"The move was framed as a productivity boost, yet the timing tells a different story. While hybrid models persist in corporate America, federal workers are being forced into rigid arrangements. The administration's stance suggests that where people work is the central determinant of performance. Leaders are treating location as policy, not as lived experience. This misses the essence of what actually makes HR systems succeed or fail."
"It also collides with economic data: Reuters reported that U.S. worker productivity fell in the first quarter for the first time in nearly three years, even as labor costs surged. If productivity is already under pressure, doubling down on rigid return-to-office mandates risks compounding the problem. Instead of lifting performance, such measures may drain morale and increase costs-an outcome financial market professionals tracking margins and inflationary pressures will recognize immediately."
Gallup data show that about half of U.S. private-sector employees continue to split time between home and office, while federal hybrid arrangements fell from 61% to 28% after a presidential order to return staff full-time. The federal shift was justified as a productivity boost despite economic data showing U.S. worker productivity fell in the first quarter even as labor costs rose. Leaders are emphasizing location as policy rather than how employees experience work, and rigid return-to-office mandates risk lowering morale, increasing costs, and compounding productivity pressures. Employee interpretation and daily enactment of policies determine HR success.
Read at Forbes
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]