Is the Return to Office Leaving Women Behind?

Newswise — Remote and hybrid work became the norm after the COVID-19 pandemic, but more workplaces, like Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, Disney and even the federal government have mandated that employees return to offices in recent years. But not all employees are returning at the same rate.

A recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics survey reveals that the share of employed people who spent time working at home on days worked was about the same in 2024 (33 percent) as in 2023 (35 percent). However, the share of men who spent  some time working at home decreased from 34 percent in 2023 to 29 percent in 2024, while  the share of women who did so remained the same at 36 percent. In fact, other data suggests that some women have left the workforce altogether due to return-to-office requirements.

What’s striking about women who are opting to work from home more than men is that it also means many women may be at a growing disadvantage. Recent research reveals that face-time at the office is more likely to lead to pay raises and bonuses, promotions, and other perks like better assignments and career visibility.

So what does this mean for women? 

“One possible reason why women are not returning to the office as much as men are is that they may value  that remote and hybrid work provides greater flexibility more than men do,” said Elizabeth L. Campbell, assistant professor of management at the UC San Diego Rady School of Management, who studies gender differences in the workplace. “Despite progress society has made toward gender equity broadly, women still shoulder the bulk of childcare and elder care, and remote/hybrid work makes it easier to balance these additional caregiving responsibilities with a job." 

Elizabeth Lyons, an associate professor of management at the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy, added “Fewer women physically present in the office could raise red flags—especially if that leads to gaps in recognition or advancement, even when performance is equal.”

Lyons is an expert on remote work trends and who co-founded the firm Amplisal, which helps companies manage and adapt with hybrid and all remote work policies. 

Campbell and Lyons recently spoke with University Communications about what these trends mean—and how employers and employees alike can work to close the career gap that’s emerging in the return-to-office era.

What do you make of the data showing men are returning to the office at higher rates than women? What organizational or cultural forces do you think are driving that divide?

Elizabeth Campbell: Data suggesting men are returning to the office at slightly higher rates than women raises the question, ‘is this due to the type of jobs and industries that men and women work in, or a preference among women to prioritize work that allows flexibility?’

Generally, a growing number of firms are mandating their employees return to the office and bolster this choice by pointing to the need for improved productivity and creativity.  But when you look at the data—there isn’t a clear and easy answer on this.

When it comes to innovation, professor Lyons' research highlights that certain work tasks, such as collaborating or creative idea generation, can benefit from being in person. But other data suggests productivity does not dip when employees work fully remotely and can even increase in some jobs depending on the type of task being completed. In fact, if you give people more flexibility, other outcomes improve like reduced turnover and improved job satisfaction.

There is also very little data on the impacts  that remote work has on organizational culture, due in part to how slowly org culture changes over time. Something we talk about in our MBA class at Rady is that empirically analyzing changes in organizational culture takes years and is quite challenging to accomplish because often real indicators of work culture are not those most obvious to employees and managers.

So, I question firms when they say in-person work is necessary for maintaining culture—I think more likely is that in-person dynamics is what is most familiar for people when trying to assess the vibes of a company, for lack of a better word, and now making that assessment is harder.

In addition, so much has changed at a societal level in the United States since remote work became widespread from the pandemic and new generations are now entering the workforce, that I’d imagine many observable shifts in organizational culture are likely occurring due to a myriad of societal and culture changes, not just remote work.

My educated assessment is that a big part of this push to return to the office is that remote/hybrid work changes the manager-subordinate game fundamentally. Having hybrid and remote subordinates requires firms and managers to develop new ways of managing because the old ways of monitoring how office work is done doesn’t apply to remote and hybrid employees. New processes will need to emerge! But this can take time, be expensive, and many people resist change like this.

See Also:

From a firm or economic productivity perspective, what are the obstacles leading to the gender gap in the office return and how can they be overcome?

Elizabeth Lyons: One reason why being a remote worker in an organization with in-office workers can hinder performance is that remote workers may not be as easy to coordinate with when they have to perform team tasks. For example, remote workers may be less visible to in-office workers and, thus, less likely to be asked for input. In-office workers may also have more opportunities to share ideas that lead to high-impact projects through low-stakes “water cooler” conversations.

When all workers in an organization or on a team are working remotely, everyone will be seeking out input from other remote workers, and this gap is less likely to emerge. Remote workers can mitigate some of this risk by being proactive communicators. For example, by sharing uninvited and spontaneous ideas and by being available to chat whenever possible, although the latter may reduce the benefits of remote work for females in particular. 

Recognition gaps may emerge if managers have more certainty about the effort or performance of in-office employees who they observe directly than about remote workers who are less observable. In other words, if the workplace continues to be optimized for in-person employees, remote workers are likely to experience fewer opportunities to advance.

On the other hand, if the gender gap in the return to office reflects a difference in the optimal working conditions because, for example, in-person working arrangements are optimized for the average male worker, then the gap may signal a potential reduction in labor market outcome gender gaps.

While both men and women say they prefer hybrid schedules to being fully remote, women are likely choosing remote work at higher rates than men because it serves them better, all things considered. Organizations experiencing this gap may consider how they can best support the success of all their employees rather than optimizing for a single worker type.

What risks do women face if they remain remote while men return to the office—especially in terms of visibility, promotion, and leadership opportunities?

Campbell: As Professor Lyons discusses, there are real risks for any remote-only employees in terms of visibility and recognition. I’d imagine the risk might be highest in a scenario where a firm’s workforce is majority in-person and a select few individuals are fully remote. This may lead those remote workers to become less visible to the in-person employees and remote workers may be less likely to be top-of-mind for things like feedback.

I’d predict this visibility problem also likely extends to things like accessing “stretch assignments,” which are often those career-advancing opportunities that a manager might give you a chance on to help you gain visibility with top brass in a firm. And if women are more likely to accept or seek out hybrid or remote positions, then these challenges begin to unevenly impact male and female employees, which becomes a source of inequity.

Based on my research on career support, I would encourage remote workers to ensure they find a good mentor and sponsor who can help ensure you are not overlooked for career-advancing opportunities and who can advocate for you. 

There is research suggesting women may be less likely to receive sponsorship compared to men, so this could create a situation of a double-penalty in access to opportunities for women. If you are looking for ways to manage this challenge yourself, it may take steps such as “managing up” with your manager to consistently check in with them on what your career goals are and what opportunities in the firm exist that might provide opportunities for growth. 

How can organizations ensure that remote or hybrid women aren’t left behind in terms of influence and advancement?

Campbell: I mentioned above how one thing people can do to manage this issue themselves is to seek out a good mentor or sponsor who can advocate for you, and also “manage up” to discuss your goals and what opportunities you would like to be considered for in the workplace. Simultaneously, an issue with these suggestions is it forces employees to solve this problem when I think firms can do more to ensure equitable access to opportunities.

I would encourage firms to think carefully about whether the mandatory return-to-office policies are in fact in the best interest of their company. Are employees still being productive despite more flexible work practices? What specific in-person outcomes is the firm seeking to maximize with this return-to-office?

When it comes to ensuring people are still kept top-of-mind for career advancing opportunities, I would encourage firms to formalize these decision making processes rather than rely on informal recommendations alone. There is ample research that shows relying on informal recommendations and referrals exacerbates inequality and allows only those “who are in the know” get considered for opportunities, not necessarily the most qualified.

What are the long-term risks to innovation or team cohesion if office presence becomes a gendered divide?

Lyons: Given the importance of casual, unstructured conversations for idea generation and innovation, important ideas are more likely to be generated by co-located workers (i.e. those in the same physical space). Thus, the gender gap in who is working in the office suggests that innovation may increasingly be determined by males.

The gender gap in innovation is already large – for example, 83% of inventors on international patents are male and 17% are female – and has negative implications for consumer well-being and firm performance. Thus, even if work from home serves female employees well, the gender gap in these arrangements may be harmful for organizational performance and general welfare.

Some companies are mandating in-office time partly for culture-building. Is there a business case for allowing gender-differentiated flexibility—or does it risk entrenching inequality?

Lyons: I do not think there’s a case for gender-differentiated flexibility, as managers are rarely sufficiently privy to employee circumstances to evaluate what work arrangement best suits them, and gender does not provide sufficient information to allow managers to make that assessment.

However, I think there are good reasons for many organizations to allow employees to make decisions about what work arrangements best support their productivity and ability to continue in their job. If a workforce is split between remote and in-person, ensuring that employees do meet in person, especially early in employee tenure, is important for successful teamwork. Managers should also adapt their practices appropriately to support employee and organizational success. [Newswise/VS]

Also Read: