Rolling out return-to office-plans? What to consider before making it a mandate

Things have gotten a lot better since the darkest days of the COVID pandemic, so it’s not surprising that many organizations are now thinking of asking their employees to return to the office. According to recent research by Microsoft, 50% of leaders say their company already requires, or plans to require, full-time in-person work in the coming year.

But this approach is likely to result in the loss of valuable employees. Research by my organization, The Myers-Briggs Company, shows that forcing workers to be in the office more often than they want to be significantly increases the chance that they will leave their jobs. A successful strategy for retaining good employees and keeping them engaged and motivated needs to take account of their personality preferences.

Until recently, most employees worked in an office or other communal workplace, although a minority were able to work from home some or all the time. The COVID-19 pandemic changed all this, and by October 2020, 71% of those whose job could be done from home had become remote workers.

Remote, hybrid or in-person?

More than two years after the beginning of the pandemic, many organizations are now planning a return to the office. Some, particularly in the finance sector, have been relatively aggressive in pushing for staff to return. However, the world of work has changed since 2020. Having realized that they can successfully work from home, many employees are questioning why they should now give up their remote or hybrid working lifestyle.

In our research, 84% of those who were entirely office-based would prefer to work remotely at least some of the time, and only 3% of people said that their ideal was to be entirely office-based. The commute, office-based distractions and interruptions, and inflexible or inconvenient working hours were seen as particular disadvantages of the traditional working pattern.

Of course, many organizations may be less concerned about how their employees feel and more interested in the bottom line. The assumption seems to be that by forcing workers to return to the office, productivity will increase. However, our results suggest that this is not the case. We found that office-based workers were more likely to be looking for a new job than remote or hybrid workers, and that office-based or hybrid workers who were forced to work in the office for more time than they wanted to were especially likely to leave their jobs. They also found it difficult to concentrate on work, saw their job as stressful, and felt their health and wellbeing were affected, and were less likely to enjoy their job and to feel included or supported by their manager or co-workers.

If an organization mandates that all employees return to the office, this could result in the loss of many valuable employees and reduced engagement from others.

Transitioning back to the office

A flexible approach to working in the office or remotely will pay dividends, but that is not the end of the story. Our research showed that there were many other actions that organizations could take to smooth the transition to a new normal of mixed remote, hybrid and non-remote working. For example:

• Over a quarter of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they found video meetings boring, difficult, or frustrating. Over a third agreed or strongly agreed that if they joined meetings by video but others were physically in the room, they found it difficult to make themselves heard. The frequency and setup of video meetings could be greatly improved, as could etiquette during the meeting.
• Concerns about COVID have not come to an end, and organizations struggling to persuade staff to return to the office will need to address these.
• Managers have a key role to play. Workers who felt more supported by their manager felt more positive, were less stressed, and were less likely to be looking for a new job.

Understanding differences is key 

Going beyond this, it is important to recognize that people are individuals; one size does not fit all. Taking a moment to consider an individual’s personality type preferences can avoid many problems.

For example, consider extraversion and Introversion. People with a personality preference for extraversion focus their attention on, and get energized by, their contacts with the external world; those with an introversion preference form their inner world of thoughts, reflections, and feelings.

In our research, we asked how much people agreed with the statement “I feel I am forced to socialize with my co-workers.” Only 6% of extraverts agreed or strongly agreed, but 29%, over a quarter, of introverts did so.

An extravert manager, who has not thought to consider that their workers may have different personality preferences to themselves may unwittingly be pressuring their Introverted employees. If managers are aware of their own personality preferences this is less likely to happen. Conversely, 68% of extraverts agreed or strongly agreed with “I enjoy working somewhere where there are lots of people,” but only 20% of introverts did so.

Returning to the office does not mean a return to the working conditions of the pre-COVID world; employees have moved on. Those organizations that accept and leverage the new reality will prosper at the expense of those who cling to older, less inclusive approaches.

John Hackston is a chartered psychologist and Head of Thought Leadership at The Myers-Briggs Company where he leads the company’s Oxford-based research team. He is a frequent commentator on the effects of personality type on work and life, and has authored numerous studies, published papers in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences for organizations such as The British Association for Psychological Type.