#1 Victorian uni for graduate employment1
#1 in the world for sport science2
#1 Victorian uni for course satisfaction3
NEXT UP ON this.
It was part of the Coalition’s election strategy (until it was dramatically dumped mid-campaign) and it’s been an ongoing debate in the years since Covid lockdowns, but is a return to the office really on the cards?
For over one third of Australians who work from home in some capacity, such a policy would mean a significant lifestyle change.
So, what are the pros and cons of working remotely, and why might companies require workers to return to the office, anyway? With Deakin University’s Dr Melissa Parris, we unpack the details of this hot-button issue.
Before we figure out if Australian workers are returning to the office, let’s unpack why they might not be there in the first place. As Parris explains, this working-from-home landscape is a relatively recent phenomenon.
‘While the technology was available for working from home for many years before the Covid-19 pandemic (when it was more commonly described as ‘telework’), the uptake was still relatively low, and most commonly seen in particular industries such as IT and professional services,’ she says. ‘Australia’s use of lockdowns in the early stages of the pandemic meant that working from home was rapidly implemented for the majority of office-based employees – and both employees and employers found that it could be done.’
In 2024, an ABS survey reported that 36% of employed people usually worked from home. The numbers – although down from a pandemic peak – are still higher than they were pre-Covid, suggesting that plenty of Australians are still choosing to make professional workplaces at home, at least some of the time.
While it’s true that work-from-home numbers are still higher than they were pre-pandemic, some companies are trying their best to bring employees back to the office. In 2024, Dell and Flight Centre both mandated a return to the office for their Australian workforce.
Consultancy firm KPMG, in its 2024 survey of global CEOs, found that business leaders are generally in favour of bringing workers back to the office, with 83% predicting a full return in the next three years.
But why is a return to the office so popular among some businesses and business leaders?
‘The most common reasons given by businesses include concerns for employee productivity and emphasising the importance of face-to-face interactions for employee connection, collaboration and innovation,’ says Parris.
Let’s consider the second part of that first.
When the NSW government announced that public sector workers should return to the office in 2024, premier Chris Minns said it was all about ‘Building up a culture in the public service that’s about teamwork, a common and shared sense of purpose, as well as mentoring the next generation of young public servants’.
To use Parris’ phrase, Minns is talking about connection and collaboration.
It’s not just employers that feel that returning to the office is important for connection and interaction, though. Surveys like PwC’s internal Future of Work shows a majority of employees (66%) ‘would prefer to connect with people as part of work at a physical workplace’ – though this does not necessarily mean employees want to return to the office full-time.
One other reason worth noting is not strictly work-related. In Victoria, the City of Melbourne favoured a return to the office campaign for CBD workers, hoping to inject some life back into local businesses affected by the lack of weekday foot traffic.
‘The answer is very dependent on context, not only in relation to job roles but also different tasks within a job role,’ says Parris. ‘For example, for certain tasks that require extended time for deep thinking, working from home without distractions may be beneficial, particularly for employees that work in an open-plan office.’
As Parris suggests, it’s hard to say definitively whether returning to the office really increases productivity overall. One study by the London School of Economics suggests that workers who spend two days working from home might be more productive than those in other arrangements – including full-time office work. Another study found that 41% of employees thought their productivity was about the same whether they worked at home or in the office.
While employers are certainly responsible for setting the ground rules of their business – including where employees work – they do have to abide by some restrictions.
‘Businesses can ultimately make decisions or “rules” about how that business will operate, although they are bound by requirements under the Fair Work Act (2009),’ says Parris. ‘For example, section 65 of the Act gives some employees the right to request a change in their working arrangements, including changes in location of work.’
The better question might be: should employers force employees back to the office? Research – like the latest IWG Future of Work report (not to be confused with the PwC report of the same name) – suggests that half of all employees value hybrid working models, so much so that they’d only consider hybrid roles.
As Parris notes, employers make the rules (within reason), so employees can’t just flat-out reject instructions to come back to the office.
‘Employees cannot merely refuse to come back to the office, but organisations should consider the implications in terms of employee engagement and retention,’ Parris says. ‘‘Mandates’ (particularly without nuance) are rarely conducive to a positive organisational culture.’
According to the Victorian Chamber of Commerce, an employee (in Victoria) can refuse to return to the office if they can qualify their refusal as being ‘reasonable’. If they can’t, they might face disciplinary action.
It’s difficult to make the argument that, across the board, all employees should return to the office. Parris points to work by researchers from Curtin University that suggests that these sorts of policies should be based on what best serves a business’s core purpose, as well as the particulars of each role.
Parris also suggests that the previous model of working in the office might not necessarily be the right one – or, at least, the only right one.
‘I think an important realisation from home-working during the pandemic is that existing preconceptions about how work “should” be done, including interaction with other employees, were not necessarily correct,’ she says. ‘One example is the argument that in-person interactions are essential for employee connection, collaboration and innovation. First, this doesn’t acknowledge the range of technologies that allow both face-to-face interaction and complex communication and, in many ways, can mirror the outcomes from in-person interaction. Second, while in-person experiences have the potential to aid relationship and trust development, this definitely isn’t required “every” time.’
Returning to the office can be a big lifestyle change. If a business is encouraging (or mandating) a return to the office, Parris says employers ought to be flexible and open to tailoring the approach to specific needs.
‘A well-considered approach – recognising each organisation’s unique characteristics and needs – can enable employers and employees to reap the full benefits.’
