What culture are we mandating?

TL;DR

What culture are we mandating?

  • 83% of CEOs predicted full return-to-office within three years. By 2026, 55% of Fortune 100 required five-day attendance. The stated reason was culture.
  • The University of Pittsburgh found no improvement in firm value, stock returns or financial performance from RTO mandates. What they did produce: 14% higher turnover, with senior managers up 19% and women up 20%.
  • 25% of VP and C-suite executives admitted they hoped the mandate would cause voluntary turnover.
  • Hybrid cuts resignations by a third with no performance loss. Hybrid roles attract 2.5 to 4 times more qualified applicants.
  • MIT Sloan found zero correlation between published values and lived culture. The mandate protected something that was never measured.

American CEOs brought people back for the culture. The evidence says most of them never defined what the culture was.

The return-to-office mandate has become the defining workforce policy of corporate America. KPMG's 2024 Global CEO Outlook found that 83% of CEOs globally predicted a full return to the office within three years (KPMG, 2024). By 2026, 55% of Fortune 100 companies required five-day office attendance, up from roughly 5% two years earlier (Gable, 2026). The stated reason, in nearly every case, was culture.

The question nobody seems to have asked is what, precisely, the culture was before the mandate.

The mandate and its rationale

When Amazon mandated five-day office attendance for 350,000 corporate employees in January 2025, CEO Andy Jassy framed it as essential for culture and collaboration. When JPMorgan Chase followed in March 2025, the language was similar. When Meta joined in February 2026, the message was the same. Culture, collaboration, connection.

The rationale sounds reasonable. The evidence behind it does not hold.

0 Statistically significant improvement in firm value or financial performance from RTO mandates Ma and Ding, University of Pittsburgh, 2024
14% Increase in employee turnover at firms that issued return-to-office mandates SpeakWise / Pitt, 2026
20% Rise in women's turnover at mandating firms, alongside a 19% climb in senior manager departures SpeakWise / Pitt, 2026

Do return-to-office mandates improve company performance?

No. The University of Pittsburgh's Katz Graduate School of Business examined S&P 500 firms that implemented return-to-office mandates and found no statistically significant improvement in firm value, stock returns or financial performance. What the mandates did produce was a measurable decline in employee satisfaction and a 14% increase in turnover, with senior managers' departures climbing nearly 19% and women's turnover rising 20%. Gallup's data shows that when remote-capable workers were forced fully on-site, engagement dropped from 23% to 17%.

The mandate was supposed to protect the culture. It damaged the engagement instead. Global engagement fell to 20% in 2025, the lowest since 2020, representing an estimated $10 trillion in lost productivity (Gallup, 2026).

What the employees heard

BambooHR surveyed 1,504 full-time salaried US employees and 504 HR professionals in 2024 and found that 25% of VP and C-suite executives admitted they had hoped the return-to-office mandate would cause voluntary turnover (BambooHR, 2024). Thirty-seven per cent of managers believed their organisation enacted layoffs because fewer employees quit than expected during the mandate. And 32% of managers acknowledged that tracking employees was a main goal of bringing people back.

"When the reason given is culture but the action looks like control, people read the action, not the reason."

The employees noticed. Amazon's internal satisfaction score fell to 1.4 out of 5, with 91% of surveyed employees expressing unhappiness with the policy (Gable, 2026). Forty-eight per cent of impacted Amazon employees had already applied elsewhere by November 2024, and 68% said they were somewhat or very likely to leave within a year (Strategic Organizing Center, 2024). Forty-five per cent of employees were not even assigned to the same office as their direct manager. The culture the mandate was supposed to protect was physically absent from the room.

Why do return-to-office mandates cause senior staff to leave?

BambooHR's survey of 1,504 full-time US employees found that 25% of VP and C-suite executives admitted they had hoped the mandate would cause voluntary turnover. Thirty-seven per cent of managers believed their organisation enacted layoffs because fewer employees quit than expected. When the reason given is culture but the action looks like control, people read the action, not the reason. The people who leave are disproportionately the ones organisations can least afford to lose: senior, skilled and female employees, at a replacement cost of $40,000 to $60,000 per knowledge-worker departure.

Morin, Doberstein and Charbonneau studied 39,788 open-ended comments from US federal employees across three survey waves and found that frustration and anger surged from 11% of comments before the mandate to 33% after it. Reports of reduced productivity jumped from 10% to 33%. References to lost autonomy, virtually absent before the mandate, appeared in 19% of comments by March 2025 (Morin, Doberstein and Charbonneau, Public Personnel Management, 2026). Employees characterised the mandate as a "control issue" rather than an operational decision.

25% Of VP and C-suite executives who admitted hoping the mandate would cause voluntary turnover BambooHR, 2024
1.4/5 Amazon's internal satisfaction score after the five-day office mandate Gable, 2026
68% Of impacted Amazon employees who said they were likely to leave within a year Strategic Organizing Center, 2024

The culture that was never defined

MIT Sloan's Culture 500 study analysed 1.2 million Glassdoor reviews across hundreds of large organisations and found that published values show zero correlation with the culture people actually experience (Sull, Sull and Turconi, MIT Sloan Management Review, 2020). The values on the website and the culture in the room are measuring different things entirely. If the stated reason for the mandate was to protect the culture, and the stated values don't reflect the actual culture, then the mandate is protecting something that was never measured.

Gartner surveyed 3,900 workers and found that only 25% of hybrid and remote employees feel connected to the culture they work in (Gartner, 2022). Forbes and Gallup reported in August 2026 that only 21% of employees feel connected to their organisation's culture and only 20% say their co-workers are committed to the stated values (Forbes/Gallup, 2026). These numbers are not remote-only problems. They are measurement problems.

"The arrangement is not the problem. The absence of a reading is."

- HR Executive, April 2026

What does the evidence say about hybrid versus full-time office work?

Nicholas Bloom's randomised controlled trial at Trip.com, peer-reviewed in Nature, found that a two-day-per-week hybrid schedule cut resignations by a third with no measurable productivity decline. His 2026 data shows 25% of full paid workdays in the US are now worked from home, roughly three times pre-pandemic levels, and the number has held flat since mid-2023. Hybrid roles receive 2.5 to 4 times more qualified applications than identical in-office roles. Monthly in-person gatherings for remote-first employees increased productivity by 7.8% and reduced turnover by a third.

The shift is structural, not a phase (Bloom, WFH Research, 2026). Remote positions generate 120% larger candidate pools (Datapeople, 2022). The mandate doesn't just lose existing talent. It shrinks the pool of replacement talent too.

The gains from intentional gatherings came from improved manager feedback, stronger culture and better team communication (Bloom, 2026). Not from a mandate. From an intentional design.

The organisations that defined it first

The pattern in the data is consistent. Gartner found that organisations with high culture connectedness are 4.5 times more likely to be high-performing and 11.5 times more likely to be highly engaged (Gartner, 2024). But connectedness doesn't come from proximity alone. Gartner's own research found that 60% of hybrid workers said their direct manager is the single greatest influence on their connection to culture, ahead of any physical arrangement (Gartner, 2022).

The organisations where hybrid works well, and where mandates were unnecessary, share one characteristic: they defined their culture from the people in the culture before deciding where those people sit. They measured preferences, norms and habits. They equipped managers to carry the culture intentionally, not accidentally. They designed gatherings with purpose, not just frequency. And they read the culture again, because the reading decays.

The organisations that issued mandates without measurement are now spending to replace the senior, skilled and female employees who left, at a cost of $40,000 to $60,000 per knowledge-worker departure (Coommit, 2026). For a 500-person organisation, a 10-point increase in attrition represents $2 to $3 million in replacement costs alone. The mandate that was supposed to save the culture became more expensive than reading the culture would have been.

The question underneath the mandate

The US is further into the mandate cycle than most markets. The evidence is now visible. The mandates did not improve financial performance. They did not raise engagement. They disproportionately lost senior employees, skilled employees and women. They shrank candidate pools. And the culture they were supposed to protect was never defined in the first place.

Deloitte's 2026 Human Capital Trends report found that 65% of organisations say their culture needs significant change because of AI (Deloitte, 2026). The next disruption is already arriving. The organisations that measured the culture before the mandate are ready for it. The organisations that mandated proximity instead of measurement are about to face the same question again, with fewer of the people who carried the culture still in the room.

The culture is there. The question is whether anyone has read it from the people who carry it, before the next mandate answers the wrong question.

Read next: What's happening to our culture? looks at the UK, where hybrid is settled policy and the question is what happened to the channels that carried culture along the way. And Whose culture does the customer experience? asks the alignment question in outsourced delivery, where two cultures collide at the point the customer calls.

Sariio's Culture Blueprint reads an organisation's culture from the people in the organisation, in thirty days. Learn more about the Culture Blueprint →

Sources