In February, Mark’s employer, an energy firm based in Ohio, US, told him he had to return to the office. The software engineer’s bosses had praised his output while working from home, and he never missed a deadline. Yet, in a company with more than 1,000 employees, it was only Mark’s department that initially received instructions to go back three days a week.
“Our team is small and all of us are on the same page: we don’t need to be there,” explains Mark, whose surname is being held for job-security concerns. “For my day-to-day responsibilities, there are no benefits gained by being in the office – I can accomplish all my tasks from home.”
For Mark, the on-the-ground reality is that only his five-person team, and a smattering of others, are actually back in the workplace. “I can count on both hands the number of employees present most days. We’re at the bottom of the pyramid, and have been told flat out we need to be in the office.”
Senior-level colleagues at the company, however, still get to work remotely. Some of them are doing so while they travel around the US. “They’re never in the office,” says Mark. “We've had company-wide meetings where these employees were videoing in from vacation spots. Someone must have pointed out the optics – they've had their cameras off in the last few meetings.”
For Mark and his team, this disparity between who gets to work from home and who has to return to the office has created friction: different employees are subject to different rules, and it feels unfair that the rationale has never been explained. “It’s never been addressed by management,” he says. “While we can submit return-to-office queries during virtual meetings, they’re never been answered directly.”
As pandemic restrictions end, more and more companies are calling employees back to the office – yet the rules are not universal for all workers. Some bosses are allowing exceptions for individuals or particular groups of workers – moves hard to explain in the return-to-office world. While mandating certain behaviours from most employees, they’re allowing others to retain special arrangements.
But with some employees across an organisation working with very different attendance rules, tensions are beginning bubble to the surface, impacting workplace dynamics.
‘No clear policy’
It’s no surprise calling staff back to the office is throwing up challenges. When the pandemic hit, employees had to switch to remote work almost overnight. As lockdowns bit and workers faced huge upheaval to their daily lives, managers had to be flexible about when and where teams got their jobs done; in some cases, parents changed their hours and cramped city-dwellers decamped to rural locations.
Two years on, many workers have crafted bespoke working set-ups that keep them productive outside traditional, in-office working patterns. Some of these employees are now being granted accommodations by employers to continue doing so; this group might include people who moved away from their work location during the pandemic and now want to keep their job remotely. There are also new recruits, hired on remote contracts.
We've had company-wide meetings where [senior] employees were videoing in from vacation spots – Mark
A large chunk of the workforce, however, are being instructed by the same bosses to return to the office on a hybrid or full-time basis. That’s left employers with a problem: they’re appearing to show favouritism; bestowing flexibility to a select few workers, while enforcing restrictions upon the majority.
For bosses, it’s an easy move to call back those who still live within commuting distance to the office as well as junior-level employees. But mid- and senior-level workers may have greater leverage in keeping flexible arrangements. “More experienced employees often feel quite strongly about their desire for hybrid or remote practices,” says Helen Hughes, associate professor at Leeds University Business School, UK. “They often already have social capital and leverage nested in the relationships and reputation they’ve previously built.”
Given current labour shortages, experienced workers might also be in higher demand – particularly in sectors where competition for talent is fiercest. If companies want to keep them, they have to bend in some cases.
However, giving some employees special working conditions can create perceptions of inequity, potentially dividing teams and stoking resentment. “If the decisions around who works from home and who has to go into the office are seemingly unfair, and that some employees have had a better deal, it has the potential to drive in-groups and out-groups in the workplace,” says Hughes.
This creates the risk of cliques, she adds, and the creation of a two-tier workforce with a majority of in-office employees and a minority of remote workers, potentially forming rifts between teams. And a lack of company cohesion linked to aggrieved employees can lead to a raft of negative consequences that might impact workforce dynamics, says Amy Butterworth, consulting director at London-based flexible-working consultants Timewise. “The quality of work will suffer, there is a big hit in relation to inclusion and you won’t get the best out of teams.”
As companies scramble to develop
return-to-office policies, a lack of plausible explanation from bosses can exacerbate rising tensions. When digital-agency worker Sarah began a new job in the north of England, her employer said they’d need her at their headquarters on a full-time basis because she lived locally. Her colleagues, however, were allowed to work remotely because they weren’t a commuting distance away. “My boss didn’t have a clear flexible-working policy: they just made it up as they went along,” she says. “They said because it was easier for me to go in, I should be there every day.”
For Sarah, such workplace dynamics didn’t create resentment towards her colleagues – but towards her employer instead. “I was ultimately punished based on where I lived. Flexible working shouldn’t be about your proximity to the office,” she says.
‘Management themselves are ghosts’
By selecting which workers have to return to the office, and which can have flexible working, employers are inadvertently creating off-kilter workplace dynamics. It’s leading some employees to challenge such decision making at a corporate level. In Mark’s case, he’s particularly angry his company has failed to explain why employees who worked productively in remote set-ups should be forced to return to the office.
“We’ve been told flat out we need to be back in, yet management themselves are ghosts,” he says. “If internet access is all that’s required to complete your tasks, then work shouldn't be bound to any single location.”
I was ultimately punished based on where I lived. Flexible working shouldn’t be about your proximity to the office – Sarah
Butterworth says establishing fair working practises ultimately comes down to consulting directly with employees. “If a worker has a reluctance in returning to the office, then the employer has to demonstrate the value to the individual, their work and the wider team. And if people have been hired on specific remote contracts, that needs to be communicated on why they have a different set-up.”
Figuring out why employers are allowing one employee is to work remotely and asking another to come into the office can help reduce tensions in teams. “It’s about looking at the needs of a role, the team and the worker,” says Butterworth. “As long as people understand these decisions, it’s easier to find a solution.”
The danger is that without careful consideration and transparent processes in place, some workers will feel hard done by if they’re asked to return to the office while others aren’t. As well as an instant hit on morale, it can create issues between colleagues, driving deep wedges in the workplace over the longer term.
With little in the way of explanation as to why he has to be in the office, while others can work from anywhere, Mark is now looking for a new job. “[Managers] use phrases like ‘team building’ and ‘collaboration’ to justify the return-to-office push,” he says. “But I don’t think it’s fair for non-site-essential employees to report at the workplace. Companies incapable of flexibility will haemorrhage the quality employees.”
