- WeAreHuman@Work
- Posts
- Returning to the office? Focus more on practices and less on the policy | McKinsey Quarterly (2025)
Returning to the office? Focus more on practices and less on the policy | McKinsey Quarterly (2025)
New research reveals that the return-to-office policy matters far less than the work environment organisations create. A study of thousands of US employees shows that five core practices—collaboration, connectivity, innovation, mentorship, and skill development—drive performance regardless of whether teams work in person, hybrid, or remote.
Tanguy Dulac
March 26, 2025
FLEXIBLE WORKING
Returning to the office? Focus more on practices and less on the policy | McKinsey Quarterly (2025) | New research reveals that the return-to-office policy matters far less than the work environment organisations create. A study of thousands of US employees shows that five core practices—collaboration, connectivity, innovation, mentorship, and skill development—drive performance regardless of whether teams work in person, hybrid, or remote.
📊 DID YOU KNOW?
Did you know that despite dramatically doubling in-office attendance from 34% to 68% between 2023 and 2024, employees' intention to leave remains stubbornly high at 39% across all working models—virtually unchanged from the pandemic-era peak of 40%?
👀 DID YOU SEE?
Figure: Five Key Working Practices
✨ OVERVIEW
This McKinsey research challenges the current debate about return-to-office (RTO) policies by revealing that the specific working model is far less important than the work environment organisations create. Based on a survey of thousands of US employees, the research shows that despite the shift toward in-person work, employee satisfaction and productivity metrics remain similar across all working models. The real issue is that organisations struggle to support five core practices that drive performance: collaboration, connectivity, innovation, mentorship, and skill development. The article identifies a significant disconnect between leaders' and employees' perceptions of how well these practices are implemented, with leaders consistently overestimating their effectiveness.
🧩 CONTEXT
Major organisations like Amazon, JP Morgan Chase, and Nike have mandated in-office policies at least four days a week, sparking debates about whether RTO policies are appropriate for today's workforce. However, McKinsey's research suggests these discussions miss a critical point: the policy itself isn't as important as the work environment and practices accompanying it. Despite overall satisfaction with working arrangements across models, employees report high intention to leave (39%) and burnout levels (28% to 36%), indicating persistent problems that transcend working models.
🔍 WHY IT MATTERS
↳ The working model alone does not determine performance—The data shows that in-person, hybrid, and remote workers report remarkably similar outcomes. Intention to leave remains nearly identical: 38% for in-person and hybrid workers and 41% for remote workers. Burnout levels are identical: 35% for in-person workers, 28% for hybrid, and 36% for remote workers. Employee effort shows only modest variation, with 34% of in-person workers strongly agreeing they put substantial effort into their work versus 29% for remote and 28% for hybrid workers.
↳ Leaders and employees have drastically different perceptions—Leaders' views of organisational practice maturity are 23-29 percentage points higher than employees' assessments. While 90% of surveyed leaders view connectivity as a mature practice, only 67% of employees agree. This perception gap means leaders may be blind to the real problems affecting their teams.
↳ Employee expectations have fundamentally changed—With 90% of remote workers and 80% of hybrid and in-person workers reporting satisfaction with their current arrangement, it's clear that a one-size-fits-all approach won't work. This is especially important for Gen Z workers, who report higher intention to leave (45-51%) and often perform best in hybrid environments.
💡 KEY INSIGHTS
↳ Five key practices drive performance regardless of working model— Collaboration, connectivity, innovation, mentorship, and skill development fuel organisational health irrespective of where employees work. Only half or fewer respondents in each model rated these practices (except connectivity) as effective at their organisations.
↳ Each practice has specific enablers that vary by working model—For collaboration, goal alignment ranks as the top enabler across all models. However, secondary factors differ: skill proficiency matters more for in-person work. At the same time, network accessibility becomes crucial for remote workers. For connectivity, leadership connection tops the list for in-person and hybrid workers, but job satisfaction takes precedence for remote employees. Innovation shows more significant variation: psychological safety leads for in-person workers, innovative culture for hybrid teams, and leader support becomes essential in remote settings.
↳ The social fabric requires deliberate maintenance—In-person workers are 10% more likely to believe they exceed expectations (25%) than hybrid workers (15%). Self-reported effort varies, with 34% of in-person workers strongly agreeing they put substantial effort into their work compared to 29% of remote and 28% of hybrid workers. Increased effort correlates with helping peers and mentoring new colleagues—behaviours that strengthen the organisation's social fabric but don't automatically materialise through proximity.
🚀 ACTIONS FOR LEADERS
↳ Senior leaders: Complement RTO policies with organisational health initiatives—Conduct an organisational health assessment to diagnose strengths and weaknesses. Shape physical environments to support various activities with adequate meeting spaces and private work areas. Maintain flexibility within RTO policies, particularly for Gen Z workers. Most importantly, visibly model the behaviours you're demanding from others.
↳ People managers: Design the workweek for maximum effectiveness—Allocate focused time with team members regardless of working model. Design workweeks with deliberate combinations of: individual time, scheduled team collaboration, and planned cross-team connections. Proactively plan when productive interactions will occur rather than assuming they happen naturally.
↳ Strengthen key enablers for each core practice—For collaboration, regularly clarify priorities and connect work to strategic objectives. For connectivity, proactively block calendar time for coffee chats, one-on-ones, and skip-level meetings. For innovation in remote settings, provide additional leadership support. For mentorship, combine formal programmes with informal peer coaching. For skill development, invest in resources beyond traditional training.
↳ Employees: Proactively adapt to new norms—Schedule regular check-ins with managers and colleagues, avoiding video calls when everyone is in the building. Align with managers on strategies for quiet time. Initiate authentic conversations about personal constraints and team norms to problem-solve for optimal outcomes jointly.
🔗 CONCLUSION
The debate about the best working model misses the fundamental issues affecting today's workforce. The policy mandate is far less important than the work environment and practices accompanying it. The substantial gap between leader and employee perceptions highlights a critical blind spot that must be addressed. By focusing on specific enablers that drive each practice and tailoring approaches to their chosen working model, organisations can improve employee experience regardless of where work happens.
🎯 KEY TAKEAWAY
To improve performance, leaders must first reestablish the five fundamental practices that drive organisational health—collaboration, connectivity, innovation, mentorship, and skill development—then select the working model that best fits their culture.