Employees face confusion over ever-changing work-from-home or return-to-office demands. Offering a practical and balanced approach can save companies from operational chaos and an unhappy workforce, wherever they are located.
The work-from-home debate rages on
When the Mayor of London weighs in on working from home, it’s clear that serious issues are at stake. He claims London “cannot afford to become a city where the centre has been hollowed out” by working from home.
Others are more brutal in their assessment. JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon recently ranted that he “(expletive deleted) didn’t care” how many workers signed a hybrid work petition, he wants workers back at their desks or they can leave the company.
These memos typically come from older executives at traditional businesses and get plenty of play across mainstream media. They spark workers’ stout rebuttal in the name of balance. But without big-name firepower, media coverage makes this a one-sided debate.
Arguing about productivity and culture
Dimon’s argument, he claims, is based on falling productivity from those not in the office. But CEOs like Goldman Sachs’s boss David Solomon make a cultural argument, saying “I do think for a business like ours, which is an innovative, collaborative apprenticeship culture, this (remote) is not ideal for us. And it’s not a new normal. It’s an aberration that we’re going to correct as soon as possible.”
That goes counter to the evidence, with workers showing a 35-40% improvement in productivity according to some studies, with some managers reporting a 62% boost. The CEO approach also ignores the growing number of innovative, collaborative, all-remote firms that operate globally.
The key issue is that a modern company can and should measure productivity at the individual level. HR should support support remote workers to maintain or boost their productivity, with the sanction of a return to office, if that doesn’t work out. And if CEOs have “proof” of slumping performance, they could at least have the decency to share it.
Work-from-home and hybrid statistics stack up
Workers face a constant stream of calls for a total return to the office, both political and practical from leaders and managers. And while businesses claim a drop in productivity, remote employers cite workers’ health benefits, time and money savings. While all sides can access a broader career market among other benefits of remote organisations.
UK Government statistics show that work-from-home employees save 56 minutes daily by not commuting, 24 minutes on extra ‘sleep and rest’ and 15 minutes more on ‘exercise, sports and well-being’ on average.
The rising cost of living was a key driver behind working from home, long before COVID. Especially in countries like the United Kingdom with exorbitant rail travel prices, and major cities across Europe with long commute times. Recent UK data showed working from home could save employees £2,441 per year.
OpsTalent, a tech-BPO, based in Poland offers a more nuanced approach with its hybrid model. Anecdotal evidence suggests this approach will prove popular. Hybrid is strongly featured as a key benefit on many career adverts, with 45% offering hybrid working according to 2024 research.
Adding some clarity, workspace provider, IWG’s CEO Mark Dixon notes “If work isn’t being carried out effectively, it’s not the fault of the location. It’s generally the fault of management not making the job clear or setting good KPIs. Those problems will be the same whether your staff are sitting 10 metres away from you in an office or 1,000 kilometres away and working from home.”
Business leaders and HR teams must consider those benefits and needs, alongside a company’s strategic goals, when planning their next workforce steps.
Finding a balance between the office and WFH
The key for any business is to deliver high value from time spent in the office. That value comes from productive face-to-face meetings, time to connect and integrate with teams and departments, and delivering maximum effort when a collective focus is required. Most remote workers accept these needs, and go out of their way (by coming into the office) to deliver. Improving the in-office employee experience can also make work more appealing.
Outside of those times, work-from-home (WFH) remains the most practical and advantageous way for knowledge and desk-based workers to operate. Providing the major economic, environmental, social and lifestyle benefits.
WFH also provides access to the best global talent for remote-first companies. It saves a fortune in legacy office costs and helps workers focus on their customers or product/service. What will the big RTO-demanding companies do when they see their top talent headed out the door to remote-first companies?
One key exception is when WFH prevents younger workers from developing key social office skills. It blocks off the joys of extra-office activities, the nuances of a guiding experienced hand, and other personal developments. At the other end of the age spectrum, many older workers prefer the office to maintain social contact.
Yet, across all groups, workers face major cost of living rises, while businesses face a world of tariff battles and increasing tax/VAT bills. In this landscape, workers will vote with their wallets and take jobs that save them money. That could leave businesses dogmatically enforcing a return-to-office, struggling to hire and maintain staff. And as costs rise, they may be forced to flex to remote work to deliver cost savings, further muddying the waters.
Navigating the work-from-home landscape in 2025 and beyond
When weighing up the pros and cons of a return to the office business leaders must balance the strategic needs of the organisation and the expectations of the existing and future workforce.
HR and management must take any strategic plan and fit on-site, hybrid and WFH options within current best practices. Take the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s approach as a guide, while considering health and safety needs. The growth of remote working at coworking spaces, business hubs, or virtual office zones can provide an alternative.
Workers should know what is best for their professional and personal needs. Encourage workers to join work-from-home adoption conversations, with clear guidelines for productivity and responsibilities. Also, explain the use of any software or devices that monitor productivity or engagement.
Across all levels, offer work from home as a reward, not a right. Provide reliable workers, or those with pressing needs WFH first. Regular reviews will ensure business results or that efficiency is improving. If not, planned adjustments can deliver change over time, rather than wholesale changes.
Companies should measure productivity and results (without spying) of their workers. And when the benefit is proven, codifying WFH across the company as part of its culture provides clarity to all. Exclusions can apply when workers’ situations change. Notably, if they have no suitable home office space, or a busy family life with constant interruptions. Open lines of regular communication are a key feature of any WFH initiative to provide two-way feedback.
However the productivity message is delivered, providing remote or hybrid flexibility is key to delivering the best employee experience for all levels of a business. With an uncertain future, going all-in on RTO feels like a weak move. With some leaders pining for yesterday and others planning for tomorrow based on old assumptions, all will see painful costs if they follow dogma and drag valuable workers back to the office full-time.