Recent return-to-office (RTO) initiatives have been met with considerable resistance and noncompliance. Despite the repeated failure of RTO efforts, leaders continue to launch RTO cycles, seemingly expecting different outcomes. This persistence in repeating the same RTO strategy while hoping for different outcomes calls to mind the age-old definition of insanity.
The federal government’s slow-moving RTO efforts will run into the same resistance and noncompliance that we’ve seen in the private sector, and smart government leaders should learn from these failures to avoid RTO insanity.
The Prevalence of RTO Reruns
The concept of a “failed” RTO is often marked by repeated attempts to bring employees back to the office after initial efforts have faltered. According to the recent Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes (SWAA) run by academics at Stanford University, the Hoover Institution, and the University of Chicago, RTO reruns are astonishingly frequent, with 6% of employees having experienced five or more attempts at returning to the office. This statistic translates to nearly 10 million employees in the U.S. alone. The psychological impact of enduring multiple RTO initiatives is significant, leading to confusion, frustration, and ultimately, noncompliance.
These repeated attempts highlight a fundamental disconnect between managerial intentions and employee preferences. As organizations persist in their efforts to enforce RTO policies, they often encounter diminishing returns, as each successive attempt appears to erode compliance further.
Noncompliance: A Growing Trend
One of the most telling indicators of RTO failure is the level of noncompliance among employees. The data from the SWAA survey shows that compliance is lowest among those who have experienced multiple RTO attempts. A striking one-quarter of employees at companies with numerous RTO initiatives continue to disregard these policies. This defiance is not rooted in laziness or resistance to work but rather a recognition that the rigid office model may no longer align with contemporary work dynamics.
Middle managers, often seen as the linchpins of organizational policy enforcement, are also expressing dissent. Approximately one-third of managers are reportedly not enforcing RTO mandates, suggesting that they perceive these directives as ineffective or counterproductive.
A report from Owl Labs similarly finds a large proportion of middle managers failing to enforce RTO mandates. Business Insider recently called this the “hushed hybrid” trend, of managers secretly allowing employees flexibility around organizational policies. This middle-management resistance underscores the growing realization that RTO policies might be fundamentally flawed or misaligned with the current workforce’s needs.
Federal RTO Efforts: A Recipe for Noncompliance
The Biden administration’s push for federal employees to return to the office is likely to face similar challenges and failures. The push, instigated by pressure from House Republicans, has even turned into an election issue. For example, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has accused the Biden administration of politicizing workplace policies, specifically telework, to secure votes from federal employees.
In fact, the federal workforce has embraced telework and Comer’s assertion about a lack of data on remote work among the feds is inaccurate. The White House Office of Personnel Management’s annual report provides clear evidence of the benefits of telework for federal employees, boosting retention, engagement, and productivity.
Many government employees and unions have pushed back against the top-down mandates. A Federal Times survey revealed that some employees are even considering leaving their jobs due to the return-to-office mandates.
Given these realities, we can learn from the private sector’s experience to anticipate that the attempts to mandate a federal RTO will lead to extensive noncompliance. The consequences of noncompliance with RTO mandates in the federal government will lead to significant challenges, affecting not only day-to-day operations but also the broader strategic objectives of government agencies.
One of the immediate impacts is a decline in employee morale and engagement. When federal employees feel their preferences for flexible work arrangements are overlooked, it can result in decreased job satisfaction and motivation. This dissatisfaction can spread across departments, leading to reduced productivity and a lack of enthusiasm for government initiatives, ultimately affecting public service delivery.
A major risk associated with strict RTO mandates in the federal sector is increased turnover, which can be particularly problematic given the specialized nature of many government roles. Employees who value the flexibility of remote work might seek employment outside the federal government, especially when private sector options offer more accommodating work environments. After all, more private sector workers work remotely than public sector workers, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. This potential exodus of talent can lead to a significant loss of expertise and institutional knowledge, making it difficult for agencies to fulfill their missions effectively.
Recruitment challenges are further exacerbated by rigid RTO policies. Prospective federal employees are likely to consider work-life balance and flexibility when evaluating job opportunities. Agencies that insist on in-office presence may struggle to attract top talent, particularly among younger workers who prioritize flexible work arrangements.
Enforcing RTO mandates without considering employee input can erode trust and damage the organizational culture within federal agencies. When employees feel their voices are disregarded, it can lead to a breakdown in the relationship between management and staff. This mistrust can foster a toxic work environment, characterized by disengagement and lack of collaboration, which can ultimately undermine the agency’s effectiveness and public perception.
In some cases, rigid RTO policies may expose federal agencies to legal and regulatory risks. Employees with disabilities or caregiving responsibilities might challenge these mandates as discriminatory, leading to potential lawsuits or investigations. Agencies must carefully navigate the legal landscape to ensure compliance with labor laws and regulations, particularly those concerning workplace accommodations and equal opportunity, to avoid such pitfalls.
The impact of noncompliance with RTO mandates also extends to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts within the federal government. Flexible work arrangements have been instrumental in supporting underrepresented groups, including women, caregivers, and individuals with disabilities. Imposing strict RTO policies may inadvertently disadvantage these groups, undermining DEI initiatives and limiting diversity within the federal workforce. A commitment to DEI requires recognizing the importance of flexible work in fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for all employees.
Finally, the federal government’s reputation could suffer if it is perceived as inflexible or resistant to adapting to modern work trends. As remote and hybrid work models gain traction across various sectors, federal agencies that enforce strict RTO policies may be viewed as outdated and out of touch with employee needs. This perception can damage the government’s public image and affect its ability to attract and retain talent. To maintain a positive reputation, the federal government must align its work practices with the values and expectations of both employees and the public.
To address these challenges, federal agencies should prioritize communication and collaboration with their workforce. Engaging employees in discussions about work preferences and gathering feedback can help create a sense of ownership over work arrangements. By embracing flexibility and adapting to the evolving work landscape, the federal government can build a more resilient and empowered workforce, better equipped to meet the demands of public service in the 21st century.
