Repeatedly tightening attendance rules can increase the number of days spent in the office while damaging employees’ relationship with the company. Researchers Natalia Emanuel and Emma Harrington warn that unsuccessful return-to-office efforts often lead to more mandates instead of removing the real obstacles. A more effective approach is to define a clear purpose for being together and preserve flexibility where it does not hinder collaboration.
Companies sometimes respond to low office attendance with simple arithmetic. If they want employees in three days a week but the reality is two, they raise the requirement to four. Natalia Emanuel and Emma Harrington warn that such an approach can formally increase attendance while damaging the trust of people the company needs to retain. According to data they cite, 38 percent of employees in 2024 went through more than one return-to-office change and six percent experienced more than five rule changes.
The authors describe a large retail company that initially required three office days. Employees attended an average of two. The company therefore introduced a four-day requirement and actual presence rose to roughly the three days originally requested. The side effect, however, hit employees who had complied with the previous rule. With each tightening, they had to add another day just like the people who had ignored the rules, and some reliable employees eventually left.
The first condition of a workable policy is therefore a shared reason for returning. A general statement about culture and collaboration is not enough. Managers and their own leaders need to explain which specific parts of the work are better in person. If a manager announcing the rule signals that they do not believe in it themselves, the team receives the message that it is more a power demand than a work necessity.
The second condition is understanding the obstacles. The authors point, for example, to timing a return during a period when parents are dealing with the start of the school year and gaps in childcare. The same rule may be operationally manageable in October and exceptionally difficult in early September.
Another principle is predictable enforcement. A dramatic threat that is never used is less effective than a smaller consequence that is actually applied. At the same time, it should be clear why an exception was granted to a particular person. Otherwise employees interpret differences as favoritism.
The initial phase is especially important. According to research cited by the authors, a new work habit forms over a period of months. If a company initially leaves the rules unenforced and starts addressing them only later, it is already trying to change established behavior.
Finally, leadership has to respond to employees’ practical experience. A shortage of meeting rooms, transport problems or a poorly functioning booking system are not resistance to strategy. They may simply be operating problems whose removal makes shared presence more worthwhile.
KEY TERMS
- Hybrid work: A model combining work at a shared workplace and away from it.
- Attendance rules: Employer requirements for employees’ physical presence.
- Predictable enforcement: A consistent and known-in-advance response to breaches of the rules.
- Purposeful presence: In-person work used mainly where it creates specific added value.