Back to the office?

A tightrope walk for leaders

Dear readers,

The office debate is everywhere and it’s more emotionally charged than ever. While some companies try to lure employees back with free coffee, “collaboration days” and friendly words, others rely on strict rules:

"Starting monday, everyone must be on-site again!"

But is this really an effective or sensible approach? Companies risk losing valuable talent who have already realized that productivity doesn’t depend on a physical office.

Many leaders argue that being present in the office is essential for innovation, team spirit, and collaboration. For many employees, however, office life mainly means time stuck in traffic or overcrowded trains, constant interruptions from small talk, and the endless search for a quiet meeting room. It’s no wonder that many resist mandatory return-to-office (RTO) policies.

Take, for example, advertising giant WPP, which introduced a new RTO mandate requiring employees to be in the office an average of four days per week starting in April. The decision met with strong resistance: a public petition urging the company to reconsider has gathered thousands of signatures. WPP is not alone. Amazon, Disney, and Starbucks have implemented similar policies—and experienced similar reactions. At Amazon, over 5,000 employees protested when CEO Andy Jassy announced the strict return mandate. Many of these companies justify their policies with fears of reduced productivity at home but the data tells a different story.

Why mandatory returns can also lead to resignations

Especially larger companies with more than 10,000 employees enforce strict return rules. A study by Flynn et al. (2024), which analyzed RTO policies from 3,000 publicly traded companies, shows that 72% of firms with over 50,000 employees require a return of at least three days per week, compared to only 28% of companies with fewer than 1,000 employees.

This has consequences: experienced professionals are increasingly turning their backs on such companies. A study by Van Dijcke et al. (2024) found that employees with more than ten years of tenure are disproportionately likely to resign when forced into mandatory office presence. Why? Many have grown accustomed to self-directed, flexible work and know they can perform at a high level without daily office attendance.

This effect has been particularly noticeable in the tech sector: Meta, Google, and Microsoft have recently emphasized office presence again and report rising resignation rates among experienced staff. Companies enforcing rigid return rules risk long-term harm to their workforce.

An often-overlooked aspect concerns highly skilled women with children. During the pandemic, many found they could perform their work just as efficiently from home without falling into the traditional “part-time trap.” A study by Ding et al. (2024) shows that women with children are 35% more likely to leave a company if forced into full office attendance. Companies striving for real equality must offer flexible work models that don’t require sacrificing careers, allowing both , women and men, to balance family and professional responsibilities.

Of course, differentiation is necessary: hybrid models are not suitable for all types of work. Employees in production, healthcare, or logistics can’t work remotely - a surgeon can’t operate from their living room and a machine operator needs their workstation. But in knowledge-based professions (IT, marketing, finance, or many service sectors) the location of work has become increasingly flexible, along with employee expectations.

Productivity: office or home office - the numbers speak for themselves

A common argument is: “Employees are only productive in the office.” Scientific studies show the opposite. A recent study by Fenizia and Kirchmaier (2025) found that public sector employees were 12% more productive at home and even 20% more productive when managers assigned tasks intentionally.

An even broader study by Flynn et al. (2024), analyzing data from 3,000 publicly traded companies, confirms this trend: companies that allow hybrid work report, on average, 18% higher employee satisfaction and 22% lower turnover.

So why do many companies insist on strict office returns? Ding et al. (2024) suggest that RTO mandates often have less to do with productivity and more to do with control.

Hybrid models: The future of work?

At KellerPartner, we’ve successfully embraced balance for nearly 10 years. Our approach is remote-first because we know deep, focused work often thrives when free from office distractions.

We also understand that team spirit doesn’t emerge through daily stand-ups or virtual meetings alone. That’s why we meet regularly at our headquarters in Bonn for exchanges, quarterly meetings, and annual gatherings—to enable personal conversations, collaborate on complex change projects, or chat by the coffee machine (good espresso included ☕️).

Remote work doesn’t mean abandoning structure or accountability. Effective leadership works in this model—if the right mechanisms are in place. Clear objectives, structured project updates, and close coordination within teams are essential to ensure efficient remote collaboration. At KellerPartner, we use Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) to define transparent goals and track measurable progress. Regular digital meetings ensure alignment and allow early problem-solving.

Our model also enables all employees—regardless of family situation or personal commitments—to take responsibility. True equality means career opportunities are based on skill and engagement, not physical presence.

The future of work will be flexible wherever possible—and companies that understand and embrace this will lead in the war for talent. Companies that cling to rigid return mandates risk losing the very people who make the difference.

So when deciding how to shape the collaboration of tomorrow, the question shouldn’t be:

"How do we get everyone back into the office?"

but

"How do we design work so that it is productive, meaningful and fair for everyone?"

Because ultimately, it's not about WHERE we work - it's about HOW we can be successful together.

Yours, Daniel Keller

Image source: Photo by Freepik