Abstract
Using a sample of Standard and Poor’s 500 firms, we examine determinants and consequences of U.S. firms’ return-to-office (RTO) mandates. Results of our determinant analyses are consistent with managers using RTO mandates to reassert control over employees and blame employees as a scapegoat for bad firm performance. Also, our findings do not support the argument that managers impose mandate because they believe RTO increases firm values. Further, our difference in differences tests report significant declines in employees’ job satisfactions mandates but no significant changes in financial performance or firm values after RTO mandates. In summary, our research contributes to the ongoing debate over RTO versus working from home and has important implications for practitioners.
I’m happy that researchers are publishing their data on this, but I wish they’d include discussions of some of the bad faith antics organizations are pulling while pretending to push return-to-office (RTO). This goes way beyond reasserting control over their employees, like the firms owning those buildings and expecting rent from same-site retail businesses that need the higher foot traffic RTO could bring or wanting to do a round of layoffs without paying for severance.