It’s not where you work, but why.

As job demand eases and power swings back to employers, CEOs are making their message clear. They want workers in the office. Or as some call it, “working from work”.

Proponents of mandatory office returns typically deploy three main arguments: the need to lift employee productivity, the importance of coaching junior employees, and the benefits of spontaneous collaboration and “corridor conversations”.

I want to suggest that the real concern lies in a fourth reason. But before that, let’s take a closer look at each of the above.

Firstly, the best available evidence tells us that hybrid work doesn’t hurt productivity.

Consider Stanford Professor Nick Bloom’s landmark six-month trial of 1,621 employees at a Chinese tech company, Trip.com, which found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third.

When I spoke to Professor Bloom about his research, he was clear on the benefits of flexible work. “Hybrid has no impact on productivity but reduces costly staff turnover” he told me. “Firms are increasing profits often by tens of millions of dollars a year. This makes hybrid hugely appealing for CEOs that want to keep their shareholders happy.”

When I spoke to Professor Bloom about his research, he was clear on the benefits of flexible work. “Hybrid has no impact on productivity but reduces costly staff turnover”

Even our own Productivity Commission Chair has declared the productivity effects of hybrid work as ‘pretty negligible or slightly positive’.

Maybe that is why the Uber CEO has said “this isn’t just about productivity metrics”.

But if it isn’t about productivity – what is this debate about?

This is where the cultural arguments for office work come in. Junior employees are assumed to be less equipped to build skills, to reach out to senior managers, or proactively lead their development when they’re working online. But this is logic out of step with the forthright and vocal cohort Gen Z; the cohort that LinkedIn have shown are most likely to quit when employers do not offer hybrid working. The fact is that if hybrid working doesn’t offer enough face-to-face interaction, Gen Z knows how to ask for it.

Similarly, the idea that serendipitous hallways encounters and conversations spark ideas and collaboration underplays what often happens in the office. Most workers find themselves communicating digitally anyway, through email, online chat, or the phone.

Face-to-face interaction is important for a myriad of reasons, but it is only one factor among many that helps us work better. History tells us, after all, that the more communication technology we have, the greater the spread of ideas. Medieval villages had plenty of face-to-face contact but weren’t exactly agents of disruption.

Why then are we still talking about this?  

Because the fourth reason, less often broadcast, is the lack of trust between employers and employees. But bridging that gap is hard.

Because the fourth reason, less often broadcast, is the lack of trust between employers and employees.

CEOs, rightly focused on profit margins, want their employees leaning in, energised and working as passionately as they are themselves.

Some fear parents choosing soccer runs over superior results, or graduates choosing dog walks over engagement in town halls.

But no such trade-off exists. People want to work.

Research from Harvard academics Robert Keegan and Lisa Lahey in their book An Everyone Culture reveals that even in supposedly monotonous roles (think popcorn attendants in movie theatres), employees become deeply engaged when organisations expect great things from their people.

Gallup’s 2024 meta-analysis of hundreds of research studies shows that teams who are engaged in what they do deliver a clear productivity premium and their firms boast higher profitability.

The real challenge isn't balancing work and life. Engaged, intellectually challenged and valued employees will solve those logistics themselves. In contrast, employees lacking in motivation or with the wrong direction are going to use their time unproductively whether they are in the office or not.

The real challenge isn't balancing work and life. Engaged, intellectually challenged and valued employees will solve those logistics themselves.

The real challenge is in giving people a purpose that motivates them, a strategy that clearly paves the way to delivering on that purpose, clarity as to how they can best contribute in their role, and a culture that assumes every person can and must deliver and grow. Aligning an organisation in the right direction, to work in the most efficient ways, on the highest priority tasks, balancing risk and speed. That’s where CEOs must be directive.

Business must mandate meaning, not Mondays. Do that, and workers will deliver from the kitchen table with the same fervour they bring to the office whiteboard. And the company will deliver too.