“RBC is a relationship-driven bank, and in-person, human connection is core to our winning culture.”
I spend a lot of time thinking and talking about return-to-office (RTO) mandates. It’s time to wade in.
Let’s start with the bottom line: as with any shift in organizational policy, there should be a clear business case — backed by data — demonstrating how this change either solves a problem or creates a meaningful opportunity. Ideally, both.
COVID proved that remote work functions well for many roles and industries. But we also have to acknowledge that in-person connection has long been the default mode of service delivery — and for good reason. Human interaction is more than transactional. We are social beings, and many of us seek comfort and understanding through face-to-face interaction.
I’ve worked closely with marginalized communities throughout my career — particularly newcomers and refugees — and in-person communication can be vital. Body language, posture, physical presence: these non-verbal cues carry enormous weight. When they’re missing, nuance is lost, and the risk of confusion or misinterpretation increases. Virtual calls help, but they’re not a full substitute.
At the same time, AI is becoming more of a thing, reducing the need for people power in a vast array of roles (unless you want in person engagement, of course. AI works in the opposite direction of this).
Herein lies the conundrum.
In-person engagement strengthens relationships.
AI reduces costs and fills workforce gaps.
So, what’s the better strategy? Increase revenue through deeper human connection, or reduce costs through automation?
More importantly: Where does your organization fall on this spectrum, and what does that signal to your people?
Obviously, the specifics depend on the organization in question, the strategy of its leaders, and a wide variety of other factors. There’s no one-size-fits-all here. A concern that many employees across sectors have expressed, though, is that “human connection” is being used as an excuse to drive people back to offices; if those people can’t or won’t for any reason, that gives employers unquestionable ground to let those employees go and replace them with AI.
Let’s go back to the RBC quote above: “RBC is a relationship-driven bank, and in-person, human connection is core to our winning culture.”
Many organizations say they are all about relationships and want to engage their employees in meaningful ways. A smaller but still significant number even mean it. How many organizations, however, really understand and are good at implementing employee engagement strategies? What kinds of goals and metrics are being used to determine success?
It’s worth asking:
How many organizations that speak of human connection actually invest in it, internally in particular?
Beyond Mission statements and talking points, what does employee engagement look like in practice?
What are the metrics for “a winning culture” ?
Despite the unquestionable importance of human connection, organizations frequently aren’t good at it. Whether through indifference or simply a lack of soft skills, many leaders are just plain bad at understanding and supporting their people. As Colin Powell says in his brilliant presentation A Leadership Primer, “If this were a litmus test, many leaders would fail.” Even though equity is on the mind of every HR professional I know, the data shows results and satisfaction are much lower than they should be.
Simon Sinek’s The Golden Circle offers some context. Most organizations prioritize their “what” (products/services) and “how” (delivery mechanisms), but give less attention to “why” — their core human purpose. When engagement is framed primarily in terms of customer acquisition or market growth, internal relationships become functional, not relational. Employees are means of production first, people second.
The most successful organizations on the planet, however, invert this logic. They recognize that customer perception, brand reputation, and product quality all depend on the engagement, connection, and commitment of their people.
Being well-paid certainly helps in this regard, but as I have mentioned in another post, it’s like hitting the second or third tier of Maslow’ hierarchy and deciding that’s good enough. There are ways to go a little bit further that align with what RBC is hinting at with their messaging — human connection.
To build genuinely engaged teams, you have to treat your employees the same way you treat your clients: with empathy, curiosity, and intention.
Where does that leave Return To Office mandates?
In my humble opinion, they’re a secondary issue.
If your organization truly values human connection, that belief should be visible in how you engage with your teams. That starts with listening:
What kind of environment helps them thrive?
What kinds of flexibility or structure support their best work?
What does connection look like across different teams, roles, and identities?
This is where thoughtful HR strategy comes in. One-size-fits-all mandates rarely work. Return-To-Office policies should be designed with employees, not just for them.
Think of it like gardening.
Some plants grow up and need scaffolding. Others spread outward and need space. Some love the sun; others prefer shade. If you don’t understand the conditions each plant needs to flourish, your garden won’t thrive — no matter how much effort you put in.
If an organization is serious about human connection, their HR practices and workplace design should reflect that. Otherwise, RTO just becomes another tool of control, and your adoption of AI will only reinforce that perception.
And that will send a clear message to your employees and clients both.
What this means for leaders
Return-To-Office mandates should be an extension of your people strategy — not a shortcut to reclaim control or a validation for cutting staff (and cost).
If you lead with values, curiosity, and respect for human complexity, your workplace will grow something better than compliance: it will grow trust.
Make sure to share your own thoughts with the author by leaving a comment below
Log in or sign up to continue the conversation