Is Pushing RTO to Fill Office Space Worth Losing Employees Over?
Image by ArthurHidden on Freepik

Is Pushing RTO to Fill Office Space Worth Losing Employees Over?

The following is an excerpt from my FREE Workplace Intelligence Insider Newsletter. Subscribe now and you’ll immediately get the full article delivered straight to your inbox.

Over the past several years, remote work emerged as a necessity, quickly proving its viability and even, in many cases, its superiority in terms of productivity and employee satisfaction. During the height of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021 when the majority of knowledge workers were forced to work remotely, they saved two hours a week in productivity as a result. For many organizations, however, the move to remote work created a new challenge: how to justify the continued expense of sprawling office spaces that had been rendered largely redundant.

When employers were asked about their work arrangement strategy for 2025, 21% said they are mandating full-time in-office and 73% are planning 3 or 4-day in-office. A separate survey found that one-third of employers admit that they are pushing RTO because they don’t want to waste money on their office leases. Despite the benefit of filling office seats, over two-thirds of employers have lost talent to competitors offering remote or hybrid work options in the past six months. As businesses increasingly push for a return to office (RTO) policies to reoccupy these spaces, a question looms large: Is filling office buildings worth the potential cost of alienating and losing employees?

At the heart of this debate is a clash of priorities. On one hand, companies face mounting financial pressures and a desire to preserve the perceived benefits of in-office culture, such as collaboration and innovation. On the other, employees have grown accustomed to the flexibility and autonomy remote work affords, often ranking it as a top workplace benefit. With studies showing that strict RTO mandates can drive employee dissatisfaction and attrition, organizations must weigh the immediate need to utilize office spaces against the long-term consequences of losing talent. Navigating this complex terrain demands a nuanced approach that balances corporate objectives with the evolving expectations of the modern workforce.

1. Employee Retention vs. Operational Costs

The push for RTO often stems from the desire to recoup investments in office leases, utilities, and maintenance. For some organizations, empty desks represent a sunk cost that is difficult to ignore. However, rigid RTO policies can alienate employees who have grown accustomed to remote work’s flexibility. The potential cost of replacing skilled employees, including recruitment and onboarding expenses, can far outweigh the savings from filling office spaces.

For example, when a major tech company mandated full-time office attendance, it faced a wave of resignations and public criticism, ultimately forcing leadership to backtrack. This scenario underscores the risk of prioritizing short-term operational goals over the long-term value of retaining experienced talent. Employees increasingly view flexible work as a non-negotiable benefit and organizations that fail to adapt risk falling behind in the war for talent.

2. The Productivity Paradox

Another argument for RTO is the belief that in-office environments foster greater productivity and collaboration. While this holds for some industries, numerous studies have shown that remote work does not necessarily hinder performance. Many employees report being more productive at home, where they can avoid office distractions and lengthy commutes.

For instance, companies like Slack and Spotify have embraced permanent hybrid or remote-first models, citing consistent or even improved productivity metrics. Forcing employees back to the office could disrupt workflows that have been optimized for remote settings. This paradox—where companies seek to improve productivity through RTO but risk reducing it by disrupting established routines—highlights the need for tailored solutions rather than blanket mandates.

Subscribe to my FREE Workplace Intelligence Insider newsletter and you’ll immediately receive the full article.

And be sure to join the conversation below and let me know your thoughts on this topic!


Rob Longley

Rethinking the Future of Work, Sustainable Communities, Government Services | Sustainability | Going Remote First Newsletter | Coach | Consultant

2w

The idea of watercooler culture is highly romanticized and generally not even real. I'm sure most people who have a water cooler story involves being told to get back to work by the boss.

Like
Reply
Bradley J Koch

Business Consultant | Author | Helping Small to Medium-Sized Businesses Achieve Growth & Operational Excellence | Expert in Strategic Planning, Leadership Development, and Marketing Strategy

2w

Great insights! Flexibility is crucial for retaining talented employees. Companies that embrace hybrid models often see increased productivity and employee satisfaction. Salesforce is an excellent example of this approach.

Like
Reply

You can be part of a team without sitting at a desk in an office 9 hours a day 5 days a week. One- two days per week at office is enough. Or 4-5 hours PER DAY, and half of day from home. Being locked for 9 hours in an office, daily, is mentally exhausing and is cave-outdated..

Like
Reply
Azeem Aziz

On a Mission to Elevate Workplace Wellness to Boost Employee Well-Being, Engagement, & Retention | Advocate of Mental and Physical Wellness

3w

Insightful topic Dan Schawbel! Prioritizing office space over employee flexibility could backfire for employers. Retaining top talent in 2025 will demand a balance between productivity and the autonomy workers value. Excited to dive deeper in your newsletter.

Like
Reply
Stephen Tovey

Construction Manager, Project Co-ordinator, Site Manager, Marketing & Sales, Businessman

3w

While all looks good at first... My understanding of working from home is insufficient for companies and individuals... We need to be part of a team and reinforce bonds weekly!

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Dan Schawbel

Explore topics