Commentary: Want to hurt recruiting? Mandate 5 days a week in the office

BOSTON: It’s hard to hire good people - and at some companies, it’s harder than others.

New data from Scoop Technologies, reported by Bloomberg News, found that firms that require employees to come to the office every day are adding employees at a slower rate than those that offer flexibility. “Companies with one-day-a-week rules expanded staff by almost 5 per cent over the past year,” the report reads, “compared with 2.6 per cent at five-days-a-week businesses.”

The clear implication: A five-day-a-week office job is a last choice for many workers.

Of course, there are caveats - perhaps Scoop, which consults on hybrid staffing, has a vested interest in sharing these numbers. Perhaps a firm that is fully in-office is a different type of company - a slower-growing, more traditional one, with fewer reasons to add headcount.

There could also be regional variations; United States mobile phone data suggests workers have headed back to offices in Salt Lake City and Omaha much faster than in Philadelphia and Cleveland. A sudden increase in the unemployment rate might make workers less picky.

But even if the unemployment rate does increase, elite talent will retain a lot of leverage. Plus, Scoop’s findings echo something I’ve been hearing from job hunters for months: They just aren’t excited about roles that lack flexibility.

Although a desire for work-life balance is a big driver, the reasons for their reluctance go much deeper.

WHY MAKE WORKERS SHOW UP IN PERSON ALL THE TIME?

First, there’s what a five-day-a-week mandate says about a company’s culture. It sends a powerful signal, and not a positive one.

Candidates are left wondering why it’s so important to senior managers that they show up in person all the time: Are there performance problems at the company? Do leaders not trust their staffers? Is it the kind of place where there will be a lot of arbitrary rules? Do employees have less autonomy?

Second, applicants looking for management roles are worried about getting stuck in jobs where, instead of mentoring and coaching their employees, they spend much of their energy taking attendance and enforcing policies they may not agree with.

Moreover, they’re worried about their ability to hire down the line: Who will they be able to recruit if they must limit their search to people in the immediate area who are willing to commute five days a week? As I heard from one professional in the energy industry, the most highly qualified people typically have other options - and they are choosing hybrid roles.

PREPARE TO PAY SKILLED WORKERS A LOT MORE

Perhaps these slow-to-hire, five-day-a-week companies simply aren’t offering enough money. As my colleague Jonathan Levin has written, flexible work has an amenity value. That is, it’s worth something.

Executives serious about pushing a five-day-a-week policy may be able to nudge existing employees to come into the office more, but to attract new talent, they will have to pay handsomely.

Just how handsomely? Recently, several mid-career men I know were discussing whether they would ever (yes, ever) take a job that required them to go back to the office five days a week. These are skilled professionals; they’ve been to graduate school and work in fields like technology and finance where the labour pool is often tight.

One said he would never go back into an office full time for any amount of money. One allowed that he’d consider it - for double his current salary.

A third wasn’t sure but had just withdrawn from a final-round interview for a fully in-person job that would have added more than U$50,000 to his annual compensation. He described the boss’s location expectations as one of several red flags.

IT GOES DEEPER THAN WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Yes, they want to maintain some semblance of work-life balance. All are fathers and enjoy spending time with their kids.

They also know that accepting a strict in-office mandate could hinder their partners’ careers. (It’s not clear that executives pushing strict return-to-office policies always understand that they may be pitting spouse against spouse.)

And they fear that spending five days a week commuting to an office would gobble up the rare moments they manage to carve out for exercise.

Are they speaking from a position of privilege? Yes. But with their credentials and skills - not to mention partners who share the breadwinning - they can afford to be choosy.

For them and so many other job candidates, the reluctance to accept a new job that requires five days of in-person time reflects a deeper shift. For decades, employees who wanted flexibility had to build an ironclad case that they deserved it - and even so, managers often refused.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. Employers need to have very good reasons - and perhaps very deep pockets - to preemptively deny employees flexibility.

The sooner HR managers and senior executives recognise that, the easier they’ll find it to fill those open roles.