Why the Resistance to RTO Mandates?

 

The return to office (RTO) battle continues with large corporates mandating their employees work at the office for three, four or even five days a week. Despite the mandates, the resistance to RTO continues and office space remains underutilised. The reason is quite straight forward – a mandate is an official order or command and humans simply do not like being told what to do. As such, a mandate challenges fundamental psychological processes and our very being.

Being told what to do is perceived as a direct threat to the core psychological need for autonomy and our sense of agency – the hardwired desire for being instigators of our own actions and destiny. According to motivational theories, such as Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), having the ability to make our own choices and a sense of freedom increases intrinsic (self) motivation which is essential for maximising our growth and potential, resulting in enhanced mental wellbeing and happiness.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, autonomy was key for survival as it allowed us to make independent decisions to avoid threats and resist being dominated (within social groups), leading to being forced into harmful situations. Working together assisted survival but the cooperation was not blind obedience and based on mutual benefit, reciprocity and fairness. Even now, we are suspicious of commands and authority that do not make clear sense for ourselves or fellow colleagues or which lack social fairness. Orders made in a controlling or aggressive tone can trigger the sympathetic nervous system (amygdala and hypothalamus) to activate our involuntary fight or flight response.

Furthermore, being told what to do threatens our ego and identity, especially if expressed in a condescending or dismissive way. Competence is another core psychological need and being told what to do, including micromanagement, is considered a criticism of our expertise or intelligence which implies incompetence. This challenges self-image and a basic desire for independence and control, which partly comes from competence and is linked to autonomy.

Any threat to our autonomy triggers psychological reactance, a form of emotional resistance. When someone feels their freedom to choose, their sense of control, is restricted they express emotional discomfort. This discomfort motivates them to restore their sense of freedom often by resistance or even doing the opposite of what was asked or expected (Brehm, 1966). The stronger the threat to freedom the stronger the reactance. Emotional resistance does not depend on whether the request is reasonable but depends on whether the person feels they are losing control.

In the classic psychological field of behaviourism (Skinner, 1974), manipulating behaviour is achieved through reinforcement or punishment. Reinforcement involves providing a reward or removing discomfort to encourage certain behaviours. In contrast, punishment is adding to discomfort or removing rewards to change behaviour. Reinforcement is consistently shown to have a longer-term effect on behaviour. Ordering people to do something they do not want to do may be perceived as punishment and therefore he efforts are short-lived. Mandating an RTO after previously giving the option to work from home will certainly be perceived as punishment.

Cognitive dissonance is caused when there is an internal conflict between expected behaviours and our own values, leading to discomfort, demotivation and possibly stress. So, if we are told to do something that we do not fully believe in we are less likely to comply. We may partially meet the request but with disengagement and resentment for those who made the order. As such, compliance will not be in full and will also be short-term to remove any internal conflict.

Mandates and orders work in some environments such as the military where there is a clear chain of command and recruits join understanding they will need to comply with senior authority. In contrast, office workers join organisations with the expectation of improving their skills, growing their career, gaining more autonomy, more responsibility and being well rewarded etc. Mandates may be considered a breach of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1989) – the unwritten, intangible agreement between an organisation and its workforce that covers the informal set of mutual expectations, beliefs and obligations.

The above psychological theories clearly explain why ill-considered and poorly implemented office mandates are not successful. To encourage a long-term RTO consider the following messaging:

•  Explain why – Explain the reason for the RTO and how a decision was made  focussing on the benefits to the individual as well as the organisation. For example, provide clear evidence of how being amongst fellow colleagues aids mentoring, tacit knowledge, career development (leading to more autonomy), a sense of loyalty and belonging, plus boosts collaboration, innovation and the long-term business performance.
• Consult – Involve employees or their representatives in communicating and implementing the RTO. Ask for opinions and options that are mutually beneficial to individuals, teams and the organisation. Uncover and overcome any key concerns or barriers. Consider other means of motivating a RTO, such as events, travel subsistence and flexible working hours.
• Offer choices – Discuss the various options, e.g. optimum days in the office, flexible work patterns and unassigned desking. Consider phasing in the RTO over time and trialling the different options.
• Lead by example – If employees are expected to RTO then management should already be doing it and furthermore doing it more than their team. Leading by example instils trust, sets the working culture and demonstrates the importance of the RTO across all levels and roles.
• Soften language – Make the comms more of a request and way forward rather than a mandate, so avoiding orders and ultimatums.

Contact me if you would like to learn more about overcoming psychological reactance and resistance to RTO mandates.

This blog first appeared on page 14 in Works 17 magazine in November 20205. 

References

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370–396.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2 (2): 121–139

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1): 68–78.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. Random House.