Are Government RTO Policies the True Definition of Insanity?

Recent return-to-office (RTO) initiatives have been met with considerable resistance and noncompliance. Despite the repeated failure of RTO efforts, leaders continue to launch RTO cycles, seemingly expecting different outcomes. This persistence in repeating the same RTO strategy while hoping for different outcomes calls to mind the age-old definition of insanity. The federal and state government’s RTO efforts will run into the same resistance and noncompliance that we’ve seen in the private sector, and smart government leaders should learn from these failures to avoid RTO insanity.

The concept of a “failed” RTO is often marked by repeated attempts to bring employees back to the office after initial efforts have faltered. According to the recent Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes (SWAA) run by academics at Stanford University, the Hoover Institution, and the University of Chicago, RTO reruns are astonishingly frequent, with 6% of employees having experienced five or more attempts at returning to the office. This statistic translates to nearly 10 million employees in the U.S. alone. The psychological impact of enduring multiple RTO initiatives is significant, leading to confusion, frustration, and ultimately, noncompliance.

One of the most telling indicators of RTO failure is the level of noncompliance among employees. The data from the SWAA survey shows that compliance is lowest among those who have experienced multiple RTO attempts. A striking one-quarter of employees at companies with numerous RTO initiatives continue to disregard these policies.

Moreover, approximately one-third of managers are reportedly not enforcing RTO mandates, suggesting that they perceive these directives as ineffective or counterproductive. A report from Owl Labs similarly finds a large proportion of middle managers failing to enforce RTO mandates. Business Insider called this the “hushed hybrid” trend, of managers secretly allowing employees flexibility around organizational policies.

Given these realities, we can learn from the private sector’s experience to anticipate that the attempts to mandate federal and state RTOs will lead to extensive noncompliance. The consequences of noncompliance with RTO mandates in the federal and state governments will lead to significant challenges, affecting not only day-to-day operations but also the broader strategic objectives of government agencies.

A major risk associated with strict RTO mandates in the government sector is increased turnover, which can be particularly problematic given the specialized nature of many government roles. Employees who value the flexibility of remote work might seek employment outside the federal government, especially when private sector options offer more accommodating work environments. After all, more private sector workers work remotely than public sector workers, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. This potential exodus of talent can lead to a significant loss of expertise and institutional knowledge, making it difficult for agencies to fulfill their missions effectively.

In fact, the Trump administration had to scramble recently to rehire some workers it fired by mistake, showing the danger of getting rid of workers at random. That’s why President Trump recently encouraged Elon Musk and DOGE to use a scalpel rather than a hatchet approach to downsizing federal workers. RTO represents a big hatchet rather than a targeted scalpel, and may be worse than a hatchet, as it gets rid of the most talented and experienced workers.

A landmark analysis led by Mark Ma at the University of Pittsburgh, leveraging Revelio Labs’ extensive data, vividly illustrates the unintended fallout from President Biden’s return-to-office directive of coming to the office 60% of the time, compared to the much stricter 100% RTO from Trump and a number of governors in recent months. Though milder than the full-time in-office hardline policy, Biden’s hybrid mandate still sparked significant upheaval. Senior-level turnover—including directors, supervisors, and executives—jumped by 26 percent in the wake of Biden’s announcement. Employees with extensive institutional knowledge and seasoned leadership skills increasingly opted to transition into the private sector, drawn by more flexible remote-work arrangements that have become standard there.

The repercussions were even more acute among specialized, highly qualified personnel. Workers with advanced degrees and niche expertise experienced a sharp 32 percent spike in departures. These staff members—often holding critical roles in technology, scientific research, and strategic management—form the backbone of federal operations. Their exit has placed enormous strain on federal agencies, undermining their ability to sustain productivity, efficiency, and institutional stability.

We can expect even worse consequences from the full-time in-office policy, on the federal and state level. Recruitment challenges are further exacerbated by rigid RTO policies. Prospective federal and state employees are likely to consider work-life balance and flexibility when evaluating job opportunities. Agencies that insist on in-office presence may struggle to attract top talent, particularly among younger workers who prioritize flexible work arrangements.

And especially on the federal level, where President Trump seeks to staff the federal workforce with those loyal to his vision, we already see obstacles to recruitment. In fact, the new head of the FBI Kash Patel got an accommodation to work remotely much of the time. How many other accommodations will be needed, or have already been given, without making the headlines?

Enforcing RTO mandates without considering employee input can erode trust and damage the organizational culture within federal and state agencies. When employees feel their voices are disregarded, it can lead to a breakdown in the relationship between management and staff. This mistrust can foster a toxic work environment, characterized by disengagement and lack of collaboration, which can ultimately undermine the agency’s effectiveness and public perception.

In some cases, rigid RTO policies may expose federal and state agencies to legal and regulatory risks. Employees with disabilities or caregiving responsibilities might challenge these mandates as discriminatory, leading to potential lawsuits or investigations. Agencies must carefully navigate the legal landscape to ensure compliance with labor laws and regulations, particularly those concerning workplace accommodations and equal opportunity, to avoid such pitfalls.

To address these challenges, federal and state agencies should prioritize communication and collaboration with their workforce. Engaging employees in discussions about work preferences and gathering feedback can help create a sense of ownership over work arrangements. By embracing flexibility and adapting to the evolving work landscape, government agencies can build a more resilient and empowered workforce, better equipped to meet the demands of public service in the 21st century.

Have you read?
Countries with the most gold reserves.
World’s Best Public Relations Agencies (Top PR Firms).
Countries with the highest human freedom.
World’s Safest & Most Dangerous Countries For Travelers.