Return to the office: Driving productivity or addressing management challenges?

There has been an increasing push recently to return to five days in the office—a rather sad step backward.

I'm not talking about jobs that require professionals to be physically present (personal assistants to senior executives in office settings, for example). But in most cases, I see the critique of working from home as a reflection of management challenges.

One common criticism is that managers can't see what employees are doing when they work from home. To that, I'd say—if you've never seen people scrolling social media in the office for hours, taking five coffee breaks, or engaging in chit-chat that easily adds up to an hour or more a day, then you haven’t worked in an office. This isn't a remote vs. in-office issue—it’s a management issue.

If a job has enough responsibilities to fill the day, people will work—regardless of where they are. But I've seen jobs that simply don't have full-time responsibilities. In those cases, some people invent tasks just to stay busy, while others discreetly do personal things to avoid the appearance of working for no reason. Neither is an employee problem—it’s a management problem. Hiring for a full-time position without ensuring there’s full-time work to do is on the manager, not the worker.

Lack of clear expectations or deadlines is another issue. When people know what they need to do and by when, and if these expectations are reasonable, they will deliver. If they don’t, every organization (or at least every competent one) has performance reviews to address this. If an employee repeatedly fails to meet expectations, then they need to go.

As a manager, I often don't care when people do their work. Some are highly productive at 6 AM but mentally shut down after 2 PM. Others don’t hit their stride until 11 AM and do their best work later in the day. I see no reason to disrupt that.

Setting clear expectations is enough: define core working hours for responding to queries, specify which meetings (camera on) are mandatory, and establish basic ground rules. But when people actually complete their work (which shouldn’t just be attending meetings or replying to messages), I don’t see why it matters. The job has to get done within the set timeframe—that’s it.

Another criticism is that people don't pay attention in online meetings. That’s a meeting problem, not a remote work problem. Despite all the jokes, there are still too many meetings that should have been emails. Many meetings could also involve fewer participants. If a capable, effective employee isn’t paying attention, it’s often because the meeting provides little value to them. A well-structured meeting—one with a clear purpose, relevant participants, and actual outcomes—will naturally keep people engaged. If someone is consistently disengaged in meetings and it impacts their work, that will be reflected in their performance. But if they’re disengaged and still delivering results on time, my question is about the meeting, not the person.

Most people are happier when they can work in a hybrid (if not fully remote) model. Saving what is often two hours of daily commuting means more time to unwind, be with family or friends, or simply enjoy life—which, in turn, makes for a happier and ultimately better employee. Not to mention the financial savings on commuting, coffee, and eating out.

Maybe I’ve just been fortunate, but I have yet to meet an effective employee with clear responsibilities who doesn’t deliver while working remotely. So, instead of asking whether people should be in the office five days a week, the real question should be: How effective are your operations? How competent are your managers?