Federal back-to-the-office mandates risk causing a retention crisis

More and more federal agencies are demanding that their employees a return to the office. The Veterans Affairs Department, for example, is mandating that its approximately 400,000 employees be present on site for at least half of their workweek.

These announcements are part of a larger political drama that raises important questions about talent retention in federal employment.

The Biden administration at first defended remote work for federal employees as boosting retention. But Republicans in Congress pushed hard to end work-from-home, and so did the Democratic Mayor of Washington. Given this bipartisan pressure, the Biden administration caved, with President Joe Biden’s chief of staff demanding that federal agencies “aggressively execute” a return to the office this fall.

In this context, many senior federal agency human resource executives feel trapped. They must fulfill these top-level directives, but they believe that ending telework will cause them to lose many talented staff. It is similar to the position in which many private sector HR leaders find themselves, except for the overarching polarized political context and much more challenging retention dynamics.

Many people work in the public sector for a lower salary in exchange for better labor conditions. But if they can also get better labor conditions in the private sector, in the form of more flexibility along with higher salary, then what is keeping them in government employment?

And data indicate that the fears of these HR executives are valid. For example, an internal EPA survey showed overwhelming support for remote work. Sixty-six percent of the workers surveyed said they would consider leaving the EPA if flexibility was reduced. A shockingly high 97 percent of employees surveyed said that work-from-home flexibility has helped them be more productive.

No wonder that Bethany Dreyfus, president of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1236, which represents EPA Region 9 employees, defended the benefits of flexibility.

A recent survey, this time conducted by the AFGE itself, focused on the National Science Foundation, in response to NSF’s announcement that most of its employees would need to work in the office at least four days per two-week pay period starting next week 23. Forty-two percent said they would have difficulty adjusting to the new four-day in-office requirement.

Even more alarming, 27 percent labeled the new office expectations as “unworkable,” stating they would either find a new job or retire. Jesús Soriano, president of AFGE Local 3403, emphasized that the survey’s results should prompt NSF leadership to reconsider the effects of their decisions on both productivity and the agency’s mission.

Yet another survey, by Federal Times, polled more than 960 federal workers across various agencies. It shows that federal workers are taking action on their concerns. According to this survey, half of federal employees have applied for a new jobs inside or outside of government since agencies were told in 2021 to initiate return-to-office plans. More than one-third of those who had switched government jobs during that time cited the ability to work remotely as the deciding factor, while another 30 percent said it weighed heavily on their decision.

These data reinforce the idea that remote work isn’t merely a perk, but a substantial factor influencing employee retention across federal agencies.

Interestingly, the survey also touched upon the power that unions hold in these negotiations. Around 60 percent of respondents felt that unions had “some power” to protect telework preferences.

These statistics underline the high stakes involved in poorly executed return-to-office plans. But what should federal agency HR executives actually do? The key is to get employee and union buy-in, while offering flexibility and meaningful choices.

They should start by administering detailed surveys to their staffs. The questions should not only be focused on the basic preferences around remote and office work, but they should also delve into the deeper metrics that are often overlooked, such as well-being, stress levels, and the nuanced differences between individual and collaborative tasks in various settings.

They should also share what they discover with employees and make them feel heard and considered, even if the final plan doesn’t align perfectly with their individual preferences. This will facilitate employees’ buy-in and reduce attrition and resistance.

In the face of bipartisan political pressures and evolving work dynamics, recent mandates for federal employees to return to the office poses significant risks to talent retention and operational effectiveness. The data are clear: federal employees value flexibility, and reductions in flexibility contribute to attrition and decreased job satisfaction.

Any attempt at a successful return-to-office strategy must be data-driven and adaptive, and the involvement of union leaders can add a layer of credibility and fairness. To square this circle, agencies need to adopt a tailored approach that aligns with both employee expectations and the practical needs of public service.

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the author of Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.