What company does not question the terms of returning to the office? While some have opted for firm policies imposing a physical presence several days a week, others bet on gentle incentive. Result: a growing cleavage between authoritarian models and approaches based on motivation. In the long term, the latter seem more promising, however.
The return to the office can no longer be decreed
In fact, imposing the return to the office often amounts to hitting expectations that have become structural. Survey after survey, employees express their attachment to flexibility: according to an McKinsey study, 87 % of employees would choose a position offering telework when they are given the option.
However, some companies persist in imposing a quota of compulsory days on site. Result ? Social tensions, latent disengagement, even leakage of talents.
“The forced return produces an opposite effect to that sought: the teams feel infantilized, little listened to, and sometimes unfair vis-à-vis their employer”
Nourish rather than impose: gentle incentive strategies
Conversely, other organizations test incentive levers, with more tangible results. In the podcast What the fteAndy, CEO of the certain startup, says that he has experienced a program to recreate moments of collective life, without formal obligation.
If the material advantages can play their role (be careful not to discriminate your employees in teleworking), it is above all social rituals, common projects, and alignment around concrete challenges who seem to bring the teams back.
Initiatives like offsites Quarterly, “Sports Wednesdays” or face -to -face team meetings around a product project act as so many cohesion catalysts. It is still necessary to be designed with intention, and not as moments of “forced fun”.
The key: intentionality
What these changes reveal is that physical presence can no longer be a goal in itself. It must be part of a logic of collaboration, link creation or problem solving. The teams adhere to it when they understand its meaning.
Intentionality therefore becomes the major adjustment variable. Like companies that plan for face -to -face moments according to the project cycle (Sprint design, commercial launch, strategic retrospective), it is no longer a question of filling off the offices, but orchestrating the presence.
Why ‘sticks’ fail (almost) always
Companies that impose an authoritarian return quickly come up against three pitfalls:
-
- Passive resistance : physical presence without real, even disguised absenteeism.
- Silent turnover : Gradual departure of the most autonomous talents, often the most experienced.
- Atrophy of corporate culture : constraint degrades managerial confidence.
Conversely, organizations that create desirable collaboration spaces (Collective times, supervised autonomy, social recognition) cultivate a more resilient and attractive culture.
In conclusion: the autonomy supervised rather than the imposed presence
The debate on the return to the office is no longer limited to a binary divide between telework and presence. This is an issue of work designof trust and Report to the collective. Companies that will bet on sincere incentives, a culture of the shared project, and respect for individual preferences will come out reinforced from this rebalancing phase.
What gives us in word of the end: to impose the presence is to manage the short term. Make you want to come back is to build the long.
