The underway Return-to-Office (RTO) push by corporate giants such as Meta, Amazon, and JP Morgan signals a significant shift in workplace culture, and as a woman in tech I’m concerned, writes Nadine Drelaud, a transformation and delivery consultant with Google, Microsoft and PayPal as former clients.
Return-to-Office: PR statements about innovation won’t convince the marginalised
While companies argue that in-office collaboration fosters innovation and cohesion, a pile of concerning evidence indicates that enforcing RTO policies disproportionately harms marginalised groups.
By ‘marginalised groups,’ I mean women, parents, neurodivergent, and disabled individuals.
The result of disproportionately harming these marginalised groups by forcing them to attend a workplace? It’s broad economic and societal consequences — or at least studies I’ll share here strongly suggest.
‘You are required to work from the office’ has four big losers
And those consequences are making a disconcerting bubbling sound right about now, due to the sheer number of RTO directives being put in place.
Exclusively for Women in Tech, I’m going explore the adverse impact that I believe mandating RTO has on talent, inclusion, productivity, and business outcomes.
Return-to-Office: How we got here since covid
The last few years have seen a radical transformation in how businesses operate.
Remote work, once a necessity due to that little something called covid, has proved not only viable but often more effective.
A 2023 report by the UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found that 38% of organisations say that more home/hybrid working has increased their organisation’s productivity/efficiency, with just 13% disagreeing.
And the institute found that home-based or hybrid employee productivity is firmly positive, with 46% of organisations saying such workers are more productive when working in either mode, versus 43% in 2021.
Forget the findings, corporates want women in tech and other staff where they can see them
Nonetheless, well-known corporations used January 2025 to enforce office attendance.
These employers have gone back on the very flexibility that benefited both their employees and their very own internal operations!
Boots, JD Sports and Santander are the latest big names in the UK to reportedly issue RTO directives.
What about RTO directives in the tech industry?
In the technology sector, I witnessed a surge in hybrid and remote roles post-pandemic.
These flexible work arrangements allowed companies to attract a diverse tech talent pool without being limited by geographical constraints.
However, with tech giants like Apple and Google rolling out RTO policies since the pandemic (both companies enforce a three-day office attendance policy), my concerns over inclusivity and accessibility aren’t being eased.
Keep in mind, a 2023 study by Future Forum found that only 3% of “Black knowledge workers” preferred full-time office work, compared to 21% of white workers, thereby highlighting the diversity impact of RTO mandates.
Is Big Tech at all considering this impact on Black workers, as it frogmarches techies back to their desks?
Are offices really productivity hubs?
Proponents of RTO policies argue that in-office work boosts productivity and collaboration.
Yet some data contradict this claim. A study by Stanford University found that remote workers were 13% more productive than their in-office counterparts, with fewer sick days and higher job satisfaction.
And what about Prodoscore’s research from 2020, which uncovered a 47% increase in worker productivity during remote work periods?
I’ve seen firsthand that remote work has reduced the “presenteeism” culture—where employees are expected to be physically present, regardless of efficiency.
This is particularly relevant for neurodivergent individuals who may struggle with sensory overload in traditional office environments.
RTO policies disproportionately hit women, parents, neurodivergent and disabled workers
As a woman and parent myself, let me start with ‘women’ and ‘parents’ from the above list of those who the current tightening of return-to-office expectations will disproportionately penalise.
Working mothers face a unique burden when forced to return to the office.
Meet my friend Gosia, a self-described ‘walking zombie’ due to RTO
I’d like to share the experience of one of my LinkedIn connections, Gosia D’ Cruz, a fellow woman in tech, who told me:
“As a mother, I’ve had both experiences — having to commute to work daily for a particularly demanding project (whilst having my first child) and having the ability to work from home 100% of the time at other times.
“I can say that I often look back at the time I was driving to the office and think that it was a miracle I didn’t end up in a serious car accident. My son was at daycare, which in turn made him catch every infection possible; he was always sick and slept so poorly that I was a walking zombie. My stress levels were through the roof, my anxiety was crazy and I really don’t know how I managed that period of my life. I don’t think I was 100% effective at work; I certainly lacked the ability to focus and think clearly due to the tiredness.
“Working from home on the other hand did allow me to lift a lot of that stress off. Being able to spend the time otherwise spent commuting to the office on more meaningful activities provides you with a work-life balance, leaving you more fulfilled as an individual –as a parent and as a professional.”
My project manager friend isn’t alone in struggling to manage
Gosia, a senior project and programme manager who holds Prince2 and ITIL certifications, isn’t alone in this challenge.
The Fawcett Society has discovered that more than a third (35%) of working mothers say they have had to sacrifice work or billable hours due to a lack of available childcare.
From my own experience as a woman in tech, I can add that the cost of childcare, coupled with commuting, can make full-time office work financially and logistically unfeasible for many parents, disproportionately affecting women — who still shoulder the lion’s share of caregiving responsibilities.
How an enforced return to the office impacts neurodivergent individuals
Neurodivergent workers, including those with autism and ADHD, thrive in remote environments where they can tailor their workspace to their needs.
Giving evidence in May 2024 to the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Dr Christine Grant, an associate professor at Coventry University, described “remote working” as an “overwhelmingly positive” experience for many neurodivergent workers.
Based on a project that involved neurodivergent employees at Vodafone (and two other organisations), Dr Grant said the employees reported being more comfortable, less tired, more productive and better able to control their environments.
When employers don’t offer flexibility to Special Educational Needs parents…
One of my LinkedIn connections, Helen Buzdugan, is a career, interview and CV coach.
Helen told me in a statement: “I work primarily with parents and carers in neurodivergent and SEN families and know many who have had to give up their career jobs because their employer didn’t offer them the flexibility they needed when life at home became more complicated.
“Additionally, a large proportion of the SEN parents I support are single parents with no second income to fall back on. If they can’t find a fully remote job, they often can’t work at all. I also work with parents who have enormous career gaps because of this.
“These parents (mostly women) are incredibly skilled and talented and have so much to offer progressive organisation.”
So, today’s sudden push for RTO threatens to exclude a significant portion of this workforce.
Disabled employees won't likely choose RTO either
For disabled employees, remote work is often not a preference but a necessity.
Such employees are known to report feeling more productive at home, partly facilitated by fewer barriers compared to office settings.
Again, Dr Grant’s research — the Remote4All project — throws up some interesting findings that the corporate issuers of RTO mandates ought to consider.
In particular, workers with disabilities at Vodafone (and the two other employers) cited improved quality of life when remote working, often due to practical advantages, but extending to saving time and money, including being able to bypass the long, challenging commute.
So, compulsory RTO policies ignore the accessibility challenges faced by many disabled workers, effectively reducing their ability to participate in the workforce.
One for the lawyers, perhaps, but are RTO directives discriminatory?
While not necessarily legally discriminatory, RTO mandates create systemic barriers that disproportionately impact certain groups.
The UK’s Equality Act requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled workers.
Yet RTO mandates often fail to account for individual needs.
And since a raft of companies dragged workers back to the workplace without choice in the last few weeks, some legal experts are wondering if blanket RTO policies may constitute indirect discrimination — particularly where employers do not offer any exceptions or accommodations.
Will compulsory workplace attendance spark a talent exodus?
Rigid office mandates have in the past been linked to high attrition rates.
And the recent past too. A 2022 study by the ADP Research Institute found that 64% of employees would consider leaving their jobs if forced back into the office full-time.
So those organisations enforcing RTO risk seeing increased resignations and difficulty filling roles, much to the benefit — I predict — of companies that embrace remote, hybrid/flexible work models.
The economic case against RTO mandates
This shift towards required attendance in an office also affects economic growth.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has reported that remote work contributes significantly to the economy by improving employment rates for underrepresented groups.
Reversing these gains may stifle workforce participation and innovation, at a time when our chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is prioritising growth.
The future of work must be inclusive -- and 89% agree with me
The push to force full-time office work upon women in tech and other workers is not just a question of corporate preference but one of equity, accessibility, and economic foresight.
Businesses that prioritise flexibility will gain a competitive edge, while those enforcing rigid policies risk alienating diverse talent pools and violating ethical employment standards.
And as I’ve said, they also risk a talent exodus.
A poll I took to LinkedIn with, specifically for the purposes of this article for Women in Tech, effectively asked:
‘Would you avoid a role that mandated five days-a-week in the office?’
Out of more than 500 responses that my poll received – from women in tech and others in my professional network, 89% said “Yes, they would shun a role that requires their physical presence in the workplace Monday-to-Friday.”
That’s approximately nine out of ten saying “RTO? Thanks but no thanks.”
The most worrying thing for corporates giving their staff no choice but to work at their workplace is that only nine per cent disagreed, saying they “like” working from the office.
My vote? It’s for the future of work to be built on inclusivity, not exclusion.
Nadine Drelaud
The founder of an ethical AI recruitment product designed to humanise hiring. Nadine Drelaud has 25 years' experience in tech and business. Nadine has led and scaled tech teams for major organisations like Google, Microsoft, and the UK government.
She is passionate about ethical AI to democratise recruitment, promote transparency and equity, close gender and ethnicity pay gaps, and create better economic opportunities for women and marginalised groups.
