structures, employees form tight, self-policing cliques of protected, entitled “in groups” and disgruntled “out groups.” This is most prevalent where “informal rules” rule the day.

The hybrid era has been rife with such toxic informality. For example, we hear a lot of words to the effect of “we prefer folks to be in the office three days a week.” The problem is, stating a preference without committing to a policy allows managers to avoid taking responsibility for addressing the challenges inherent in the hybrid style of working, such as sparsely populated offices that are depressing places to be and bosses without the skills to manage remotely. But a three-days-a-week in office policy helps the managers justify favoring those who toe the line, who will nearly always be the in-groups that are already close to power.

How to resolve the remote work wars

How does this relate to the remote-work wars? CEOs always cite the importance of in-person collaboration as a primary reason for bringing employees back to the office. For example, Jassy explained his RTO mandate as an attempt to “address the issue of being better set up to invent, collaborate, and be connected enough to each other and our culture to deliver the absolute best for our customers and the business.”

I would ask Jassy whether he’s sure the real issue is that employees are too physically dispersed to collaborate effectively. Has he considered that it might instead be that valuable collaborations are all too often made impossible by a lack of interpersonal prerequisites (trust, psychological safety, etc.) that a company must establish? Is he certain that relational indifference isn’t at the heart of the matter?

Many experts openly disbelieve Jassy’s stated reasoning. And the CEO of AWS has said that workers who do not like the RTO policy can just quit. Indeed, many believe the true purpose of Amazon’s RTO is to push employees to resign—removing the need for embarrassing layoffs and expensive severance payments.

Ultimately, the rollout of Amazon’s RTO policy may reflect the true state of Amazon’s corporate culture. Indeed, many companies are thriving with full-time remote work and are doubling down on their efforts to create and maintain strong working relationships.

Employees resent being gaslit

For my part, I’m inclined to believe that Jassy means what he says—that he earnestly believes in-person work is good for business. In my recent talks with executives, I’ve found that many companies are hoping that being in-person will be a panacea for poor organizational design and manager training.

But it’s no surprise that employees resent being gaslit and dragged back to offices where nothing substantive is really happening, where meetings could be emails, and where leaders themselves are absent. The fact that top leaders are often seemingly exempt from the RTO requirement—or such requirements are bent beyond all recognition, as with Brian Niccol—just twists the knife.

What could Niccol do differently? First, do away with the double standard by holding himself accountable. The new CEO should state explicitly why he feels he would accomplish more without being close to HQ, set clear and quantifiable expectations, and offer to move to Seattle if the feedback from the employees is clear that he is not meeting said targets. Radical transparency may not be a cure-all for the cultural malaise of corporate America, but it would be a good start.

At a deeper level, Starbucks, Amazon, and other organizations affected by the remote-work wars should recognize that if they want to improve their collaborative culture, they must address relational indifference. Formal expectations and incentives are essential. A meaningful initial step is to rewrite job descriptions so that employees understand that a critical component of their own job is to help colleagues do theirs. This will help interpersonal connections no matter where employees work.

In sum, the remote-work wars are not merely about deciding how and where work gets done. They’re the proverbial tip of the iceberg, a manifestation of long-simmering tensions under the surface. Organizations should intervene at the source of the problem, (relational indifference) so they can then develop a rational remote-work policy that makes the most sense for their needs and goals. Once they have formulated their policy, they must formalize it with clear expectations and reasons. And most importantly, leaders and managers must accept responsibility for making the policy work for all employees.