A recent feature in the Financial Times, “Office Attendance is Becoming a Performance Metric”, naturally brought up a fair degree of debate concerning discussions about employees returning to the office. Discussions which remain ongoing.

Important note: this piece is not solely off the back of this individual article. But it neatly encapsulated many others throughout the last year. Importantly, it captured not just the mentality of some employers, but critically the measures being put in place to handle the process.

It’s these which caused me alarm, on two accounts primarily.

• Firstly, how companies are becoming tougher on (and, increasing the number of) mandatory days. Flexibility is less widespread than before.
• Secondly – and more worryingly in my opinion – far more forensic when it comes to employee activity during working hours, both remote and on-site.

Each of these has important implications for both the employee and the employer alike.

How we got here

Without resorting to trope, it’s essential to quickly look at how we got to where we are today. The sudden closure of offices within the wider lockdown measures during the pandemic meant remote working became an immediate norm.

People could do their jobs without needing to be in the office and, crucially, small household tasks which usually needed an evening or weekend to do became possible during the day. You can do your washing; get the groceries delivered; tidy the kitchen – all between nine and five. As measures relaxed, it became easier to go to the gym or get outside for a walk. The shift arguably improved wellbeing for many.

Fostering trust

The change was virtually overnight. And it meant that employers had to rapidly presume trust that work was being done while teams were out of (physical) sight. It wasn’t easy, I won’t lie – it went against years of management approaches.

But it was essential. Both for business continuity but also at a human level for everyone now stuck in their home trying to adjust.

While it brought major difficulties and disruptions, it also highlighted a previously unchallenged standard: office-workers need to be in five days a week. The overnight paradigm shift showed this was a flawed truism.

Moving back in

Fast forwarding, and mandating a return to the office was unarguably essential for many reasons. Both for employers and employees.

When we developed our own policy (Wednesdays are mandatory, one of Tuesday or Thursday also as a minimum), it was largely based on our experiences of why working alongside colleagues is essential to learning, personal development, and skills growth.

It creates a company culture which fosters collaboration, support, friendship, and growth. And as employers we benefit from all of these (and more) directly.  

Going too far

Striking this balance wasn’t – isn’t – easy and it’s one many are still grappling with.

But there are some companies which have gone too far in terms of demands and implementation. We can all learn from these. It’s important to learn from mistakes as much as success (especially if they’re perceived mistakes elsewhere).

Some examples of this include:

• Mandating five days-per-week
• Monitoring software to measure activity
• Tying bonuses to attendance
• Disciplinary processes for not being in the office

Throughout the above, the common theme is monitoring attendance, and in the latter two examples, determining (and rewarding) perceived performance directly to this.

The importance of headspace

What these policies ignore is the need for our brains to tune out and wander (especially in creative industries).

On mornings when I’m not in London, I walk my daughter to school and then my son to preschool. It’s a near mile-long trip. Something like 25 minutes given drop-offs.

Does this mean I’m skiving for 25 minutes between 8.40am and 9.15am? No, because during this time and after seven minutes playing games and hopscotch on the way in (with my daughter, not on my own, to be clear), I’m mulling over my to-do list. It’s essential thinking time.

But putting monitoring software in place – as some are – suggests sitting down and typing is the only means of working. It also removes the potential to stare into space and think.

A legal minefield

It can’t be ignored that inflexible demands on how employees must return to the office is arguably an ill-thought through policy from a regulatory perspective.

It opens the employer up for significant discrimination claims if there are individuals punished for not being able to make it in for extensive mandatory days.

This might be due to childcare or other caring duties, or it could be for disability reasons – to name a couple. Either way, punitive measures (especially when it comes to bonuses or recognising work) is a fast track to a tribunal.

Trust at the core

What these measures all point toward however is, quite simply, a lack of trust in your employees, and explicit demonstration of this ("be in the office or you're subject to disciplinary") will simply make people leave. Several consultancies have conducted research proving this.

Pre-lockdown, the issue of presenteeism dominated the narrative. It was an unhelpful management approach that implied being visible meant you were working. It also meant people came into the office when they really shouldn’t – we can probably all remember being in an office during peak cold season, where the coughing and sniffing made it feel like the Hospital at Scutari. It was grim.

But remote working was a very small exception to the attendance rule. Covid changed this, arguably for the better.

Proximity doesn’t dictate ability

The move toward pre-lockdown isn’t progressive. It’s a reflection of a leadership mentality of distrust in their employees. It is a flawed mentality to “what makes great work?”.

The answer to this isn’t “typing”. It’s the output and the outcome. Employees will do fantastic work whether they’re sat at an office desk 20 feet from the boss or sat at their kitchen table 20 miles away.

Getting this wrong will make people leave, a false economy from the employer’s perspective. And it will compromise the employee’s quality of life. Arguably a far bigger concern.

Leaders need to look beyond the keyboard to attract and retain talent, and create a successful company culture which allows everyone to flourish on their and your terms.

Hybrid working should be a mutually beneficial model.