One in four executives admitted something most won’t say out loud: they hoped return to office mandates would make employees quit.
That’s the 25% admission from BambooHR’s research, and it reveals the gap between what executives say publicly and what they’re actually doing. They talk about spontaneous hallway conversations and innovation. They go on about culture and collaboration.
This analysis is part of our comprehensive guide on return to office mandates and the productivity data companies ignore, where we explore the disconnect between corporate messaging and research evidence.
But the real drivers? Commercial real estate obligations they can’t justify. Managerial control psychology they won’t admit. Cost reduction through quiet layoffs they dress up as culture initiatives.
When you recognise that stated rationales are pretexts for economic and psychological drivers, you can see the dysfunction for what it is. Let’s get into it.
What Are Quiet Layoffs and Why Are Executives Using RTO to Achieve Them?
Quiet layoffs use unpopular policies to make employees quit voluntarily. No severance. No WARN Act compliance. No negative headlines.
BambooHR‘s survey of 1,500 U.S. managers found executives and HR professionals admitted hoping RTO would drive voluntary turnover. Nearly 40% believed their organisations conducted formal layoffs only because not enough workers quit in response to RTO mandates.
The Federal Reserve documented this in their Beige Book report, noting employers used RTO mandates to “encourage attrition” as a deliberate workforce reduction strategy.
For large organisations reducing thousands of employees, avoiding severance packages saves tens of millions.
But there’s a problem. High performers are 16% more likely to leave under strict RTO policies because they have better external opportunities.
Companies like Dell experienced this when executives departed to competitors. The workforce reduction they hoped for backfires by creating employee turnover and organisational performance impacts that strip organisations of top talent through brain drain. RTO mandates are layoffs in disguise. But they’re also inverse selection mechanisms that damage competitive capability.
How Do Commercial Real Estate Obligations Drive Return to Office Policies?
U.S. office vacancy hit 19.8% nationally in 2024. San Francisco reached 28.8%. That’s substantial sunk cost pressure on companies with long-term leases representing tens to hundreds of millions in commitments.
Executives face balance sheet scrutiny for underutilised real estate assets. Rather than write down unproductive investments, they force office returns to justify past spending decisions.
A 2024 Cornell study of Russell 3000 firms found that office rents determine RTO policy. The decision is about filling desks, not productivity.
Despite RTO mandates, actual office utilisation remains at only 50-65% of pre-2019 levels. West Coast offices averaged 30% occupancy in 2024. East Coast hit 50%.
JPMorgan Chase‘s strict RTO enforcement led to desk shortages and Wi-Fi problems because infrastructure couldn’t handle the influx.
The policy serves the balance sheet, not the business.
What Is Managerial Feudalism and How Does It Explain RTO Mandates?
David Graeber introduced “managerial feudalism” in his book “Bullshit Jobs” to describe executives’ psychological need for visible subordinates. Bosses need minions around to feel important.
93% of CEOs who mandate full-time office return don’t follow their own policies. They maintain flexible working arrangements whilst imposing visibility requirements on others. The hypocrisy reveals what RTO is actually about.
University of Pittsburgh professor Mark Ma found that mandates are more likely in firms with powerful CEOs who feel they are losing control over remote employees.
Managers told Fortune that a desire to better control workers provides a better explanation for mandates than stated rationales about culture and collaboration.
If you can’t see your subordinates, how do you know you have power? By physically containing bodies, the office contains people psychologically.
Instagram within Meta requires employees to work in office five days a week starting February 2026, whilst Meta maintains a three-day policy for other divisions. Same company, different feudal lords.
The measure isn’t what you deliver. It’s whether your manager can see you.
Why Do Executives Prioritise Employee Surveillance Over Measured Productivity?
34% of companies implemented badge tracking and attendance monitoring to enforce RTO compliance. These surveillance methods measure presence rather than output.
69% of companies measure RTO compliance, up from 45% in 2024. Samsung rolled out attendance tools to curb “coffee badging” where employees swipe in and immediately leave.
Badge tracking exemplifies the control psychology underlying RTO. Managers prioritise visual oversight over outcome-based metrics. When you can’t define what good performance looks like, you default to watching people work.
These surveillance tools waste resources tracking location instead of measuring output.
How Do Stated Rationales (Culture, Collaboration) Contradict Research Evidence?
Companies cite “culture,” “collaboration,” and “innovation” as public justifications.
99% of companies with RTO experienced employee engagement drops. Nearly half witnessed higher-than-expected attrition.
76% of leaders say face-to-face work boosts engagement, yet 99% saw engagement drops. 63% believe in-person time improves productivity, but research shows no productivity improvements from forced office return.
Stanford WFH Research found that only 44% of workers would comply with a five-day RTO policy. 41% would job hunt. 14% would quit immediately.
University of Pittsburgh’s study found RTO mandates reduced employee satisfaction without increasing firm value or performance—findings consistent with what research really shows about RTO and productivity.
Amazon provides the poster case. When they announced their five-day mandate, 30,000 employees signed petitions and 1,800+ pledged walkouts. 91% expressed dissatisfaction. 73% considered leaving.
The gap between messaging and outcomes exposes the disconnect revealed in our broader analysis of return to office mandates and productivity data. These public narratives mask the real drivers: commercial real estate obligations, managerial control psychology, and workforce reduction goals.
What Does the 25% Executive Admission Reveal About Corporate Intentions?
One in four C-suite executives and nearly one in five HR leaders admitted they were hoping some employees would quit when RTO policies were introduced.
This is explicit admission, not inference. They revealed that workforce reduction is the primary driver, not performance improvement.
The Federal Reserve documented this in their official Beige Book report. This is government validation that attrition strategy is widespread corporate practice.
BambooHR concluded that “RTO mandates are layoffs in disguise.” Executives tell employees they’re bringing them back for collaboration. They tell researchers they hoped employees would quit.
Using RTO mandates to induce voluntary resignations may constitute constructive dismissal in some jurisdictions. If you’re making working conditions so unacceptable that employees have no choice but to resign, that’s strategic workforce reduction disguised as office policy.
Nearly 40% of all managers believe their organisation did formal layoffs because not enough workers quit. The quiet layoff strategy failed, so companies had to conduct actual layoffs anyway.
You get the worst of both outcomes: high performer flight followed by formal layoffs of whoever remains. This dysfunction underlies the patterns documented in our comprehensive guide to return to office mandates and ignored productivity data.
How Does Productivity Theatre Replace Actual Performance Measurement?
88% of remote workers and 79% of in-office workers say they go out of their way to show they’re being productive.
This performance-based evaluation replaces objective outcome metrics. Instead of tracking deliverable completion, organisations track presence and visible activity.
Remote workers maintain visible online presence. Green status indicators. Quick message responses. 64% keep their status green all day, even when not working.
Office workers walk around to be seen. Stay late to signal commitment. Strategic face time with managers.
The time spent appearing productive reduces actual productivity. You’re working on performance instead of contribution.
Gartner research shows remote workers are often more productive despite the theatre pressure. But actual productivity doesn’t matter when visibility is what’s being measured.
Why Are Economic, Psychological, and Financial Motives Converging on RTO?
Three forces drive RTO simultaneously, and their alignment explains why mandates persist despite evidence contradicting stated rationales.
The economic driver: 19.8% office vacancy creating balance sheet pressure. Companies have tens to hundreds of millions in lease commitments for underutilised space.
The psychological driver: managerial feudalism and control needs. 93% of CEOs maintain flexible arrangements whilst imposing visibility requirements on subordinates. Mark Ma’s research found that mandates happen when managers “blame employees as a scapegoat for bad firm performance.”
The financial driver: 25% admitted hoping for attrition. Quiet layoffs avoid severance costs and negative publicity.
Each motive appeals to different constituencies. Real estate pressure resonates with CFOs. Control needs satisfy managers who feel they’ve lost authority. Cost reduction appeals to executives focused on short-term financials.
This convergence creates political resilience. When one rationale fails scrutiny, others remain. You can’t overcome RTO mandates with productivity data alone because productivity isn’t the real concern—as detailed in our analysis of return to office mandates and the research companies ignore.
Understanding this helps you navigate organisational politics. When executives invoke culture and collaboration, they’re often masking economic real estate pressures, psychological control desires, or financial workforce reduction goals.
Conclusion
Three motives converge on RTO: economic pressures from 19.8% office vacancy, psychological needs for managerial control, and financial strategies using attrition to avoid severance costs.
When executives talk about culture whilst privately hoping for resignations, they’re running deception campaigns. 99% of companies with RTO saw engagement drops. No productivity improvements materialise. High performers exit at higher rates—creating the organisational consequences of these hidden motives through brain drain and competitive disadvantage.
Understanding these hidden motives matters for navigating organisational politics. When you recognise that collaboration messaging masks real estate obligations and control agendas, you can build effective responses. For the complete context on how these dynamics fit into the broader RTO landscape, see our comprehensive overview of return to office mandates and the productivity data companies ignore.
That knowledge is a tactical advantage.
FAQ Section
Are companies using return to office mandates to make people quit?
Yes. BambooHR research found 25% of C-suite executives and 18-20% of HR professionals admitted hoping RTO mandates would drive voluntary resignations. The Federal Reserve documented companies using RTO to “encourage attrition” as a workforce reduction strategy. This avoids severance costs, WARN Act requirements, and negative publicity. However, high performers (16% more likely to leave) depart whilst less marketable employees stay.
What percentage of CEOs enforce RTO rules they don’t follow themselves?
93% of CEOs who mandate full-time office return don’t follow their own policies, maintaining flexible working arrangements. This hypocrisy undermines stated rationales about culture and collaboration. If physical presence were truly necessary, leaders would model it. The double standard reveals RTO as a tool for controlling subordinates rather than evidence-based strategy.
How much does commercial real estate influence RTO decisions?
U.S. office vacancy reached 19.8% nationally (28.8% in San Francisco), creating substantial sunk cost pressure on companies with long-term leases representing tens to hundreds of millions. Executives face balance sheet scrutiny for underutilised assets. Despite RTO mandates, actual office utilisation remains at only 50-65% of pre-2019 levels, suggesting real estate justification drives policy more than operational necessity.
What is managerial feudalism and how does it relate to RTO?
Managerial feudalism, a concept from David Graeber’s “Bullshit Jobs,” describes executives’ psychological need for visible subordinates to signal status. Managers measure power by physical presence rather than business results. This explains why 93% of CEOs don’t follow their own RTO mandates. They maintain flexibility whilst imposing visibility requirements on others. RTO serves managerial identity needs rather than organisational performance.
Why do stated RTO rationales contradict research evidence?
Companies cite “culture,” “collaboration,” and “innovation” as RTO justifications, yet 99% of organisations experienced employee engagement drops. Research shows no productivity improvements from forced office return. These contradictions reveal stated rationales as public narratives masking actual drivers: commercial real estate obligations (19.8% vacancy), managerial control psychology, and workforce reduction (25% admitted attrition goals).
How does productivity theatre waste time and resources?
Productivity theatre requires employees to perform busyness rather than focus on output. 88% of remote workers feel pressure to maintain visible online presence (green status, quick responses), whilst office workers perform visibility rituals (walking around, staying late). This performance-based evaluation replaces objective metrics like deliverable completion. The time spent appearing productive reduces actual productivity.
What are the legal risks of using RTO for quiet layoffs?
Using RTO mandates to induce voluntary resignations may constitute constructive dismissal in some jurisdictions. Employees who can demonstrate their roles were successfully performed remotely may have grounds for legal challenge. The BambooHR admission that 25% of executives hoped for voluntary turnover provides documentary evidence of intent. Legal precedent varies by location and circumstances.
How does RTO affect different geographic regions?
Office attendance varies dramatically by region. West Coast U.S. averages 30% occupancy, East Coast 50%, whilst Asian cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo see 85-90%. San Francisco has the highest vacancy rate at 28.8%, creating extreme real estate pressure for tech companies. These differences reflect cultural attitudes toward work, industry composition, and employee bargaining power.
Why do high performers leave when companies mandate RTO?
High performers are 16% more likely to leave under strict RTO policies because they have greater external opportunities. They can secure remote-friendly roles with competitors. Companies like Dell experienced executive departures after strict RTO implementation. This creates a brain drain effect where the most valuable employees exit whilst those with fewer options remain.
What’s the connection between badge tracking and surveillance culture?
34% of companies implemented badge tracking and attendance monitoring to enforce RTO compliance. These surveillance methods measure presence rather than output. Badge tracking exemplifies the control psychology underlying RTO. Managers prioritise visual oversight over outcome-based metrics. This approach wastes resources tracking location instead of measuring contribution.
How do executives justify RTO despite employee engagement drops?
99% of companies with RTO mandates experienced employee engagement decreases, yet executives persist. This resolves when understanding actual motives: real estate sunk costs (19.8% vacancy creating balance sheet pressure), managerial control psychology (feudalism requiring visible subordinates), and quiet layoffs (25% admitted hoping for attrition). Since stated rationales are pretexts, contradicting engagement data doesn’t change decisions.
What is the financial calculation behind quiet layoffs through RTO?
Companies using RTO to induce voluntary resignations avoid severance packages (often weeks to months of salary), WARN Act compliance costs, and unemployment insurance increases. For large organisations, these savings can reach tens of millions. However, this calculation ignores costs of losing high performers (16% more likely to leave), brain drain effects on capability, and competitive talent disadvantage.
