Return-to-office mandates are becoming standard workplace policy, meaning that even highly valued employees who cannot comply may face termination, according to workplace expert Alison Green.

The Dilemma of Hybrid Work Mandates

A senior contributor at a global tech company, who is a respected, high-performing team member, detailed a difficult situation. The company, where the team has worked successfully remotely since the start of COVID, recently implemented a mandatory hybrid work policy requiring three office days per week.

This policy creates logistical issues for the globally scattered team, often resulting in employees attending virtual calls while physically in the office. The team includes 12 contract workers exempt from the mandate due to contract terms and desk availability.

The Case of a Star Performer, Molly

The writer is advocating for a high-performing colleague named Molly, who has been given an ultimatum: relocate near an office or leave the company within months. Molly started as an intern nearly five years ago and has been fully remote throughout her tenure, consistently ranking as a top performer.

Molly is the writer’s star mentee, expected to eventually inherit the writer’s specialized, “unicorn” skill set. Both the writer and Molly report to Claudia, a manager they trust. Claudia is deeply upset by the situation.

Exemption Requests Denied by Leadership

When the hybrid policy was enacted near the end of 2025, Claudia followed proper HR procedures to request an exemption for Molly, arguing for her continued designation as a teleworker based on performance. This request was denied.

Scott, the team’s director and Claudia’s superior, also strongly supported Molly’s exemption, escalating the appeal up the management chain. The writer believes both Claudia and Scott exhausted their advocacy efforts.

The writer is frustrated by the unfair application of the policy, noting that another non-contract employee is grandfathered in due to living outside commuting distance. The potential loss of Molly threatens team morale and will likely force the writer to absorb extra workload, with no guarantee of a backfill.

The Writer’s Proposed Crusade

The writer questions what action they can take as a senior peer to help Molly stay, viewing the solution as a simple HR redesignation. They considered campaigning the rest of the team to sign a petition showing support for Molly to present to management and HR.

Expert Assessment: Limited Leverage Remains

Workplace expert Alison Green suggests that the writer’s proposed campaign is unlikely to succeed. The individuals best positioned to advocate—Molly’s manager Claudia and director Scott—have already tried and failed.

Green posits that HR is unlikely to respond to a team petition when approaches from higher-ranking officials were dismissed. The enforcement of the policy likely stems from directives issued above HR, indicating that the debate over exceptions has already concluded.

This situation reflects a broader corporate trend where many employers are backtracking on pandemic-era remote work flexibility, accepting potential staff losses as a consequence of enforcing on-site requirements.

The writer’s only potential leverage might be communicating to Claudia and Scott the specific impact on the team if they must absorb Molly’s duties. However, Green remains skeptical, noting that management might simply state that Molly’s replacement will handle the extra work. Ultimately, the expert concludes that the company is unlikely to reverse course, and Molly will probably have to leave.