Return-to-Office Mandates Reflect Regressive Leadership
I’ve been watching a trend unfold here in New Zealand. Government departments and corporate leaders are doubling down on in-person mandates, asking their employees to return to the office full-time, five days a week.
If this feels like trying to time travel backwards, that’s because it is.
We already know what works. The past few years proved that flexibility is not only possible but often better for productivity, wellbeing, and retention. So why are some leaders so determined to turn back the clock?
The answer rarely lies in performance. More often, it’s about control.
I empathize, it is tricky to manage a remote workforce. I’ve heard stories that make me absolutely cringe... employees washing dishes on Zoom calls, or refusing to attend in-person events because of “bad weather.”
But these stories aren’t proof that remote staff are lazy. Instead, this is proof that many leaders are simply unwilling to have hard management conversations.
In New Zealand, the push to bring everyone back in-person is compounded by a deep cultural discomfort with direct confrontation. Leaders who struggle with accountability or feedback tend to lean on blanket policies instead of strengthening their management skills. Bringing everyone back into the office can feel easier than confronting difficult conversations or improving communication.
But here’s the problem. If someone is disengaged or resistant to team culture, forcing them to sit in a different building doesn’t solve the issue. It just shifts the discomfort into a more expensive space.
We Already Know The Cost Is Unevenly Shared
A 2022 report from McKinsey found that 64 percent of workers would consider leaving their jobs if required to return to the office full time. For women, that number is even higher. For working parents, flexibility is not a nice to have. It is a dealbreaker.
Women are often most impacted due to caregiving responsibilities
Low income workers face increased transport costs and less flexibility to live near city centers
Neurodivergent employees or those with chronic health needs may lose access to more sustainable working conditions
Parents, caregivers, and anyone juggling non-work responsibilities are often pushed out of the talent pool altogether
The Benefits Obvious, So Why the Regression?
The reason, I believe, is simple. Some leaders are afraid of losing control. Many never built the relational skills that remote leadership requires. But avoidance is not a strategy. And nostalgia is not a functional business plan.
Now, what can we do?
If you’re a senior leader:
Notice, #1 what in this article makes you feel frustrated or triggered? If you are being radically honest, are these location mandates based on outcomes or optics? If you zoom out...how can you prioritize a future focused and resilient workforce?
Lastly, what example are you setting around flexible work?
If you’re a mid-level leader advocating up:
What questions to you need to be asking more regularly and in what forums? What assumptions might you be making based on your personal work location preferences? What meaningful data can you gather in order to best advocate for your team?
If you’re a frontline employee advocating for yourself:
How are your behaviors ensuring that leadership can trust your work when you are home? Keep a clear record of your performance and business outcomes. What assumptions might you be making about your colleagues based on your personal work location preferences?
If you’re a coach:
How are you helping leaders notice control-based tendencies? How are you challenging your leaders to be radically future focused? How might your own lived experience in industry impact your beliefs around flexible work?
___________________________________________________
