Expert Criticizes Mandatory Office Return, Calls It 'Outdated Management' - Read Now 

As tech giants like Amazon push employees back to the office full-time, the debate over the future of work continues to intensify. The term “presenteeism,” coined by Sir Gary Cooper, a professor of organizational psychology and health at the University of Manchester, is taking center stage once again as companies reinstate pre-pandemic work norms. But according to Cooper, these businesses may be headed in the wrong direction.

In a world where hybrid and remote work setups gained immense popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, a reversal to full-time office mandates seems increasingly at odds with the evolving work culture. Cooper argues that the bosses leading this charge, like Amazon’s CEO and leaders in the banking sector, are the “dinosaurs of our age”—clinging to outdated management styles that prioritize presence over productivity.

A Push to Return, but at What Cost?

Amazon’s recent announcement, requiring employees to return to the office five days a week starting January, adds to a growing trend of companies abandoning remote work. This push, fueled by a desire to strengthen company culture and foster collaboration, reflects broader sentiment across industries. A KPMG survey of 1,300 executives revealed that 63% expect their employees to be back in the office full-time by 2026.

In a similar move, Carl Pei, CEO of smartphone brand Nothing, recently declared that remote work was incompatible with the company’s ambition and speed. Pei’s bold stance included an ultimatum: those unwilling to embrace full-time office work should find alternative employment.

While these executives claim that in-person collaboration is key to productivity and growth, Cooper warns that such an approach risks reviving the very problem he identified decades ago: presenteeism.

The Rise of Presenteeism

Presenteeism refers to the phenomenon where employees are physically present in the office but are underproductive due to illness, stress, or disengagement. According to Cooper, mandating full-time office work may exacerbate presenteeism, not solve the productivity issues that companies fear come with remote work.

“Unfortunately, some organizations are forcing people back into the work environment five days a week,” Cooper told The Guardian. “They’re the dinosaurs of our age. If you value and trust people to get on with their job, and give them autonomy – and flexible work is one of those – they’ll work better, you’ll retain them, and they will be less likely to have a stress-related illness.”

The crux of Cooper’s argument is that productivity doesn’t necessarily increase with physical presence in the office. On the contrary, employees who feel micromanaged and restricted may become more disengaged and stressed, leading to lower productivity and higher turnover rates.

The Business Case for Flexibility

While companies push for a return to the office, the U.K. Labour Government is working on policies that could revolutionize workers' rights. Among the key proposals is legislation that would make flexible working arrangements a legal right. Labour’s Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, has spoken in favor of remote and hybrid work setups, arguing that they can boost employee satisfaction and overall productivity.

“I think it’s important to stress that good employers understand that workforce, to keep them motivated and resilient, they do need to judge people on outcomes and not a culture of presenteeism,” Reynolds said in a recent interview with The Times.

The proposed legislation includes provisions like the “Right to Switch Off,” which would prevent employers from contacting employees outside of working hours, and the right to request flexible working arrangements, including condensed workweeks.

These initiatives reflect the growing demand for work-life balance, particularly among younger generations. Gen Z, in particular, has been found to struggle with higher rates of mental health issues, making them more likely to take sick leave than their Gen X counterparts. Cooper argues that forcing this generation back into the office won’t solve these problems.

A Generational Divide

The tension between traditional management styles and modern workforce expectations is becoming more apparent. Many younger employees, especially Gen Z, are pushing for a better balance between work and personal life, valuing flexibility and mental health over rigid office mandates. The return-to-office push, therefore, represents a clash between old and new ideas of how work should be done.

The stakes are high. Forcing employees back into the office full-time could undermine not only morale but also long-term productivity. The companies that thrive in the coming years may be those that adopt more flexible, trust-based models, focusing on outcomes rather than where work is performed.

Autonomy vs. Command and Control

Cooper’s warning is clear: companies that cling to the outdated “command and control” style of management risk losing both productivity and talent. The world has changed since the pandemic, and the nature of work has evolved. Flexibility, autonomy, and trust have become essential ingredients for success.

As the debate over remote versus in-office work rages on, one thing is certain: the businesses that fail to adapt to these new expectations could find themselves left behind, much like the dinosaurs Cooper alludes to.