Employers used return-to-office to make workers quit. Then this happened.

As organizations navigate the shifting dynamics of the post-pandemic workplace, some have controversially used return-to-office mandates as a strategy to induce voluntary turnover.

Recent surveys reveal that this approach has led to unintended and significant consequences, including higher-than-expected attrition rates and a disproportionate loss of women and underrepresented employees.

Bamboo HR’s findings show that about one-quarter of vice presidents and C-suite executives implemented return-to-office policies in hopes of prompting voluntary resignations. Similarly, around 20 percent of HR professionals indicated that their in-office policies were designed to make workers quit.

Bamboo HR’s report suggests that these mandates are essentially “layoffs in disguise,” aiming to reduce headcount without the costs associated with formal layoffs.

Potentially aligning with this controversial strategy, House Republicans have recently intensified the push against telework for federal employees. For example, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) and Government Operations and the Federal Workforce Subcommittee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) have been pushing legislation to limit federal telework while pressing federal agencies for detailed data on their telework practices.

Comer recently accused the Biden administration of allowing telework for federal employees to secure their votes, saying that “Biden’s main objective with the federal workforce, in my opinion, is to keep them happy at all costs so they’ll go vote for him.” This aligns with the findings by Bamboo HR, suggesting a broader motive to shrink the federal workforce as part of a larger effort to reduce bureaucracy and the so-called “deep state.”

But the fallout of the strategy identified by Bamboo HR has proven more complex and challenging than anticipated. According to Unispace’s research, 42 percent of companies with enforced return-to-office mandates experienced higher employee attrition than expected. This significant attrition rate points to a critical miscalculation by employers, who underestimated the attachment employees have to the flexible work arrangements established during the pandemic.

Thus, even where bosses expect attrition, the data shows they get substantially more attrition than they wanted. As a result, 29 percent of these companies are now facing substantial recruitment challenges, as the scale of resignations created serious operational and staffing problems. This misalignment between expectation and reality has left many companies struggling to fill the gaps left by departing employees.

The exodus triggered by in-office mandates has not been evenly distributed across the workforce. Upwork’s recent survey reveals that 63 percent of C-suite leaders acknowledged their return-to-office policies led to a disproportionate number of women resigning. This sex-disparity in attrition underscores a significant oversight in policy implementation. The same share of executives reported difficulties in filling these vacant roles, and the loss of female employees has had a pronounced impact on company productivity. This suggests that these departures are not just numerical losses but also qualitative ones, affecting team dynamics, institutional knowledge, and overall performance.

Greenhouse’s research further highlights the adverse effects of in-office mandates on workforce diversity. Employees from historically underrepresented groups are 22 percent more likely to consider leaving their companies if flexibility is withdrawn. This statistic is alarming, especially in light of ongoing efforts to foster more inclusive and diverse workplaces. The inclination of underrepresented employees to leave under stringent in-office policies indicates a broader issue with how these mandates may exacerbate existing inequities. Flexible work arrangements have been a significant factor in supporting diverse talent; their removal could reverse progress made in creating more equitable workplaces.

We’ll likely see similar problems if House Republicans succeed in their efforts to limit telework for federal employees. A study presented to the National Capital Planning Commmission adds to this growing body of evidence, showing that mandated returns to the office in the federal sector will lead to a workforce that skews older and less diverse. The study highlights the risk of the federal workforce becoming out of touch with the dynamic, diverse society it aims to serve.

Young talent, more inclined toward flexible work arrangements, may view federal employment as an unattractive option, leading to a significant loss of fresh perspectives and innovative ideas. This is a clear indication that the implications of reduced telework policies extend beyond immediate organizational concerns, impacting broader societal goals of representation and inclusivity.

The data from all of these sources converges to tell a cautionary tale for employers considering or enforcing office mandates. While the intent behind using these policies to drive voluntary turnover might seem straightforward — at least among some organizations — the actual outcomes reveal a complex web of consequences that can undermine the very objectives they aim to achieve. Organizations have faced higher-than-expected resignation rates, leading to operational disruptions and recruitment challenges, especially among underrepresented groups, highlighting the importance of accurately gauging employee sentiment and the potential impact of policy changes.

To navigate the complexities of modern workforce management, organizations and government agencies must adopt a more nuanced approach. This involves considering not only immediate logistical and operational needs, but also understanding the broader implications for employee well-being, diversity, and inclusion. Embracing flexible and hybrid work models can mitigate the adverse effects of strict in-office mandates by offering a middle ground that accommodates both organizational needs and employee preferences. Hybrid models, where employees can split their time between working remotely and in the office, provide a solution that can maintain productivity while also supporting employee well-being.

It might seem pragmatic to make employees quit by forcing them to come back to the office . But the real-world implications suggest a need for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach. By learning from the unintended consequences of such schemes, companies and agencies can better navigate the delicate balance between operational efficiency and employee satisfaction. A careful, inclusive, and flexible approach to telework policies can help retain talent, maintain productivity, and foster a more diverse and inclusive workplace.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., is CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and the author of “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.“