Corporate leaders and their employees are in a fight for the soul of the workplace. For many of us, the outcome will define our work life for decades.

Since the pandemic began, many employees have relied on remote work to perform their jobs. But employers have applied steady and increasing pressure to do more work in the office, fueled by a belief that employees work more effectively when they’re physically present. There is little objective data to support their position, but it remains strongly held by many. As a result, companies continue to bludgeon their workers with return-to-office (RTO) mandates. And those affected by them continue to fight back.

The benefits of in-person interaction are meaningful, such as spontaneous opportunities to learn and collaborate. Rather, the real dispute is about who decides how and to what extent that kind of work will happen. Some leaders believe that more control over where people work will create better results, but the data tell a different story. It is clear that mandates should end.

Attendance requirements fail and aggravate. Despite sustained efforts to get people in more often, office attendance has been flat. Employees with rigid work schedules are substantially more likely to leave a job compared to those with flexibility, according to a Future Forum study released earlier this year. And these sentiments are not confined to the lower ranks. Most executives insist on some autonomy over where they work.

Many in leadership do not realize that when they enact a mandate they often trigger an innate response to oppose it. This reaction is a well-studied behavior referred to as