In a recent story published in Financial Times, staffers at JPMorgan Chase decried the organization’s strict return-to-office policy, but acknowledged they fear “career suicide” if they add their name to a petition being sent to the CEO. It’s a refrain HR knows well: leadership that wants employees back in the office, and a workforce that craves flexibility and choice.

In order to effectively make a business case supporting the interests of those workers should involve a focus on potential loss of high-value talent, says Chris Williams, global people and culture director at global employment solutions provider Mauve Group.

“The employees most likely to leave under rigid RTO policies are often the ones businesses most want to retain,” he says.

See also: Why Paramount, JPMorgan Chase and others are taking a hard line on in-office work

Taking a long-range view on talent

This talent pool, Williams says, includes “high-potential junior talent and specialists in high-demand areas such as AI and green tech, particularly those with globally transferable skills.” Competition for such talent is hot—and these segments of the workforce know it, giving them more freedom to pursue opportunities that offer a more desirable level of flexibility.

A 2024 study from Gartner is among the research supporting this idea. The firm found that high performers, women and millennials are the most likely to consider leaving an organization over a rigid RTO mandate. For average employees, intent to stay at the organization was 8% lower at organizations with a strict return policy compared to those with more flexibility; that figure doubled to 16% for high-potential talent.

Apart from prompting candidates and employees to jump ship, limited flexibility that involves geographic boundaries naturally narrows the availability talent pool, which can ultimately hinder innovation, further complicated by a loss of diversity in the workplace, Williams says.

Focus on roles, not policies

Strict return-to-office mandates may get workers back in person in the short term—and, for some, accomplish the pursuit of natural churn—but those gains could be outweighed by the long-term impacts of losing high-value talent.

“Over time, it can erode talent pipelines and undermine succession planning,” Williams says.

Any policy relating to where, when or how employees can work should be developed with an eye toward long-range talent goals.

HR needs “a clear understanding of the talent an organization aims to attract, not just for the short term, but for the next three to five years,” Williams says. Particular attention needs to go to how AI will reshape roles and responsibilities—and what that future talent will want from the workplace.

Instead of prioritizing policy, focus on individual roles, Williams advises.

“Future-thinking” organizations, he says, are reimaging the influence of flexibility—treating it not as a standalone benefit but rather as part of total rewards—while at the same time ensuring pay is benchmarked and benefits align with expectations of those who will fill high-value roles. Companies on the leading edge are also formulating specific career pathways, acknowledging the outsized influence of development opportunities on long-term retention.

Organizations that draw a clear line between role design, rewards and flexibility will be “far better placed” than others to attract and secure high-potential talent.

“In a labor market where skills are increasingly portable, flexibility and pay alignment are all interconnected,” Williams says. “Blanket RTO mandates ignore these realities.”

The post Think RTO is harmless? Top talent disagrees appeared first on HR Executive.