Return to the office: When reasonable expectations meet reduced capacity

Return to the office has become a commonly discussed topic in Australian workplaces over recent years. Are employers justified in requiring employees to return, or should employees have the right to continue working remotely? 

One thing is certain: the answer is rarely black and white. Most businesses have approached return-to-office requirements thoughtfully. They have consulted staff, clearly communicated business reasons, introduced hybrid arrangements, allowed lengthy transition periods, and genuinely attempted to accommodate individual circumstances. 

Yet despite these efforts, some employees continue to experience significant distress about returning to the workplace. Some refuse outright. Others report heightened anxiety, stress related to commuting, reduced well-being, or concerns that returning to the office will negatively affect their ability to function. 

This raises an important question: 

What happens when organisationally reasonable expectations collide with an employee's reduced capacity to tolerate those expectations? 

The pandemic changed more than the work location 

Remote work didn't simply change where people worked. For many, it fundamentally changed how they organised their lives. 

Without commuting, people reclaimed hours each day. Parents adjusted childcare arrangements. People with chronic health conditions found they could better manage symptoms. Neurodivergent employees often discovered they functioned more effectively in controlled environments with fewer sensory demands. Others experienced improvements in concentration, energy levels and work-life integration. 

Over time, these arrangements became normal. The difficulty presents when a person's ability to adapt to previous working conditions is challenged after several years of working differently. 

So, is it resistance, reduced capacity or something else? 

This is where it becomes complicated. For some employees, objections to returning may reflect a preference. Remote work is convenient, efficient and aligns with the lifestyle they have created. For others, the distress appears more significant. 

The employee who previously tolerated a 90-minute commute may now experience overwhelming fatigue. The open-plan office that was once manageable may now feel cognitively exhausting. Someone who successfully balanced caring responsibilities before the pandemic may no longer have the same support structures available. 

However, distress does not automatically mean incapacity. Nor does the absence of a diagnosed condition mean the employee is simply being difficult. 

The reality often sits somewhere in between. During the pandemic, flexibility became a symbol of trust. 

Employees were told they could work differently. Many continued to perform well, often exceeding expectations under difficult circumstances. As a result, some employees now perceive mandatory office attendance as a withdrawal of autonomy or an indication that their contributions are no longer trusted. 

Meanwhile, employers may feel frustrated that reasonable efforts to accommodate staff are being met with resistance. Neither perspective is inherently wrong. 

When does the return to the office directive become a psychological risk? 

The answer may lie in the question. Rather than assuming resistance is purely preference-based, a useful question may be: "What is actually getting in the way?" 

Understanding the underlying issue matters because the solutions would differ. A preference will require a different response to a functional limitation.  

Yes, employers have obligations to identify and manage foreseeable risks to psychological health. However, this does not mean elimination of every source of discomfort or removal of all aspects of work that employees find stressful. Work itself involves demands. So, the question arises whether the demands are reasonable, proportionate to the role and supported appropriately.  

This is where exploring the barriers to assist with differentiating between preference and reduced functional capacity can help.  

Because sometimes there are no perfect answers. The uncomfortable reality is that despite everyone’s best efforts, some situations may not have an easy solution that fully satisfies all parties. An employee may genuinely experience distress about returning, but the role may truly require physical attendance. So, both can be true at the same time.   

How to move past the debate to something constructive? 

Early intervention is incredibly valuable. In this case, it is about becoming more sophisticated in recognising that psychological safety sometimes means having difficult conversations with empathy early, rather than avoiding them. Challenging ourselves in how we understand capacity, balancing individual needs with legitimate business requirements, and the reality that work design affects people differently.  

The goal is not to determine who is right or wrong, but to understand whether there is a safe, sustainable way forward. Assessment of Psychological Functional Capacity can help employers and employees to understand the barriers and their impact, suggest support, temporary adjustments, graduated return arrangements or help to explore if the role remains the right fit.  

👉 Explore more Flexiwell articles here: www.flexiwell.com.au/resources