RTO: The Why Which Hasn't been Asked

The news of companies doubling-down on their Return to Office (RTO) requirements continues. And on the other side, companies which have adopted a remote-first design continue to flourish. Article after article is published on this topic, but none seem to analyze why some companies can flourish with a remote-first design while others demand RTO, either full time or hybrid. We know that remote work generally does not have an impact on productivity. If that is so, what is it that drives RTO or remote-first?

After reading these countless articles, I am inclined to proffer a reason as to what drives the choice. My observation is that the companies which demand RTO are in an operational state of Reactive work rather than Proactive work. (As this isn't a full thesis on the topic, this will all be based on my experience and thought. I welcome constructive advancement and criticism on these ideas from my network.)

So what do I mean by Reactive vs. Proactive operations? I'll break it down. A Reactive operation might show signs that the product is in constant reaction to economic factors. The product is likely not a leader or innovator in the industry. Also, Reactive operations might be behind with its back office/IT/HR functions. Out-of-date enterprise applications slow operations and introduce "noise/dust" into the work stream.

A Proactive operation would therefore demonstrate much of the opposite. The company is a leader or innovator in their industry. Instead of reacting to economic factors, they influence the economic path. And internally, investment is continually made in the advancement of back office work, ensuring enterprise applications are current, modern, and make use of the newest technology, such as AI/ML/RPA.

Just based on these thoughts, I propose that there is a connection between trust, management, project management, technology management, effective communication and financial planning. Those companies which lack trust between employees at all levels tend to foster or sustain a micro-management style of operation. Those companies which find themselves as Reactive tend to have issues with project management, technology management, communication or financial planning, such that there is insufficient investment in internal operations to keep the company functionally modern.

Therefore, Reactive operations are rooted in various inefficiencies which seem to match the drive to have employees RTO, whereas Proactive operations are efficient and find that there is little need for RTO.

I have no empirical data of these ideas and thoughts; however, feel it would be an interesting exploration for the organizational psychology community. I welcome your thoughts on this topic.