Opinion: The return-to-office wave — what Utah leaders are getting wrong about flexibility

Across Utah, we are seeing a clear and accelerating push to bring employees back into office buildings and scale back remote-work strategies. Last month, the University of Utah updated its in-office requirements: most employees must now work on campus at least three days a week, expanding earlier rules that mandated two in-person days for all state employees. This shift aligns with broader state directives urging agencies and public institutions to return to in-person work, signaling a statewide move away from flexibility.

Why are Utah leaders making these decisions? In part, the answer lies in who is sitting at the decision-making tables. Most leaders shaping return-to-office policies are men, and men often have different lived experiences than women. Research from the McKinsey & Lean In “Women in the Workplace” report shows that when women are underrepresented in leadership, workplace policies often reflect the needs and assumptions of those in the room rather than the broader workforce. And this matters, because women consistently report different workplace needs, especially around flexibility.

Women ask for and need more flexibility than men. When flexibility is reduced, women and their families pay the price. A recent Indeed Hiring Lab report found that women are 11% more likely to prioritize remote work and 7% more likely to value flexible hours than men. This is because women continue to shoulder the majority of unpaid domestic labor, emotional labor, childcare and elder care. Decades of research document this reality. It does not make women worse employees; it simply means they carry more responsibilities outside paid work.

National data makes one point unmistakably clear: women benefit disproportionately from flexible and remote work arrangements. Women make up the majority of teleworkers, and roughly one in four working women work from home at least part of the time (compared to one in five men). Among those who telework, half of women (more than nine million) are fully remote. This pattern holds across nearly every racial and ethnic group and is especially pronounced for mothers, who telework at higher rates than fathers. Flexibility is also most critical for women with fewer educational credentials, who are substantially more likely than men in similar circumstances to rely on telework to stay employed.

Years ago, I argued that flexibility is not a perk but a necessity for women and that remote and hybrid work expand opportunity and reduce long-standing gender barriers. Research continues to show that productivity and engagement remain strong outside traditional office settings and that flexible work strengthens families, communities and the broader economy.

What is driving these return-to-office mandates?

To understand what is happening now, we must look at seven research-based underlying drivers of return-to-office mandates.

1. Old leadership habits and failure to adapt management practices: Leaders struggle to feel confident in remote team performance, even when productivity data is strong.
2. Proximity bias and motivation: Managers tend to evaluate in-person workers more positively, even when remote workers perform equally well. They also question remote workers’ long-term motivation.
3. Financial pressures and underused real estate: Employers with large office footprints face stronger incentives to mandate return-to-office because unused space represents a significant financial liability.
4. Culture, collaboration and mentorship narratives: Leaders often cite collaboration, creativity, and culture as reasons for return-to-office mandates, even though research shows these outcomes depend more on intentional structures than on physical proximity.
5. Declining worker leverage: Because resignation rates have stabilized in most states, employers have more leverage and are reasserting more control after years of employee-driven flexibility.
6. Industry imitation: Return-to-office mandates often spread because organizations copy what other influential organizations are doing, not necessarily because they have evidence that it improves performance.
7. Hybrid creep: Employers gradually increase required in-office days without formally changing policy. Utah’s state government and the University of Utah appear to be following this pattern.

The bottom line is simple: flexibility is essential for women’s workforce participation, advancement, and retention. Return-to-office mandates disproportionately harm women with caregiving responsibilities. Proximity bias amplifies gender bias. And universities and public institutions have a special responsibility to model equitable workplace practices.

The outdated assumption that physical presence equals engagement, productivity or commitment must be retired. Flexibility is not a trend; it is a structural support that enables women to work, lead and thrive. When women thrive, families thrive. And this includes men who rely on stable, flexible systems to support their own caregiving, parenting and community responsibilities.

Utah prides itself on being a family-centered state and supporting flexibility is one of the most practical ways to strengthen families and improve outcomes for children. Utah cannot afford to move backward. If we want stronger families, healthier workplaces and a more competitive economy, our leaders must rethink their assumptions about where and how work happens. The future of work is flexible, and Utah’s policies should reflect that reality.