'Sacrifice' without justification: why top-down RTO mandates are backfiring

Recent data from the Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes (SWAA) is highlighting a challenge happening at many workplaces: a standoff between employers attempting to enforce RTO policies, and employees quietly refusing to comply.

SWAA researchers have been surveying thousands of U.S. desk workers monthly since the start of the pandemic, specifically to gather data about remote work.

Data from October 2025 showed a persistent 0.5-day weekly gap between what employees want for remote work and what employers offer; a minimal result on the surface, but as experts explain, this small difference has huge consequences for employers.

“This gap matters because it signals a misfit in expectations,” says Nick Turner, professor of organizational behaviour and human resources at the University of Calgary.

“Even a small weekly discrepancy can impact morale. Employees may feel they're in the office more than necessary, and it's potentially driving them to seek out employers offering that extra flexibility.”

Turner notes that Canadian data mirrors U.S. trends, with a 2023 global survey finding Canadian employees wanted about 2.5 remote days per week versus 1.8 days employers would allow – a 0.7-day gap.

“Seems not a lot,” he says, “but it's enough to fuel employee frustration and turnover if ignored.”

Mandates from the top, resistance from below

The SWAA research, tracking over 200,000 responses, shows that 27 percent of workers are now in hybrid arrangements, 13 percent are fully remote, and 60 percent are fully on-site.

Interestingly, work-from-home patterns have stabilized since 2023, the research shows, indicating this is a permanent shift rather than a pandemic-era anomaly.

Jelena Zikic, professor of organizational behaviour at York University, argues that the fundamental problem lies in how these policies are developed and implemented; senior executives, she explains, may struggle to understand the day-to-day realities facing their employees who deal with expensive commutes, childcare logistics, and open-concept workplace distractions.

“The perception of a small group of people or the top leader, may not always be reflective of how thousands of people are feeling down throughout the organization,” she says, adding that top-down approaches create a "sacrifice" dynamic that leaders fail to adequately address or justify to their workforce.

“When you're faced with this RTO mandate as an ultimatum … this is, for most employees, seen as a sacrifice,” Zikic says.

“That is giving up something that's really valuable in the hope of achieving something else in the future that I'm willing to sacrifice for. Bottom line – leaders, managers, are not as good at creating the ‘why’ of the sacrifice.”

Quiet non-compliance to RTO mandates

The result of top-down mandates can be widespread quiet non-compliance, Zikic says. Plus, such mandates can lead to resentment as employees with more tenure, specialized skills, or senior positions may feel secure enough to ignore them, while junior staff feel compelled to comply.

“You're creating this almost two-tier situation, with some employees feeling more privileged or having more authority, who may not comply no matter what,” she says.

“So that is quite dangerous for organizational culture going forward.”

Zikic describes cases where employees simply attend fewer office days than mandated, with their direct managers often tacitly agreeing not to enforce the rules.

“If I'm forced to go back to work and I do it unwillingly, what are the organizations and leaders getting back?” Zikic says.

“They're getting employees that are unhappy, that are rather irritated and upset at the organization, and slowly but surely, they may look for other options.”

Measuring success beyond productivity

Traditional productivity metrics, while important, fail to capture the full impact of hybrid work arrangements on organizational health and employee satisfaction; the SWAA research shows that job satisfaction correlates more strongly with work arrangement alignment than with simple productivity measures.

Turner emphasizes this point, telling employers to expand their standard performance and output metrics to evaluate hybrid work success.

“Employee engagement and satisfaction are two examples,” he says.

“Regular pulse surveys can reveal how employees feel about the new arrangement. Retention and recruitment figures are especially telling: is your turnover spiking, or are you attracting employees?”

He suggests tracking voluntary turnover rates, offer acceptance rates, and actual attendance on designated office days.

“Low on-site attendance on office days might spell trouble,” says Turner. “Also, monitor negative well-being indicators like absenteeism and sick days: a successful hybrid model shouldn't lead to more sick days or burnout.”

Outcome-based performance metrics

The stabilized shift to hybrid work the research demonstrates means employers need to make fundamental changes to how they evaluate employee performance, Turner says. Systems that have historically relied on observable behaviours and in-person interactions aren’t equitable in dispersed workforces, he explains.

“It's hugely significant, perhaps one of the most important shifts in the post-pandemic workplace,” Turner says.

“Many managers fell into the trap of equating physical presence with productivity. If you keep trying to manage by bums in seats or management by observation, hybrid is likely to fail.”

The most damaging organizational errors stem from treating return-to-office policies as simple compliance issues rather than complex change management challenges, Turner says. Many companies underestimate the cultural and operational shifts required to successfully implement hybrid work models.

“The biggest RTO mistakes come down to inflexibility and poor communication in my opinion,” he says.

“For example, companies rolling out RTO mandates without asking employees for input. When RTO is announced by mass email, it instantly kills morale.”

He also warns against inadequate manager training: “Many managers also haven't been trained to lead hybrid teams. Without that support, they fall back on old habits like assessing performance by who's at their desks.”