38% of Employees Have Lived Through Multiple RTO Mandates

Nearly four in ten employees went through multiple return-to-office mandates in 2024, and 6% endured more than five, according to research cited by economists Natalia Emanuel and Emma Harrington in their book IN PERSON (Crown Currency, 2026). Their conclusion: most reboots fail because the original policy was flawed — and doubling down on mandates makes it worse.

The authors describe a large retail firm they advise that mandated three in-office days for corporate employees but got only two. Management responded by mandating four days, hoping to secure three. Average attendance did hit three days a week — but the company alienated the rule-followers who obeyed every mandate. Many of them left, draining exactly the workers the firm most wanted to keep.

"When people reliably show up, the office becomes more valuable, which acts as a pull and reduces the need to push people there," the authors write. Their prescription rests on five pillars.

Why do RTO rollouts collapse?

A major financial services firm in the authors' research launched a five-day in-office mandate the day after Labor Day. Early September, they note, is when family routines are most fragile: day care centers often run two-week ramp-up periods, and after-school programs start weeks after school does.

Midlevel employees burned vacation days just to manage the transition. Attendance was poor, anger was high, and workers questioned why they should come in when colleagues did not. By November, in-office attendance had settled at three days a week — not the mandated five. A delayed start in late September or early October, the authors argue, would have given the policy a real chance.

What does effective enforcement look like?

Vague threats fail. A sweeping warning like "You could be fired for poor attendance" does little if never acted upon, the authors write. A modest but reliable consequence — such as a small bonus reduction for each month of noncompliance — works far better. Cited research shows people respond best to predictable enforcement, not dramatic warnings that are rarely carried out.

Transparency is a second lever. At Bloomberg, employees can see when colleagues last badged into the office, which makes it easier to notice absences and check in. The goal, the authors write, is to encourage people to explain the "typically good reason" they were out — so flexibility feels fair rather than arbitrary.

Timing of enforcement matters as much as its severity. Forming new habits takes between two and five months, the authors note, citing published research. Early enforcement creates a self-fulfilling cycle: people come in when they know others will be there. Enforcing late means fighting employees' assumption that colleagues will stay home anyway.

How should companies handle resistance?

Managers and executives must share the same rationale for returning. "If managers roll their eyes while explaining the policy to their teams, the policy is undermined before it begins," the authors write.

They also advise diagnosing why employees resist. For caregivers juggling pickups and pediatrician visits, and for focused workers who do solo tasks better at home, the authors suggest limiting in-office requirements to core hours. If most meetings fall between 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., that window preserves collaboration while keeping flexibility intact.

Finally, companies must act on feedback — parking shortages, conference-room bottlenecks — with concrete fixes such as shuttle buses, transit vouchers, or calendar-integrated room booking. "Responding to employees' feedback is essential for communicating that the policy is meant to support work, rather than torture employees or encourage attrition," the authors write.

For executives weighing another mandate cycle, the message is blunt: attendance gaps usually signal a policy problem, not an enforcement deficit — and each failed reboot risks pushing out the most compliant people first.

Excerpted from IN PERSON by Natalia Emanuel, PhD and Emma Harrington, PhD. Copyright © 2026 by Natalia Emanuel and Emma Harrington. Published by Crown Currency, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.