Will we ever stop debating “return to office?”

​As we approach the five-year anniversary of COVID, the debate over “return to office” has not subsided; to the contrary, it has been reinvigorated by recent announcements by major corporate entities and the federal government.

To date, Amazon, AT&T, Walmart, UPS, Disney, Meta and Apple require five days per week in the office, and JP Morgan will begin a five-day schedule in March. Most recently, President Trump issued an executive order requiring federal employees to return to in-person work full-time.

As the world “recovered” from COVID-19 – a process that, arguably, may never be finished – most employers had to navigate a tricky transition back to the office. Many, if not all, found themselves embracing a hybrid work model, wherein a portion of an employee’s time was spent in the office, and a portion working remotely.

​

Hybrid working in Big Law

With a gradual shift back to “normalcy”, however, we saw an increasing number of companies focus on the need for employees to physically return to the office. No industry has been without impact, and BigLaw is caught squarely in the crosshairs of this very discussion.

The majority of firms have embraced the hybrid work model as the way of the future; data shows that most AmLaw firms are still working two to three days per week in the office, with no reported plans to change their policy.

Several firms, though - particularly the NY based firms - have begun to request additional days per week in the office, and some mandating a five-day return.

​

We all know the arguments for and against remote working.

Employers feel that in-office attendance is necessary for enhanced collaboration and is essential to building an organization’s culture. Employees, on the other hand, are largely in favor of working remotely at least some of the time, and cite many benefits, including increased flexibility, reduced stress, and cost savings. ​

These are valid points on each side. Hybrid working seeks to offer the best of both worlds and provide a much-needed balance between the employer and the employees.

Surveys have shown that a large percentage of employees prefer the hybrid working model, and earnings reports show that most companies have not been negatively impacted solely by leveraging a hybrid working model.

If we have a working compromise, why, then, does “return to office” continue to dominate most discussions around a post-COVID workforce?

​

The answers are not straightforward.

The answers to the "why", from my perspective, are incredibly complex and often very personal. Employees have proven they can be just as productive from home as in the office and have grown accustomed to the flexibility of remote working.

I once heard COVID referred to as the “great reckoning” – a moment in time in which many people took a hard, long look at their priorities and reassessed the amount of time and energy they were expending on work. We cannot ignore the impact that an unprecedented global pandemic had on us as individuals, and we cannot simply flip a switch to return to our pre-pandemic ways.

​Conversely, employers have struggled mightily as well, and the legal industry has consistently performed well in spite of the pandemic. Leadership teams were under significant pressure during the COVID years to balance the firm’s business needs with employees’ welfare – and while we are largely ahead of where we were five years ago, I am not sure this pressure has yet subsided.

Perhaps a return to the traditional ways of working (i.e. five days per week in the office) indicates to some that the pandemic is behind us? It is natural to want to revert to the world as we knew it before March of 2020, is it not?

There is also the practical issue of economics; it is no secret that BigLaw spends a significant amount of money in prime real estate, and full occupancy is often necessary to see a return on a firm’s investment in infrastructure. Employees, however, do not see this as their problem to solve.

​Generational differences?

At the risk of being controversial, I also believe that this debate is rooted, to some extent, in generational differences. The premise that meaningful connections can only be made in person, and that on-site work is of greater value than remote working is in direct contradiction to the ever-increasing use of technology and advancements to bridge communication globally.

Our experiences help to shape our beliefs, and each generation has its own characteristics and values. With up to five generations converging into one work force, there are bound to be different opinions on what model works best.

​

Consistency is key

Furthermore, not all return to office policies are being executed consistently.

Often in BigLaw, the firm’s policy is subject to the preferences of a particular department/practice/sector leader which not only sends mixed messages but can also breed resentment among team members who might be managing vastly different expectations for similar roles.

“Return to office” is a complicated issue with compelling arguments on all sides. Will companies be willing to lose talented team members over it? Will employees be willing to reduce their compensation to benefit from remote working? Time will tell. So, will we ever stop debating “return to office?” Not anytime soon.

​

About the author

Erin Lawler is Ambition's Client and Markets Advisor. With over 20 years of experience in legal marketing and business development, she brings deep industry expertise to support law firm clients in their hiring needs.

Connect with Erin on LinkedIn