Government workers, managers cling to remote work despite mandates

Recent return-to-office initiatives have been met with considerable resistance and noncompliance. Despite the repeated failure of these efforts, leaders continue to launch them in cycles, seemingly expecting different outcomes. This persistence in repeating the same strategy while hoping for different outcomes calls to mind the popular definition of insanity.

The federal and state governments' efforts to force workers back into the office will run into the same resistance and noncompliance that we have seen in the private sector. Smart government leaders should learn from these failures to avoid the insanity.

A failed return to office is often marked by repeated attempts to bring back employees after initial efforts have faltered. According to the recent Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes run by academics at Stanford University, the Hoover Institution and the University of Chicago, these back-to-the-office reruns are astonishingly frequent, with 6 percent of employees having experienced five or more attempts at returning to the office. This statistic translates to nearly 10 million employees in the U.S. alone. The psychological impact of enduring multiple return-to-office initiatives is significant, leading to confusion, frustration and ultimately, noncompliance.

One of the most telling indicators of failure is the level of noncompliance, and compliance is lowest among those who have experienced multiple attempts to bring workers back into the office. The survey shows that one-quarter of employees at companies with numerous return-to-office initiatives continue to disregard these policies. Moreover, approximately one-third of managers are reportedly not enforcing these mandates, suggesting that they perceive the directives as ineffective or counterproductive.

A report from Owl Labs similarly finds a large proportion of middle managers failing to enforce return-to-office mandates. Business Insider called this the “hushed hybrid” trend of managers secretly allowing employees flexibility around organizational policies.

Given these realities, we can learn from the private sector’s experience to anticipate that the attempts to mandate federal and state employees return to the office will result in extensive noncompliance. This will lead to significant challenges, affecting not only day-to-day operations but also the broader strategic objectives of government agencies. 

One major risk associated with strict in-office work mandates in the government sector is increased turnover, which can be particularly problematic given the specialized nature of many government roles. Employees who value the flexibility of remote work might seek employment outside the federal government, especially when private sector options offer more accommodating work environments.

After all, private sector workers work remotely at higher rates than government workers, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. This potential exodus of talent could lead to a significant loss of expertise and institutional knowledge, making it difficult for agencies to fulfill their missions effectively.

In fact, the Trump administration has already had to scramble recently to rehire some workers it fired by mistake, showing the danger of getting rid of workers at random. That’s why President Trump recently encouraged Elon Musk and DOGE to use a scalpel rather than a hatchet approach to downsizing the federal workforce. Return-to-office represents a big hatchet rather than a targeted scalpel. It may actually be worse than a hatchet, since it tends to get rid of the most talented and experienced workers with the best prospects outside of government.

A landmark analysis led by Mark Ma at the University of Pittsburgh, leveraging Revelio Labs' extensive data, vividly illustrated the unintended fallout from former President Joe Biden’s return-to-office directive. Biden required federal workers to come in 60 percent of workdays, compared to Trump's much stricter 100 percent mandate. Biden’s milder mandate still sparked significant upheaval. Senior-level turnover — including directors, supervisors and executives — jumped by 26 percent in the wake of Biden’s announcement. Employees with extensive institutional knowledge and seasoned leadership skills increasingly opted to transition into the private sector, drawn by more flexible remote-work arrangements that have become standard there.

The repercussions were even more acute among specialized, highly qualified personnel. Workers with advanced degrees and niche expertise experienced a sharp 32 percent spike in departures. These staff members — often holding critical roles in technology, scientific research, and strategic management — form the backbone of federal operations. Their exit has placed enormous strain on federal agencies, undermining their ability to sustain productivity, efficiency and institutional stability.

We can expect even worse consequences from the full-time in-office policy that Trump and some governors are imposing. Recruitment challenges will be further exacerbated as well. Prospective federal and state employees are likely to consider work-life balance and flexibility when evaluating job opportunities. Agencies that insist most strictly on physical presence in the workplace may struggle to attract top talent, particularly among younger workers who prioritize flexible work arrangements.

Especially on the federal level, where Trump seeks to staff the federal workforce with those loyal to his vision, we already see obstacles to recruitment. In fact, the new head of the FBI, Kash Patel, received an accommodation to work remotely much of the time. How many other accommodations will be needed or have already been given without making headlines?

Enforcing in-office work mandates without considering employee input can erode trust and damage the organizational culture within federal and state agencies. When employees feel their voices are disregarded, it can lead to a breakdown in the relationship between management and staff. This mistrust can foster a toxic work environment, characterized by disengagement and lack of collaboration, which can ultimately undermine the agency's effectiveness and public perception.

In some cases, rigid policies may expose federal and state agencies to legal and regulatory risks. Employees with disabilities or caregiving responsibilities might challenge them mandates as discriminatory, leading to potential lawsuits or investigations. Agencies must carefully navigate the legal landscape to ensure compliance with labor laws and regulations, particularly those concerning workplace accommodations and equal opportunity, to avoid such pitfalls.

To address these challenges, federal and state agencies should prioritize communication and collaboration with their workforce. Engaging employees in discussions about work preferences and gathering feedback can help create a sense of ownership over work arrangements. By embracing flexibility and adapting to the evolving work landscape, government agencies can build a more resilient and empowered workforce, better equipped to meet the demands of public service in the 21st century.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller "Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams."