Chamber Member, Member Submission

For many organizations, the return-to-office debate may be effectively over, but the real challenge is just beginning. With a growing shift toward five days in the office this year, employees aren’t walking into this with neutral expectations. They’re walking into it after years of new routines, greater autonomy, and a recalibrated view of what flexibility means. So, if an employer has decided on a return to the office, the most important question is whether leaders can implement this in a way that protects engagement, motivation and productivity instead of quietly eroding all three.

The remote-versus-office debate is no longer the most useful for leadership teams. The better discussion is work design. Research by McKinsey makes this point clearly; the policy itself matters less than the environment and practices around it. Telling people where to work does not automatically create better work.

This is where perception matters as much as policy. People will ask: Why now? Why five days? Why our team? Employees don’t adopt change simply because it’s been announced, they adopt it when they understand it and believe in it. If leaders skip that human side, they create a vacuum filled with assumptions, such as “this is about optics” or “this is about control”. Assumptions become even more powerful when employers say they trust employees while simultaneously signalling that career growth will increasingly follow presence. Whether intended or not, that creates real risk of proximity bias and the perception that attendance is being confused with contribution.

So what does a constructive return-to-office strategy actually look like?

It starts with defining the business problem and forming a clear plan. “We want people back” is not a strategy. “We need faster cross-functional decisions, stronger mentorship for early-career talent, more consistent collaboration and better knowledge transfer” is a strategy. Employees are far more likely to accept inconvenience when the reason is concrete, operational and tied to outcomes.

People also experience work through their team, not through a memo. Productive teams perform better when they create the roadmap that defines how they work together. Policies set direction, but teams determine how work actually gets done.

Then there is manager readiness. In practice, a return to office is a manager capability test. Managers are the ones who will interpret exceptions, handle resentment, and keep teams productive. They need practical tools for setting team norms, recognizing performance, spotting burnout, and addressing friction. The manager’s role is not to police attendance. It is to help the team succeed.

Even with strong leadership alignment and manager readiness, one question remains. Why should employees want to come in?

Office time needs to be intentionally designed to deliver the benefits of in-person work. This is where many return-to-office efforts fall short. Employees aren’t defaulting to virtual meetings because they’re disengaged, it’s because this is how work gets done now. Digital workflows, collaboration tools, and remote habits have reshaped how we operate. The opportunity is not to reverse that shift, but to be purposeful about how in-office time complements it. Onsite time needs to be used for what works best in person, such as problem-solving, faster decisions, coaching, relationship-building, and creativity. That is the value proposition, and leaders need a clear answer to the employee question of ‘what’s in it for me?’

The first weeks of a return-to-office shift are about ensuring small friction points don’t become large cultural issues. Protecting autonomy during this time, wherever possible, is so important. A five-day policy does not mean every part of the employee experience must become rigid. Employees do not necessarily see structure and flexibility as opposites. They tend to see fairness, consistency, trust, and empathy as signals of respect.

Effective communication answers the why first, then explains what the change means for people. Employees do not need spin. They need transparency. Leaders need to be clear about what they hope to gain, what will be difficult, and what may change. That is how trust is built during change.

After an important communication, it’s equally important to reinforce the right behaviours. This is one of the most overlooked parts of return-to-office strategy. If leaders praise people for being visible but fail to recognize collaboration, mentoring, learning, impact and problem-solving, employees quickly understand the real system. A return to office effort will fail if your most important metric is visibility. The most useful metrics are not mysterious. Leaders should focus less on in-office attendance and more on outcomes such as turnover, engagement, and performance. Employee feedback will reveal this faster than any dashboard.

Leaders also need to remember that a return to the office is the beginning of the change efforts, not the end. It’s important to revisit the approach, discuss what you are hearing, and show where you’re making adjustments. Responsiveness does not weaken leadership, it strengthens credibility.

Success isn’t about having the toughest mandate. It’s defined by answering an employee question convincingly; how does spending more time in the office help us do better work, together? If employees find you credible, and the experience matches the messaging, they will adapt to it and find value in it. If the answer is unconvincing, or if the lived experience is all commute and no payoff, the organization will pay for that gap in less motivation, loss of trust and decreases in discretionary effort.

A return to office, in other words, is not just a workplace policy. It is a leadership test. And how leaders navigate it and drive change will determine whether employees simply show up or truly commit.

Author: Greg Hussey — People and Culture Leader and CEO at impactHR, with 15+ years helping organizations build engaged, high-performing workplaces that actually work.