data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/27aec/27aec11c57611c0a8d28b1fcb0d13b69597b1d20" alt=""
? 搞“特殊化”現(xiàn)象在職場(chǎng)中長(zhǎng)期存在。在恢復(fù)強(qiáng)制坐班政策以來(lái),美國(guó)好多公司又搞起了特殊化。一些企業(yè)對(duì)骨干愛(ài)將不來(lái)坐班睜一只眼閉一只眼,但這有可能形成“有毒”的工作環(huán)境。
后疫情時(shí)代,美國(guó)企業(yè)開(kāi)始大力推行重返辦公室辦公的政策。不過(guò)這項(xiàng)政策執(zhí)行起來(lái)也并不是一刀切。比如有些公司骨干員工遲到早退,甚至根本不在辦公室坐班,他們的老板對(duì)此也是睜一只眼閉一只眼。
自從疫情防控措施解除以來(lái),美國(guó)已有成百上千萬(wàn)員工被強(qiáng)制要求重返辦公室辦公。這其中不乏亞馬遜、微軟、摩根大通和戴爾這樣的大企業(yè),盡管他們的員工對(duì)此政策深感不滿(mǎn)。很多員工甚至憤而辭職,跳槽到了那些允許遠(yuǎn)程辦公或者混合辦公的公司。為了避免最優(yōu)秀的員工流失掉,有些公司只得默許了一些骨干愛(ài)將繼續(xù)在家辦公。
比如,曾任AT&T公司首席渠道經(jīng)理的克里斯·佩萊斯基向《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》透露,他們公司也執(zhí)行每周5天坐班制,但是在執(zhí)行上卻有出入。他指出,“公司里有很多搞特殊化的”,有些員工在這項(xiàng)政策上明顯是被給予了照顧。
他表示:“有些人因崗位類(lèi)別而得到了合理照顧,這可以理解,但是也有很多人就是單純地‘被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)寵著’。”
有專(zhuān)家告訴《財(cái)富》,在職場(chǎng)上,一些員工搞“特殊化”的例子簡(jiǎn)直不要太多。早在混合辦公模式成為“新常態(tài)”之前,這種差別待遇就已長(zhǎng)期存在。一些優(yōu)異員工和資深員工甚至可以不像普通員工一樣遵守企業(yè)的部分規(guī)章制度,這當(dāng)然是因?yàn)樗麄儎诳喙Ω撸蛘咴诠景l(fā)揮了不可替代的作用。但是,一旦其他員工意識(shí)到了這種差別待遇,不滿(mǎn)情緒就有可能蔓延開(kāi)來(lái),進(jìn)而形成有害的工作文化。
光輝國(guó)際CHRO業(yè)務(wù)高級(jí)客戶(hù)合伙人丹?卡普蘭對(duì)《財(cái)富》表示:“你可以說(shuō)這是搞特殊化,也可以說(shuō)這是區(qū)別對(duì)待,這些都沒(méi)有錯(cuò)。”至于如何安排上班才能最有效率,沒(méi)有哪一種方法是放之四海皆準(zhǔn)的,所以雇主們“做出了更多的特殊安排,給人的感覺(jué)有些隨意,像是在搞區(qū)別對(duì)待。”
優(yōu)秀員工有更大影響力,他們也是面對(duì)強(qiáng)制坐班政策最先跳槽的人
簡(jiǎn)而言之,優(yōu)秀員工之所以會(huì)被區(qū)別對(duì)待,是因?yàn)樗麄冎雷约焊y被替代。求職平臺(tái)Glassdoor的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家丹尼爾·趙對(duì)《財(cái)富》表示,一般來(lái)說(shuō),企業(yè)并不愿意因?yàn)槟悴幌氲睫k公室坐班就辭退你,特別是對(duì)公司的明星員工。
他表示:“當(dāng)你制定一項(xiàng)新政策時(shí),你肯定會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)它要被強(qiáng)力執(zhí)行。但是公司并不想解雇每一個(gè)違反這項(xiàng)政策的人,尤其是如果情節(jié)并不嚴(yán)重的話。而業(yè)績(jī)出色的員工和資深員工往往能得到更多回旋余地,因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诠纠锔杏绊懥Α也粌H在坐班這個(gè)問(wèn)題上,在公司的其他問(wèn)題上一般也是如此。”
光輝國(guó)際的卡普蘭表示,他也見(jiàn)到一些公司在坐班的問(wèn)題上搞區(qū)別對(duì)待的情況,尤其是那些對(duì)員工出勤情況管理得不嚴(yán)的公司。目前,美國(guó)很多公司對(duì)員工到崗辦公的政策仍然相當(dāng)模糊,甚至一個(gè)公司里不同的團(tuán)隊(duì)都有不同的要求,有的要求一周到崗3天,有的要求一周到崗5天,具體由中層管理者說(shuō)了算。在企業(yè)探索如何坐班最科學(xué)合理的過(guò)程中,往往缺乏協(xié)調(diào)一致的舉措。而對(duì)于那些業(yè)績(jī)最出色的員工,一些老板往往也不想因?yàn)檫@個(gè)問(wèn)題招惹他們。
卡普蘭表示:“如果你知道那些優(yōu)秀員工肯定會(huì)做出業(yè)績(jī),那你就應(yīng)該少干涉他們,讓他們放開(kāi)手去干。你應(yīng)該做的是花時(shí)間和精力幫助他們?nèi)〉酶蟮臉I(yè)績(jī)。”
另外,一旦企業(yè)強(qiáng)制要求員工坐班,那些業(yè)績(jī)最出色的員工往往會(huì)最先離職。根據(jù)高德納公司(Gartner)2024年的一項(xiàng)研究,在得知公司將恢復(fù)每周5天坐班制后,優(yōu)秀員工的留任意愿下降了16%,在所有受訪群體中降幅最高。專(zhuān)家表示,這主要是因?yàn)閮?yōu)秀員工知道自己有退路,他們完全可以在其他公司找到一份待遇還不錯(cuò)的遠(yuǎn)程工作。
職場(chǎng)咨詢(xún)公司美世(Mercer)的全球薪酬福利解決方案負(fù)責(zé)人戈德·弗羅斯特在接受《財(cái)富》采訪時(shí)表示:“盡管現(xiàn)在的就業(yè)市場(chǎng)不像幾年前那么火爆了,但是對(duì)于頂尖人才而言,他們始終都是有其他選擇的。頂級(jí)員工總是有其他機(jī)會(huì)的,我認(rèn)為企業(yè)對(duì)這一點(diǎn)也是很敏感的,所以他們肯定會(huì)小心地權(quán)衡這個(gè)問(wèn)題。”
高管向來(lái)有特權(quán)
除了優(yōu)秀員工之外,企業(yè)的高管在坐班的問(wèn)題上也向來(lái)?yè)碛懈蟮撵`活性。
IT服務(wù)公司Akkodis的北美大區(qū)總裁邁克·斯莫爾對(duì)《財(cái)富》表示:“有些公司將政策制定權(quán)下放給了經(jīng)理,這就導(dǎo)致了各部門(mén)執(zhí)行尺度不一致的情況。有的是員工要強(qiáng)制坐班,高管和各級(jí)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)卻不用強(qiáng)制坐班。這就給全體員工傳遞了一個(gè)非常矛盾的信號(hào)。”
卡普蘭表示,企業(yè)高層的特殊化是一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期存在的普遍現(xiàn)象,高管每天遲到早退幾個(gè)小時(shí),也不會(huì)有任何人說(shuō)什么。畢竟官大一級(jí)壓死人。
“每到周五,高管和其他任何有條件自由安排工作的人就跑去游山玩水了,大家對(duì)此都習(xí)以為常。高管一直都在搞特殊化。”卡普蘭說(shuō)。
不過(guò)也有專(zhuān)家指出,高管的“特殊化”還有更深刻的原因。高管的職責(zé)一般更為重大,需要經(jīng)常出差、開(kāi)會(huì)、跟客戶(hù)吃飯。所以靈活性對(duì)他們的履職也很重要。
弗羅斯特表示:“對(duì)于高管而言,這更多是工作性質(zhì)決定的。他們的職責(zé)范圍更廣,所以需要更大的靈活性。”
搞特殊化易引起員工矛盾
專(zhuān)家表示,在強(qiáng)制坐班的問(wèn)題,如果大家都在遵守制度,而公司卻對(duì)有些搞特殊的人睜一只眼閉一只眼,則必然會(huì)在辦公室里種下不滿(mǎn)的種子。
丹尼爾·趙認(rèn)為:“如果員工覺(jué)得你在搞區(qū)別對(duì)待,那么這對(duì)你的企業(yè)文化將是很有破壞力的。所以制定一套清晰的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)至關(guān)重要,否則你就會(huì)給自己惹來(lái)一堆麻煩。”
據(jù)調(diào)查,美國(guó)絕大多數(shù)員工本來(lái)就非常討厭強(qiáng)制坐班。匹茲堡大學(xué)2024年的一項(xiàng)研究顯示,在恢復(fù)強(qiáng)制坐班后,99%的公司的員工整體工作滿(mǎn)意度都出現(xiàn)了下滑,而且公司的財(cái)務(wù)狀況并未因?yàn)閱T工恢復(fù)坐班而改善。一旦讓這些員工發(fā)現(xiàn)你在搞區(qū)別對(duì)待,情況可能只會(huì)更糟。
卡普蘭表示:“所有調(diào)查都表明,搞區(qū)別對(duì)待會(huì)讓員工覺(jué)得不公平,會(huì)讓員工與雇主之間產(chǎn)生隔閡。這就好比你原本就提不起來(lái)工作熱情,現(xiàn)在又有人拿槍逼著你每周坐班5天,這簡(jiǎn)直就是在給你的傷口上撒鹽。而這歸根結(jié)底是因?yàn)楣镜墓芾沓隽藛?wèn)題。”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
普通員工強(qiáng)制坐班,高管和骨干卻可以“居家”和“遠(yuǎn)程”辦公,如此區(qū)別對(duì)待為哪般。Getty Images
? 搞“特殊化”現(xiàn)象在職場(chǎng)中長(zhǎng)期存在。在恢復(fù)強(qiáng)制坐班政策以來(lái),美國(guó)好多公司又搞起了特殊化。一些企業(yè)對(duì)骨干愛(ài)將不來(lái)坐班睜一只眼閉一只眼,但這有可能形成“有毒”的工作環(huán)境。
后疫情時(shí)代,美國(guó)企業(yè)開(kāi)始大力推行重返辦公室辦公的政策。不過(guò)這項(xiàng)政策執(zhí)行起來(lái)也并不是一刀切。比如有些公司骨干員工遲到早退,甚至根本不在辦公室坐班,他們的老板對(duì)此也是睜一只眼閉一只眼。
自從疫情防控措施解除以來(lái),美國(guó)已有成百上千萬(wàn)員工被強(qiáng)制要求重返辦公室辦公。這其中不乏亞馬遜、微軟、摩根大通和戴爾這樣的大企業(yè),盡管他們的員工對(duì)此政策深感不滿(mǎn)。很多員工甚至憤而辭職,跳槽到了那些允許遠(yuǎn)程辦公或者混合辦公的公司。為了避免最優(yōu)秀的員工流失掉,有些公司只得默許了一些骨干愛(ài)將繼續(xù)在家辦公。
比如,曾任AT&T公司首席渠道經(jīng)理的克里斯·佩萊斯基向《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》透露,他們公司也執(zhí)行每周5天坐班制,但是在執(zhí)行上卻有出入。他指出,“公司里有很多搞特殊化的”,有些員工在這項(xiàng)政策上明顯是被給予了照顧。
他表示:“有些人因崗位類(lèi)別而得到了合理照顧,這可以理解,但是也有很多人就是單純地‘被領(lǐng)導(dǎo)寵著’。”
有專(zhuān)家告訴《財(cái)富》,在職場(chǎng)上,一些員工搞“特殊化”的例子簡(jiǎn)直不要太多。早在混合辦公模式成為“新常態(tài)”之前,這種差別待遇就已長(zhǎng)期存在。一些優(yōu)異員工和資深員工甚至可以不像普通員工一樣遵守企業(yè)的部分規(guī)章制度,這當(dāng)然是因?yàn)樗麄儎诳喙Ω撸蛘咴诠景l(fā)揮了不可替代的作用。但是,一旦其他員工意識(shí)到了這種差別待遇,不滿(mǎn)情緒就有可能蔓延開(kāi)來(lái),進(jìn)而形成有害的工作文化。
光輝國(guó)際CHRO業(yè)務(wù)高級(jí)客戶(hù)合伙人丹?卡普蘭對(duì)《財(cái)富》表示:“你可以說(shuō)這是搞特殊化,也可以說(shuō)這是區(qū)別對(duì)待,這些都沒(méi)有錯(cuò)。”至于如何安排上班才能最有效率,沒(méi)有哪一種方法是放之四海皆準(zhǔn)的,所以雇主們“做出了更多的特殊安排,給人的感覺(jué)有些隨意,像是在搞區(qū)別對(duì)待。”
優(yōu)秀員工有更大影響力,他們也是面對(duì)強(qiáng)制坐班政策最先跳槽的人
簡(jiǎn)而言之,優(yōu)秀員工之所以會(huì)被區(qū)別對(duì)待,是因?yàn)樗麄冎雷约焊y被替代。求職平臺(tái)Glassdoor的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家丹尼爾·趙對(duì)《財(cái)富》表示,一般來(lái)說(shuō),企業(yè)并不愿意因?yàn)槟悴幌氲睫k公室坐班就辭退你,特別是對(duì)公司的明星員工。
他表示:“當(dāng)你制定一項(xiàng)新政策時(shí),你肯定會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)它要被強(qiáng)力執(zhí)行。但是公司并不想解雇每一個(gè)違反這項(xiàng)政策的人,尤其是如果情節(jié)并不嚴(yán)重的話。而業(yè)績(jī)出色的員工和資深員工往往能得到更多回旋余地,因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诠纠锔杏绊懥Α也粌H在坐班這個(gè)問(wèn)題上,在公司的其他問(wèn)題上一般也是如此。”
光輝國(guó)際的卡普蘭表示,他也見(jiàn)到一些公司在坐班的問(wèn)題上搞區(qū)別對(duì)待的情況,尤其是那些對(duì)員工出勤情況管理得不嚴(yán)的公司。目前,美國(guó)很多公司對(duì)員工到崗辦公的政策仍然相當(dāng)模糊,甚至一個(gè)公司里不同的團(tuán)隊(duì)都有不同的要求,有的要求一周到崗3天,有的要求一周到崗5天,具體由中層管理者說(shuō)了算。在企業(yè)探索如何坐班最科學(xué)合理的過(guò)程中,往往缺乏協(xié)調(diào)一致的舉措。而對(duì)于那些業(yè)績(jī)最出色的員工,一些老板往往也不想因?yàn)檫@個(gè)問(wèn)題招惹他們。
卡普蘭表示:“如果你知道那些優(yōu)秀員工肯定會(huì)做出業(yè)績(jī),那你就應(yīng)該少干涉他們,讓他們放開(kāi)手去干。你應(yīng)該做的是花時(shí)間和精力幫助他們?nèi)〉酶蟮臉I(yè)績(jī)。”
另外,一旦企業(yè)強(qiáng)制要求員工坐班,那些業(yè)績(jī)最出色的員工往往會(huì)最先離職。根據(jù)高德納公司(Gartner)2024年的一項(xiàng)研究,在得知公司將恢復(fù)每周5天坐班制后,優(yōu)秀員工的留任意愿下降了16%,在所有受訪群體中降幅最高。專(zhuān)家表示,這主要是因?yàn)閮?yōu)秀員工知道自己有退路,他們完全可以在其他公司找到一份待遇還不錯(cuò)的遠(yuǎn)程工作。
職場(chǎng)咨詢(xún)公司美世(Mercer)的全球薪酬福利解決方案負(fù)責(zé)人戈德·弗羅斯特在接受《財(cái)富》采訪時(shí)表示:“盡管現(xiàn)在的就業(yè)市場(chǎng)不像幾年前那么火爆了,但是對(duì)于頂尖人才而言,他們始終都是有其他選擇的。頂級(jí)員工總是有其他機(jī)會(huì)的,我認(rèn)為企業(yè)對(duì)這一點(diǎn)也是很敏感的,所以他們肯定會(huì)小心地權(quán)衡這個(gè)問(wèn)題。”
高管向來(lái)有特權(quán)
除了優(yōu)秀員工之外,企業(yè)的高管在坐班的問(wèn)題上也向來(lái)?yè)碛懈蟮撵`活性。
IT服務(wù)公司Akkodis的北美大區(qū)總裁邁克·斯莫爾對(duì)《財(cái)富》表示:“有些公司將政策制定權(quán)下放給了經(jīng)理,這就導(dǎo)致了各部門(mén)執(zhí)行尺度不一致的情況。有的是員工要強(qiáng)制坐班,高管和各級(jí)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)卻不用強(qiáng)制坐班。這就給全體員工傳遞了一個(gè)非常矛盾的信號(hào)。”
卡普蘭表示,企業(yè)高層的特殊化是一個(gè)長(zhǎng)期存在的普遍現(xiàn)象,高管每天遲到早退幾個(gè)小時(shí),也不會(huì)有任何人說(shuō)什么。畢竟官大一級(jí)壓死人。
“每到周五,高管和其他任何有條件自由安排工作的人就跑去游山玩水了,大家對(duì)此都習(xí)以為常。高管一直都在搞特殊化。”卡普蘭說(shuō)。
不過(guò)也有專(zhuān)家指出,高管的“特殊化”還有更深刻的原因。高管的職責(zé)一般更為重大,需要經(jīng)常出差、開(kāi)會(huì)、跟客戶(hù)吃飯。所以靈活性對(duì)他們的履職也很重要。
弗羅斯特表示:“對(duì)于高管而言,這更多是工作性質(zhì)決定的。他們的職責(zé)范圍更廣,所以需要更大的靈活性。”
搞特殊化易引起員工矛盾
專(zhuān)家表示,在強(qiáng)制坐班的問(wèn)題,如果大家都在遵守制度,而公司卻對(duì)有些搞特殊的人睜一只眼閉一只眼,則必然會(huì)在辦公室里種下不滿(mǎn)的種子。
丹尼爾·趙認(rèn)為:“如果員工覺(jué)得你在搞區(qū)別對(duì)待,那么這對(duì)你的企業(yè)文化將是很有破壞力的。所以制定一套清晰的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)至關(guān)重要,否則你就會(huì)給自己惹來(lái)一堆麻煩。”
據(jù)調(diào)查,美國(guó)絕大多數(shù)員工本來(lái)就非常討厭強(qiáng)制坐班。匹茲堡大學(xué)2024年的一項(xiàng)研究顯示,在恢復(fù)強(qiáng)制坐班后,99%的公司的員工整體工作滿(mǎn)意度都出現(xiàn)了下滑,而且公司的財(cái)務(wù)狀況并未因?yàn)閱T工恢復(fù)坐班而改善。一旦讓這些員工發(fā)現(xiàn)你在搞區(qū)別對(duì)待,情況可能只會(huì)更糟。
卡普蘭表示:“所有調(diào)查都表明,搞區(qū)別對(duì)待會(huì)讓員工覺(jué)得不公平,會(huì)讓員工與雇主之間產(chǎn)生隔閡。這就好比你原本就提不起來(lái)工作熱情,現(xiàn)在又有人拿槍逼著你每周坐班5天,這簡(jiǎn)直就是在給你的傷口上撒鹽。而這歸根結(jié)底是因?yàn)楣镜墓芾沓隽藛?wèn)題。”(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:樸成奎
High achieving workers and executives have leverage in following the rules, because employers don’t want to lose their favorites.
? Favoritism has long existed in the workplace, and now it’s dictating who has to abide by widely despised RTO rules. Experts say top performers get preferential treatment because they have unique leverage—but it’s fueling a toxic work environment.
Companies are bringing down the return-to-office hammer—but the rules don’t apply to everyone. Some bosses are turning a blind eye to their golden children slipping out early, or not showing up at all.
Millions of workers have been forced back into the office since pandemic-era restrictions lifted. Amazon, Microsoft, JP Morgan, and Dell are just a few on the list of employers who are returning to in-person, despite outrage from their staffers. In return, many staffers are fleeing for hybrid and remote options elsewhere—especially top performers. To avoid losing their favorite employees, some are letting RTO defiance slide with high-achieving workers.
Chris Pelesky, a former lead channel manager at AT&T, told The Wall Street Journal he found inconsistencies with enforcing the company’s five-day RTO mandate. He noted “many cases of favoritism,” and that some employees were allowed to be more lax with the policy than others.
“Some people were correctly protected by classification, that’s understandable, but there were a lot of ‘teachers’ pets’ situations as well,” he said.
Experts told Fortune there have been instances of preferential treatment toward some employees; but also that favoritism long existed before the normalcy of hybrid work. They say top performers and senior staffers are often not held to the same rules as others, because they have more leverage and different responsibilities. But when others notice the bias, disdain can spread and create a toxic work culture.
“You can say it’s favoritism, you could say it’s preferential treatment. You could call it a host of different things, and they’re all probably right,” Dan Kaplan, senior client partner at Korn Ferry’s CHRO practice, told Fortune. While there’s no one-size-fits all approach, employers are “creating more exceptions, which looks floppy. It looks like favoritism.”
Top performers have more leverage—and they’re the first to jump ship after RTO mandates
Put simply, top performers are treated differently because they know they’re harder to replace. Daniel Zhao, lead economist at Glassdoor, told Fortune businesses generally don’t want to lay off all RTO violators—especially their star players.
“When you’re setting a new policy, you need to emphasize that it will be enforced. But also companies don’t want to have to fire everybody who violates the policy, especially if it’s a minor violation,” he says. “Top performers or more senior employees often get more leeway because they have more leverage. That’s not just about return to office, but in general in the workplace.”
Korn Ferry’s Kaplan has also seen instances of favoritism and loose RTO enforcement—especially among those who don’t track in-office attendance. Many in-person policies are still quite squishy, with specific rules for different teams, changes between three and five days in-office, and discretion coming from middle-managers. As companies test out the best ways to move forward, they often lack a coordinated effort. And when it comes to top-performers, some bosses don’t want to step on their toes.
“If you know your top performers are going to perform, you want to get out of their way and let them perform,” Kaplan said. “You want to spend time and energy enabling them to become even better performers.”
This likely stems from the fact high-achieving workers are the first out the door when in-person work is mandated. Intent to stay among top performers dropped 16% after receiving a five-day RTO mandate, the highest out of all groups, according to a 2024 study from Gartner. Experts say this is likely because they know they have options—and can find a good remote gig elsewhere.
“Even though the job market is not as hot as it used to be a couple of years ago, for top people, they will always have choices,” Gord Frost, global rewards solution leader at workplace consulting company Mercer, told Fortune. “Top performers will always have other opportunities, and I think organizations are sensitive to that. So there’s certainly a balancing act that you need to strike.”
Senior leadership get a pass—and it’s always been that way
Favoritism goes beyond top performers—company executives also have more leeway when it comes to RTO.
“Some companies delegated the policy down to the manager. There are inconsistencies, and some of those inconsistencies could be executives or leaders having the privilege of working in a flexible or non-mandated RTO environment,” Mike Small, president of North America at IT service management company Akkodis, told Fortune. “That sends a very inconsistent message to the overall workforce.”
Preferential treatment toward the higher-ups has always existed though, Kaplan said. It’s a tale as old as time—leadership slipping out a few hours early or showing up late to the office, yet getting no flack for it. Their seniority has always been a buffer.
“Everyone looked the other way when on Friday, senior folks and anyone who had the freedom to afford it would leave. They take the shuttle bus out to the Hamptons, Lake Tahoe, Lake Michigan,” Kaplan said. “There always have been special situations.”
But experts say there might be a more profound reason why executives get a free pass. Their jobs often carry greater responsibility, which requires traveling for interviews, client dinners, or attending meetings. Flexibility has always been core to their in-person attendance.
“With executives, that’s more the nature of those jobs,” Frost said. “They require that you be more flexible in general, because your scope of responsibility is larger.”
Favoritism driving tension at the office
Turning a blind eye to anyone who disobeys RTO policies while others are following suit will invariably sow a seed of disdain at the office, experts say.
“If there’s a perception that you’re willing to play favorites, that can be really damaging for your culture,” Zhao said. “It’s important to have a clear set of standards, because otherwise you just open yourself up to a whole can of worms.”
An overwhelming number of employees already hate RTO. About 99% of companies that enforced in-person mandates saw a drop in their workers’ overall job satisfaction, and reaped no financial improvement, according to a 2024 study from the University of Pittsburgh. Witnessing that the rules don’t apply to everyone only makes it worse.
“Every survey is showing that people are feeling disenfranchised and disconnected to their employer. So if you’re feeling uninspired, now you feel like there’s a gun to your head forcing you to go to the office five days a week,” Kaplan said. “It’s just throwing salt on an open wound because it has been so mismanaged.”