Back to the office: solution or reflex?

Why more and more organizations are reverting to mandatory office days.

The FD reports today on ABN AMRO's intention to have employees work in the office for more than half of their workweek again. The bank expects this to lead to, among other things, greater connection and creativity.

ABN AMRO is certainly not alone in this. More and more organizations are implementing similar policies. In doing so, they also look to one another: if large employers mandate two, three, or four office days, that quickly becomes the new norm.

Hybrid working has changed not only where we work, but also how we organize and manage work. Physical presence, visibility, and direct management were for a long time naturally linked. Now that work is more digital and less location-bound, an attendance standard brings back a familiar anchor: employees are visible and physical proximity is once again becoming the starting point. But that does not mean the work is better organized.

The concern behind ABN AMRO’s decision is aptly articulated in the FD: “Young employees have to search on Teams for someone to ask questions to; that breaks my heart.” That touches upon a real issue. Young employees need to be able to find experienced colleagues, learn from them, and become part of a professional community.

Greater simultaneous presence increases the chance of encounters and knowledge exchange. However, physical proximity does not organize that interaction automatically. People can work on the same floor without truly collaborating, and still sit individually behind their screens even with a full office occupancy. Organizing chance is something different from organizing collaboration.

The question is therefore not only how many people are in the office, but above all who is there when, for what purpose, and what happens there subsequently.

Managing attendance

An attendance standard reduces a complex organizational issue to a simple rule: 50% in the office. With this, we manage by presence, whereas ultimately it is about collaboration, knowledge sharing, connection, and creativity.

Employees can dutifully meet the standard and still work individually at the office or spend the day on video calls. In that case, we focus on input, whereas we want to achieve impact.

A standard is not optional.

Implementing an attendance standard has consequences. The expected benefits lie primarily at the organizational level – increased connection, knowledge sharing, and culture – while a significant portion of the costs falls on employees: extra travel time and expenses, reduced autonomy and flexibility, and increased pressure on the work-life balance. From a societal perspective, too, increased commuting leads to increased mobility.

That is precisely why it is important to think carefully in advance about what an attendance standard should achieve and how that return is actually organized. Simply prescribing that people come to the office more often is insufficient.

The actual task

The question is not whether physical proximity has value, but how that value is organized.

This calls for deliberate agreements on who needs each other for what and when, targeted knowledge transfer and guidance, appropriate leadership, and a work environment that supports the desired activities.

The office is then not an instrument to enforce presence, but a means to provide targeted support for collaboration, meetings, and knowledge sharing.

The real challenge is not bringing people back to the office, but making the office relevant to today's work.

Sources

• ABN AMRO. (2026, May 26). Proposals ABN AMRO collective labor agreement negotiations 2026. ABN AMRO proposal letter.

• De Unie. (2026, June 9). ABN AMRO: The second round of collective labor negotiations . De Unie.

• Rotteveel, M. (2026, August 12). ABN Amro wants employees to come to the office more often again . Het Financieele Dagblad .