In brief
One-size-fits-all return-to-office policies create fairness challenges because they overlook the realities of different roles and working patterns. This article explores how blanket rules lead to inconsistency, resentment and workarounds, and outlines how HR can take a more role-sensitive approach.
Part 2 of 5 in The People Space return-to-office series. Back to full series
Intro
Many return-to-office policies are designed to be simple.
A set number of days. A consistent expectation. A rule that applies across the organisation.
On the surface, this feels fair. Everyone is treated the same.
In practice, it rarely works that way.
The impact of these policies varies widely depending on the work people do, how their teams operate and what their roles require.
What looks consistent at a policy level often feels uneven at an individual level.
The problem
A single rule does not reflect the reality of how work happens.
In most organisations:
- some roles depend on collaboration and shared problem-solving
- others require deep, focused individual work
- some teams are co-located
- others are distributed across locations or time zones
Applying the same expectation to all of them creates tension.
Employees begin to compare:
- who is required to be in and who is not
- which teams have flexibility and which do not
- how exceptions are granted and to whom
These comparisons shape perceptions of fairness more than the policy itself.
Why this happens
Consistency is often used as a proxy for fairness.
Leaders want to avoid:
- accusations of favouritism
- complex exceptions
- difficult conversations about who needs to be where
A single rule feels easier to communicate and enforce.
But fairness is not the same as uniformity.
When policies ignore meaningful differences in roles and contexts, they create new forms of inconsistency:
- informal exceptions
- manager discretion applied unevenly
- quiet workarounds within teams
Over time, the gap between policy and practice becomes more visible.
What the evidence suggests
Employee perceptions of fairness are shaped by how decisions are applied, not just how they are written.
Research into organisational justice has long shown that people assess fairness based on:
- whether decisions are consistent
- whether they are explained clearly
- whether they take individual circumstances into account
Return-to-office policies that apply the same rule to very different roles often struggle on all three fronts.
The result is not greater clarity. It is greater ambiguity.
What HR should do next
HR can help organisations move from uniform rules to more thoughtful design.
1. Start with the work, not the policy
Map different types of work across the organisation.
Which activities benefit from being co-located? Which do not?
2. Define role-based principles
Instead of a single rule, establish clear principles linked to different role types or team contexts.
3. Make flexibility explicit
Where variation exists, acknowledge it openly. Hidden exceptions create more friction than visible differences.
4. Support managers with guidance
Managers need a framework to make decisions, not complete discretion. Clear guardrails improve consistency.
Key takeaways
- uniform policies often create uneven experiences across roles and teams
- fairness is shaped by how decisions are applied, not just how they are written
- hidden exceptions and workarounds undermine credibility
- HR can improve outcomes by designing around the work itself rather than applying a single rule
Treating everyone the same is simple. Designing for fairness requires more precision.
Continue the series
Next: Why managers are carrying the hidden burden of return to office. Read Part 3
About the author
