Abstract
This dissertation examines the multifaceted consequences of return-to-office (RTO) mandates on employee retention, psychological wellbeing, and workplace equality outcomes. Employing a systematic literature synthesis methodology, this study analyses fifty peer-reviewed papers published between 2021 and 2025, drawn from a comprehensive search across major academic databases. The findings demonstrate that RTO mandates are associated with significantly increased turnover intentions, particularly among highly skilled workers who value workplace flexibility. Furthermore, the evidence reveals that such policies disproportionately burden women, caregivers, disabled employees, and other marginalised groups, thereby threatening progress towards diversity, equity, and inclusion objectives. Critically, the research indicates that RTO mandates fail to deliver the anticipated improvements in productivity or organisational performance that proponents frequently cite as justification. Hybrid working arrangements emerge as the optimal model, balancing organisational needs with employee autonomy and wellbeing. This study concludes that organisations implementing rigid RTO mandates face substantial hidden costs that may undermine long-term strategic objectives, and recommends evidence-based, flexible approaches to workplace policy development.
Introduction
The global COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally transformed workplace arrangements, compelling organisations worldwide to adopt remote working practices at unprecedented scale and speed. As the acute phase of the pandemic receded, many employers began implementing return-to-office mandates, seeking to restore pre-pandemic working patterns. These mandates have become a focal point of considerable debate among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, with significant implications for workforce management strategies in the contemporary era.
The transition to remote working during 2020-2021 demonstrated that many knowledge-based roles could be performed effectively outside traditional office environments. Employees adapted to new ways of working, often reporting improvements in work-life balance, reduced commuting stress, and greater autonomy over their working conditions. However, as organisations sought to reinstate office-based working, tensions emerged between employer preferences and employee expectations that had evolved during the pandemic period.
This topic merits rigorous academic examination for several interconnected reasons. First, the economic implications are substantial; organisations investing in RTO mandates may inadvertently trigger costly employee turnover whilst failing to achieve anticipated productivity gains. Second, the social consequences extend beyond individual workplaces to broader patterns of labour market participation, particularly affecting groups already facing structural disadvantages. Third, the practical implications for human resource management and organisational strategy demand evidence-based guidance rather than approaches grounded primarily in tradition or managerial intuition.
The post-pandemic workplace represents a natural experiment of considerable scholarly significance, offering insights into fundamental questions about work organisation, employee motivation, and the relationship between workplace flexibility and organisational effectiveness. Understanding the true costs and benefits of RTO mandates is essential for informed decision-making at organisational, sectoral, and policy levels.
Aim and objectives
Aim
This dissertation aims to critically evaluate the hidden costs of return-to-office mandates, specifically examining their impacts on employee retention, psychological wellbeing, and workplace equality outcomes, whilst assessing the evidence base for alternative working arrangements.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To synthesise and evaluate the existing empirical evidence regarding the relationship between RTO mandates and employee turnover intentions, with particular attention to variations across demographic groups and skill levels.
2. To examine the documented effects of RTO policies on employee wellbeing, including job satisfaction, work-life balance, stress, and burnout, whilst identifying populations at heightened risk of negative outcomes.
3. To analyse the equality implications of RTO mandates, assessing their differential impacts on women, caregivers, disabled employees, and other marginalised groups within the workforce.
4. To evaluate the evidence concerning organisational performance outcomes associated with RTO mandates, including productivity, firm value, and organisational culture.
5. To identify optimal working arrangement models that balance organisational requirements with employee needs, and to articulate recommendations for evidence-based workplace policy development.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to examine the impacts of return-to-office mandates on retention, wellbeing, and equality outcomes. This approach was selected as appropriate for integrating findings from diverse empirical studies to construct a comprehensive understanding of a complex organisational phenomenon.
The literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including Semantic Scholar and PubMed, encompassing over 170 million research papers. Eight distinct search strategies were employed to ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature. These strategies captured foundational theoretical perspectives, outcome-specific research examining retention, turnover, wellbeing by gender and caregiving status, and equality outcomes for disabled employees. Additional searches addressed contrasting viewpoints, including studies reporting positive, neutral, and negative effects, and explored adjacent topics such as organisational justice and employee empowerment. Cross-disciplinary insights from urban planning and public health were incorporated, and citation graph expansion techniques were utilised to identify additional relevant publications.
The paper selection process followed a rigorous four-phase approach. During the identification phase, 1,049 potentially relevant papers were located. Screening reduced this to 789 papers based on title and abstract review. Eligibility assessment through full-text examination identified 607 papers meeting inclusion criteria, from which 50 papers were selected for detailed analysis based on relevance, methodological quality, and contribution to the research questions.
Inclusion criteria required papers to address return-to-office policies, remote working, or hybrid working arrangements in relation to at least one of the primary outcomes: retention, wellbeing, or equality. Papers were required to present original empirical findings or systematic reviews, be published in peer-reviewed outlets, and be available in English. Exclusion criteria eliminated opinion pieces without empirical grounding, studies focused exclusively on pre-pandemic working arrangements, and papers addressing unrelated aspects of workplace policy.
The selected papers span publication dates from August 2021 to October 2025, capturing the evolving evidence base as organisations transitioned from pandemic-era remote working to various post-pandemic arrangements. The temporal distribution of included studies reflects the relatively recent emergence of this research area, with publication activity intensifying from 2024 onwards as sufficient time elapsed for robust empirical investigation of RTO mandate outcomes.
Data extraction focused on study design, sample characteristics, outcome measures, key findings, and methodological limitations. Synthesised findings were organised thematically according to the primary outcomes of interest: retention and turnover, wellbeing, equality implications, and organisational performance. The quality of evidence supporting key claims was assessed considering factors including sample size, methodological rigour, consistency across studies, and the presence of meta-analytic findings.
Literature review
The evolution of remote and hybrid working
The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed a dramatic shift in working arrangements that had been gradually evolving over preceding decades. Prior to 2020, remote working remained relatively uncommon in many sectors, despite technological advances enabling distributed work. The enforced adoption of remote working during pandemic restrictions demonstrated both the feasibility and potential benefits of non-office-based work for substantial portions of the workforce.
Research conducted during the pandemic period documented various positive outcomes associated with remote working, including reduced commuting time and associated stress, greater flexibility in managing work and personal responsibilities, and, for many employees, improved focus and productivity in home-based environments (Fan and Moen, 2023). However, studies also identified challenges including social isolation, difficulties in collaboration, and the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life (Pass and Ridgway, 2022; Duraković, Aznavoorian and Candido, 2022).
As public health restrictions eased, organisations adopted divergent approaches to post-pandemic working arrangements. Some maintained fully remote models, others implemented hybrid arrangements combining office and remote working, whilst many initiated return-to-office mandates requiring employees to resume full-time or near-full-time office attendance. The variation in organisational responses created conditions enabling comparative research on the outcomes associated with different working models.
Retention and turnover implications
Multiple studies report that RTO mandates are associated with increased turnover intentions, particularly among highly skilled workers who value flexibility. This finding carries significant implications for organisational human capital strategies, as knowledge workers with scarce skills possess greater labour market mobility and options for alternative employment with more flexible employers.
Allen, Lezcano and Schoffel (2025) examined the implications of a federal government RTO mandate for workforce outcomes, finding that mandated office return was associated with elevated turnover intentions among employees who had adapted successfully to remote working during the pandemic. Ding and Mark (2024) conducted analysis of corporate RTO mandates, finding that forced return policies failed to improve organisational outcomes whilst generating employee dissatisfaction that manifested in increased departure intentions.
The concept of “brain drain” has emerged in this literature, describing the potential loss of an organisation’s most talented and mobile employees to competitors offering greater flexibility. Tresoglavic and Fisher (2025) reported that employees compelled to return to office settings often experienced alienation stemming from perceived loss of autonomy and erosion of trust in employer-employee relationships. This psychological response may explain elevated turnover intentions even among employees not facing material barriers to office attendance.
Subsequent research by Ding and Mark (2025) specifically examined federal government employee responses to RTO mandates, documenting significant increases in voluntary turnover following mandate implementation. This finding is particularly noteworthy given the traditionally high job security and stability associated with public sector employment, suggesting that flexibility preferences may override other employment considerations for substantial numbers of workers.
Decker, Butler and Meriac (2025) compared outcomes across fully remote, hybrid, and fully in-person working arrangements, finding that hybrid models were associated with the most favourable retention outcomes. This suggests that the relationship between working arrangement and turnover is non-linear, with moderate flexibility yielding benefits whilst either extreme may present disadvantages.
Wellbeing and job satisfaction
The relationship between working arrangements and employee wellbeing has attracted substantial research attention, with consistent findings that remote and hybrid working are associated with positive wellbeing outcomes compared to mandatory full-time office attendance.
Gajendran et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effects of remote work intensity, applying a dual pathway model recognising both positive and negative effects operating simultaneously. Their synthesis found modest but consistent benefits of remote and hybrid work on job satisfaction, with limited downsides even at high intensities of remote work. This meta-analytic evidence provides particularly robust support for the wellbeing benefits of flexible working arrangements.
Westover (2025) examined the impact of RTO mandates on job satisfaction, finding that mandated office return was associated with reduced satisfaction levels compared to arrangements providing employee choice over work location. The mechanism appeared to involve perceptions of reduced autonomy and flexibility, fundamental psychological needs according to self-determination theory.
Fan and Moen (2023) conducted longitudinal research tracking subjective wellbeing across different working arrangements during and following the acute pandemic period. Their findings indicated that employees who maintained remote working reported higher wellbeing than those who returned to office-based work, with particularly pronounced effects for employees with caregiving responsibilities.
The wellbeing implications of RTO mandates are not uniform across the workforce. Research consistently identifies women and caregivers as populations for whom flexible working arrangements confer particular benefits, and correspondingly for whom mandated office return poses particular risks. Williamson et al. (2024) examined whether RTO mandates might prevent proximity bias for employees working from home, finding that while this concern was theoretically valid, the costs to employee wellbeing from mandated return outweighed potential benefits from reduced proximity bias.
Pass and Ridgway (2022) investigated the impact of enforced remote working during the pandemic on employee engagement, providing baseline data for understanding subsequent transitions. Their findings emphasised the importance of organisational support and communication in shaping employee responses to changes in working arrangements, insights applicable to both remote working adoption and RTO mandate implementation.
Equality and diversity implications
A critical dimension of the RTO mandate debate concerns differential impacts across demographic groups, with accumulating evidence that such policies disproportionately burden women, caregivers, people with disabilities, workers of colour, LGBTQ+ employees, and low-wage workers.
Kalmanovich-Cohen (2025) explicitly addressed the relationship between RTO mandates and workplace inequality, arguing that flexible working arrangements are crucial for supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. The analysis indicated that rigid mandates risk exacerbating existing inequalities by removing accommodations that enabled previously excluded groups to participate more fully in the workforce.
Allen, Lezcano and Schoffel (2025) documented the particular impacts of federal RTO mandates on groups facing structural barriers to standard office attendance, including mothers of young children, employees with disabilities requiring workplace accommodations, and workers with long commutes often correlated with socioeconomic disadvantage. Their findings suggested that RTO mandates could reverse progress made during the pandemic period in expanding labour force participation among these groups.
Gibson et al. (2023) examined the question of whether employees should be required to return to the office from a multidimensional perspective, incorporating equality considerations alongside productivity and organisational culture arguments. Their analysis highlighted the tension between managerial preferences for office-based working and equity commitments, suggesting that organisations cannot simultaneously mandate full office return and maintain credible diversity and inclusion programmes.
The equality implications extend beyond individual organisations to broader labour market patterns. If flexible working becomes concentrated in certain sectors or organisations, whilst others require full office attendance, this could create segmented labour markets with differential access based on demographic characteristics correlated with caregiving responsibilities or disability status. Such segmentation would have significant implications for occupational segregation and pay equity.
Research on disabled employees and flexible working has documented the crucial role of remote working options in enabling workplace participation for individuals with physical, sensory, or cognitive impairments. Office environments may present substantial barriers for disabled workers, from inaccessible physical infrastructure to sensory environments unsuited to certain conditions. Remote working options can circumvent many such barriers, making RTO mandates potentially discriminatory in effect if not in intent.
Organisational performance and productivity
A central argument advanced in favour of RTO mandates is that office-based working enhances productivity, collaboration, and organisational culture in ways that ultimately benefit firm performance. The empirical evidence, however, provides limited support for this position.
Ding and Mark (2024) directly examined the relationship between RTO mandates and firm value, finding no significant improvement in organisational performance following mandate implementation. Their analysis suggested that the imposition of RTO policies often reflects managerial desires for control rather than evidence-based expectations of productivity improvement.
Westover (2024) critically examined the effectiveness of forced RTO mandates, contrasting them with more adaptive leadership approaches. The analysis found that successful organisations were increasingly embracing flexible working models rather than reverting to pre-pandemic arrangements, and that forced return mandates were associated with reduced employee engagement without offsetting productivity gains.
The hybrid model has emerged from comparative research as potentially optimal for organisational performance. Decker, Butler and Meriac (2025) found that hybrid arrangements combined the benefits of in-person collaboration on certain tasks with the focused work and reduced commuting stress associated with remote working. This suggests that binary framings of remote versus office working may obscure more nuanced approaches capable of capturing benefits from both modes.
Perrigino et al. (2025) examined how organisations might enhance employee perceptions of RTO mandates when restricting autonomy over work location, acknowledging that some organisational contexts may genuinely require in-person presence. Their findings emphasised the importance of transparent communication about rationale, procedural fairness in implementation, and complementary measures to support affected employees.
Managerial perspectives and organisational culture
Understanding the drivers of RTO mandate adoption requires examination of managerial perspectives and organisational culture considerations that may influence policy decisions independent of, or contrary to, empirical evidence on outcomes.
Research has identified various motivations underlying managerial preferences for office-based working, including desires for visibility and control over employees, beliefs about the importance of physical co-presence for organisational culture and identity, concerns about equity between roles that can and cannot be performed remotely, and sunk costs in office real estate investments.
Westover (2024) examined executive decision-making regarding RTO mandates, finding that many leaders relied on intuition and tradition rather than systematic evidence in formulating workplace policies. This observation suggests opportunities for evidence-based practice to improve decision-making quality, provided research findings are effectively communicated to organisational leaders.
Ki and Lee (2024) examined both the benefits and hidden costs of organisational support for telework among public employees, finding that while telework support enhanced job satisfaction and retention intention, implementation challenges required careful management. This nuanced finding indicates that the benefits of flexible working are not automatic but require organisational investment in appropriate systems, management practices, and cultural adaptations.
Knowles (2025) addressed the role of human resource professionals in providing support during RTO mandate implementation, recognising that many organisations will proceed with such mandates regardless of evidence on optimal arrangements. The analysis identified practices that could mitigate negative effects, including phased implementation, enhanced communication, attention to individual circumstances, and provision of support services for affected employees.
Discussion
The synthesised evidence presents a consistent picture of the hidden costs associated with return-to-office mandates, whilst also revealing complexities and nuances that resist simple characterisation. This discussion critically analyses the key findings in relation to the stated research objectives and considers their implications for theory, practice, and policy.
Evidence quality and strength of findings
The evidence supporting the primary findings of this review varies in strength across different claims. The strongest evidence concerns the relationship between RTO mandates and turnover intentions, supported by multiple large-scale studies using diverse methodologies across different organisational contexts. The consistency of findings across public and private sectors, and across different national contexts, enhances confidence in this conclusion.
The evidence regarding wellbeing impacts is similarly robust, bolstered by meta-analytic findings synthesising numerous individual studies (Gajendran et al., 2024). The dual pathway model recognising both positive and negative effects of remote work intensity provides theoretical grounding for understanding mechanisms, whilst empirical findings consistently favour flexible arrangements for wellbeing outcomes.
Evidence on equality implications, whilst substantial, draws more heavily on qualitative research and theoretical analysis than on large-scale quantitative studies with robust designs. This does not diminish the importance of equality considerations, but does suggest opportunities for more rigorous empirical investigation of differential impacts across demographic groups.
The claim that RTO mandates fail to improve organisational performance represents perhaps the most consequential finding for organisational decision-making, yet rests on a more limited evidence base. Ding and Mark’s (2024) analysis provides direct evidence on this question, but additional research examining diverse organisational contexts and employing varied performance measures would strengthen this conclusion.
Theoretical implications
The findings of this review have implications for several theoretical perspectives relevant to organisational behaviour and human resource management.
Self-determination theory posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental psychological needs whose satisfaction predicts wellbeing and motivation. The consistent finding that mandated office return reduces job satisfaction whilst flexible arrangements enhance it aligns with self-determination theory predictions regarding autonomy. RTO mandates remove employee choice over an important dimension of working conditions, thereby frustrating autonomy needs and generating predictable motivational and wellbeing consequences.
Organisational justice theory emphasises the importance of procedural and distributive fairness in shaping employee attitudes and behaviours. The implementation manner of RTO mandates appears significant; mandates perceived as arbitrary, inconsistent, or insufficiently justified generate more negative responses than those accompanied by transparent rationale and procedural fairness. This suggests that even where RTO is deemed necessary, attention to justice considerations can mitigate adverse effects.
The psychological contract concept captures mutual expectations between employers and employees that may not be formally documented but nonetheless shape the employment relationship. The pandemic period arguably established new psychological contracts incorporating expectations of flexibility, which RTO mandates subsequently violate. Contract violation theory would predict the negative attitudinal and behavioural responses documented in this literature.
Practical implications for organisations
The evidence reviewed carries substantial practical implications for organisational workplace policy development. Organisations considering RTO mandates should recognise the potential for increased turnover among valued employees, particularly those with scarce skills and alternative employment options. The costs of recruitment, selection, and training to replace departing employees may substantially exceed any benefits anticipated from mandated office return.
Hybrid models emerge from this research as potentially optimal, capturing benefits of in-person collaboration whilst preserving flexibility valued by employees. The specific configuration of hybrid arrangements warrants careful consideration, including the balance between office and remote days, flexibility in scheduling, and consistency of expectations across organisational units.
Attention to equality implications is essential, both for ethical reasons and to maintain compliance with legal requirements regarding non-discrimination and reasonable adjustments. Organisations should assess how RTO policies differentially affect various workforce segments and implement mitigating measures where disparate impacts are identified.
Communication and change management practices significantly influence employee responses to workplace policy changes. Transparent explanation of rationale, genuine engagement with employee concerns, and willingness to adapt policies based on feedback can reduce resistance and negative outcomes associated with RTO mandates.
Policy implications
Beyond individual organisations, the findings have implications for employment policy and regulation. Governments developing guidance on post-pandemic working arrangements should attend to evidence indicating that flexible approaches yield superior outcomes for both organisations and employees. Employment protection frameworks may require updating to address discrimination risks associated with workplace location requirements.
The Russell et al. (2021) systematic review on health workforce retention in rural and remote areas provides relevant context, demonstrating that flexible working arrangements have long been recognised as important for workforce retention in contexts where traditional office-based working presents particular challenges. This suggests that lessons from specific contexts may have broader application in post-pandemic workforce policy.
The urban planning and public health implications of widespread remote working versus office-based working extend beyond individual organisations. Chalabi and Dia (2024) documented impacts of remote work and attitudinal shifts on commuting patterns in Melbourne, Australia, findings relevant to transport planning, urban development, and environmental policy. RTO mandates that increase commuting may generate negative externalities beyond their immediate workforce effects.
Limitations and research gaps
This review, whilst comprehensive, has limitations that should be acknowledged. The included literature is concentrated in recent years, reflecting the novelty of post-pandemic RTO mandates as a research topic. Longer-term effects remain uncertain, and findings from the immediate post-pandemic period may not generalise to more distant future conditions.
Geographic coverage is uneven, with substantial research from North American and Australian contexts but less from other regions. Cultural factors may moderate the effects of RTO mandates, limiting generalisability across national contexts with different norms regarding employer authority and employee expectations.
Industry and occupational variation has received insufficient attention. Most research examines knowledge workers in roles amenable to remote performance; findings may differ for contexts where physical presence is more clearly necessary. Research examining boundary conditions for the effects documented in this review would strengthen practical guidance for diverse organisational contexts.
Intersectional analysis remains underdeveloped. Whilst research has documented differential effects by gender, disability status, and other characteristics individually, fewer studies have examined how these characteristics interact to shape experiences under different working arrangements. Employees facing multiple forms of disadvantage may be particularly affected by RTO mandates, a possibility warranting explicit investigation.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined the hidden costs of return-to-office mandates, focusing on impacts across three primary outcome domains: employee retention, psychological wellbeing, and workplace equality. The synthesis of fifty peer-reviewed papers published between 2021 and 2025 reveals consistent evidence that RTO mandates carry substantial costs that proponents may not fully appreciate.
Regarding the first objective, the evidence demonstrates that RTO mandates are associated with significantly increased turnover intentions, particularly among highly skilled workers who value flexibility and possess labour market alternatives. Organisations implementing rigid mandates risk “brain drain” as talented employees depart for more flexible competitors.
The second objective concerning wellbeing outcomes is supported by robust evidence, including meta-analytic findings, indicating that remote and hybrid working arrangements are associated with higher job satisfaction, improved work-life balance, reduced burnout, and greater psychological safety compared to mandated full-time office attendance.
The third objective regarding equality implications is addressed by evidence documenting disproportionate burdens on women, caregivers, disabled employees, and other marginalised groups. RTO mandates threaten to reverse pandemic-era progress in expanding workforce participation among these populations.
The fourth objective concerning organisational performance finds limited support for claims that RTO mandates improve productivity or firm value. Instead, such mandates often reduce job satisfaction without delivering anticipated performance benefits.
The fifth objective regarding optimal arrangements identifies hybrid models as consistently associated with favourable outcomes across multiple dimensions, balancing organisational collaboration needs with employee flexibility preferences.
The significance of these findings extends beyond immediate workplace policy decisions to fundamental questions about the future of work organisation. The pandemic demonstrated that traditional assumptions about the necessity of physical co-presence for effective knowledge work were often unfounded. Evidence-based approaches to workplace policy should incorporate this learning rather than reverting unreflectively to pre-pandemic arrangements.
Future research should address identified gaps, including long-term effects of different working arrangements, industry and occupational variation in optimal models, intersectional analysis of differential impacts, and evaluation of specific hybrid configuration designs. Longitudinal studies tracking cohorts of employees under different arrangements would provide particularly valuable evidence for policy development.
In conclusion, return-to-office mandates present substantial hidden costs across retention, wellbeing, and equality domains whilst failing to deliver promised organisational benefits. Organisations seeking to optimise workforce outcomes should adopt evidence-based, flexible approaches that prioritise employee autonomy and inclusion over managerial preferences for control and tradition.
References
Allen, T., Lezcano, A. and Schoffel, M. (2025) ‘Presidential memorandum on return to in-person work: Implications for the federal workforce’, *Industrial and Organizational Psychology*, 18, pp. 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2025.10017
Chalabi, G. and Dia, H. (2024) ‘The impacts of remote work and attitudinal shifts on commuting reductions in post-COVID Melbourne, Australia’, *Sustainability*, 16(17), 7289. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177289
Decker, G., Butler, W. and Meriac, J. (2025) ‘Best of both worlds: The benefits of hybrid work compared with remote and in‐person roles’, *Human Resource Management*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70013
Ding, Y. and Ma, M. (2024) ‘Return-to-office mandates’, *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4675401
Ding, Y. and Ma, M. (2025) ‘Federal government return to office mandate and employee turnover’, *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5262313
Duraković, I., Aznavoorian, L. and Candido, C. (2022) ‘Togetherness and (work)place: Insights from workers and managers during Australian COVID-induced lockdowns’, *Sustainability*, 15(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010094
Fan, W. and Moen, P. (2023) ‘Ongoing remote work, returning to working at work, or in between during COVID-19: What promotes subjective well-being?’, *Journal of Health and Social Behavior*, 64(2), pp. 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221465221150283
Gajendran, R., Ponnapalli, A., Wang, C. and Javalagi, A. (2024) ‘A dual pathway model of remote work intensity: A meta‐analysis of its simultaneous positive and negative effects’, *Personnel Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12641
Gibson, C., Gilson, L., Griffith, T. and O’Neill, T. (2023) ‘Should employees be required to return to the office?’, *Organizational Dynamics*, 52, 100981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2023.100981
Kalmanovich-Cohen, H. (2025) ‘Return-to-office mandates and workplace inequality: Implications for industrial-organizational psychology’, *Industrial and Organizational Psychology*, 18, pp. 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2025.10019
Ki, N. and Lee, D. (2024) ‘Benefit and hidden cost of organizational support for telework amid the COVID‐19 pandemic on public employees’ job satisfaction and retention intention’, *Public Administration Review*. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13797
Knowles, J. (2025) ‘Return to office mandates: How HR professionals can provide support’, *Strategic HR Review*. https://doi.org/10.1108/shr-02-2025-0023
Pass, S. and Ridgway, M. (2022) ‘An informed discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and “enforced” remote working on employee engagement’, *Human Resource Development International*, 25(3), pp. 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2048605
Perrigino, M., Granqvist, N., Raveendhran, R. and Wu, L. (2025) ‘How can firms enhance perceptions of return‐to‐office when restricting autonomy over where work occurs?’, *Human Resource Management*. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70034
Russell, D., Mathew, S., Fitts, M., Liddle, Z., Murakami-Gold, L., Campbell, N., Ramjan, M., Zhao, Y., Hines, S., Humphreys, J. and Wakerman, J. (2021) ‘Interventions for health workforce retention in rural and remote areas: A systematic review’, *Human Resources for Health*, 19, 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00643-7
Tresoglavic, M. and Fisher, R. (2025) ‘Individual and organizational impacts of flexible work: A study of women workers in North America’, *Journal of Human Resource Management – HR Advances and Developments*. https://doi.org/10.46287/izam3058
Westover, J. (2024) ‘The executive imperative: Reconsidering return-to-office mandates’, *Human Capital Leadership Review*. https://doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.12.2.11
Westover, J. (2024) ‘The ineffectiveness of forced return-to-office mandates: How successful leaders are adapting to new ways of working’, *Human Capital Leadership Review*. https://doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.11.2.15
Westover, J. (2025) ‘The impact of return-to-office mandates on job satisfaction’, *Human Capital Leadership Review*. https://doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.16.3.9
Williamson, S., Jogulu, U., Lundy, J. and Taylor, H. (2024) ‘Will return‐to‐office mandates prevent proximity bias for employees working from home?’, *Australian Journal of Public Administration*. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12634
