As companies navigate post-pandemic work policies, a significant debate has arisen over the requirement for managers and higher-level leaders to work 100% onsite. This policy shift is gaining traction among some businesses, emphasizing the traditional view that physical presence in the office is crucial for effective leadership and management. However, this move has also sparked a considerable amount of debate among professionals, as evidenced by discussions on platforms like Glassdoor.

The Case for 100% Onsite Work
Proponents of requiring managers to work entirely onsite argue that leadership presence in the office is essential for a number of reasons. Firstly, it facilitates direct supervision and more effective communication. Being physically present allows leaders to better gauge the mood and dynamics of their teams, potentially leading to more responsive and adaptive management practices. As one commenter on Glassdoor notes,

“There’s a tangible difference in the operational dynamics when leaders are directly interacting with their teams. It fosters a culture of accountability and immediate feedback.”

Furthermore, advocates believe that having leaders consistently in the office sets a strong example for other employees, promoting a culture of dedication and visibility.. It also potentially enhances collaboration, as spontaneous meetings and discussions can occur more naturally without the barriers imposed by digital communication tools.

The text ‘I keep my “center of excellence” in my pants’ was posted by a user with the nickname Amazon1 on Glassdoor, during a discussion about whether managers and leaders should be required to work 100% onsite.

The Counterarguments
However, critics of the 100% onsite mandate for managers raise significant concerns, particularly around flexibility and work-life balance. The pandemic has demonstrated that many aspects of management and leadership can be effectively conducted remotely, without a loss in productivity or team cohesion. Opponents argue that forcing managers to return to the office full-time could be seen as a step back in workplace evolution.

“Requiring managers to be in the office full-time disregards the lessons learned during the pandemic about flexibility and the potential for remote management,” one Glassdoor user expressed .

The argument regarding diversity and inclusion: Remote work has been a significant boon for inclusivity, allowing individuals who may have disabilities or caregiving responsibilities greater access to leadership roles. By mandating onsite work, companies might unintentionally marginalize these employees and narrow the pool of talent from which they can draw.

Impact on Recruitment and Retention
The decision to enforce 100% onsite work for managers could also impact a company’s ability to recruit and retain talent. In today’s competitive job market, flexibility is often prized by potential employees, including those in leadership positions. Companies insisting on complete onsite work might find themselves at a disadvantage, particularly when competing for top talent against firms that offer more flexible working arrangements.

The debate over whether managers should work entirely onsite is complex and multifaceted. While the presence of leaders within the office can undoubtedly enhance certain aspects of business operations, the importance of flexibility and the proven effectiveness of remote work cannot be underestimated.

What are your thoughts about requiring managers and leaders to be 100% onsite in the office?