06 Sep Global Mobility: Why Quality Time, Not Desk Time, Drives True Employee Connection

As companies increasingly mandate a return to the office, the prevailing argument is that being physically present fosters connection, collaboration, and a sense of belonging—key ingredients that many leaders believe are essential for team cohesion. The expectation is that in-person work will spark spontaneous interactions and strengthen relationships. 

However, data reveals that the frequency of office attendance does not necessarily enhance workplace connections or employee satisfaction. Instead, it’s the quality of these interactions that truly matters, not the number of days spent at a desk. Global mobility professionals echo this sentiment for assignees, advocating for meaningful engagement over mandated attendance, emphasizing that quality time—not just being present—drives real connection.

Despite the push for more in-person work, recent studies show that increasing the number of office days doesn’t significantly enhance employees’ sense of connection. According to a global survey of 1,115 employees by the workplace insights firm Leesman, there’s only a 1% difference in the number of employees who feel connected to their organization when comparing those who work four or five days in the office to those who work just two or three. Interestingly, those with fewer office days felt slightly more connected, with 60% reporting a sense of belonging.

Allison English, Deputy CEO of Leesman, was quoted as saying in its BBC Work Life reports, “There just doesn’t seem to be huge gains from the number of days people are in the office.” says. “It’s about the quality, not quantity, of time that matters.” This suggests that simply increasing office attendance might not be the silver bullet employers are hoping for.

Flexibility fosters connection

Evidence points to a model that values flexibility and autonomy as more effective at building connections and engagement. Data from Gallup found that employees who have the freedom to choose when they come into the office are more likely to report having close relationships at work, which can drive higher performance and reduce turnover.

However, the drive to mandate office days is often a move of convenience for leaders. As office occupancy rates rise and more firms roll back remote options, English notes that some leaders prefer the simplicity of set rules. “Bosses have thousands of other worries than whether someone is working productively from home—they find it easier to manage top-down and lead by sight,” she explains. In a slower economy, leaders are reluctant to explore more complex, flexible arrangements, especially when they have significant investments in office real estate.

The misalignment of mandated office days

Mandated in-office days can disrupt the natural flow of work for employees. English points out that many employees have roles that can be effectively performed remotely most of the time. Forcing them into an office environment for the sake of attendance often leads to days spent on virtual meetings in less-than-ideal conditions compared to the privacy of a home. “Sometimes, employees just need heads-down focused time working from home, then have the office as a place to occasionally connect with teams—rather than the employer stipulating which days to do what,” she says.

This dissonance between leadership expectations and employee needs can lead to a counterproductive environment. Instead of fostering genuine collaboration, employees may spend office days engaged in “busywork,” merely appearing occupied in front of managers. 

According to Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Professor of Business Psychology at University College London, this dynamic stems from a lack of trust and an inability to measure productivity accurately. “The problem is lack of trust and an inability to measure output on the side of the manager, which causes a lack of engagement and productivity on the side of the employee,” he notes.

The role of global mobility professionals

Global mobility professionals play a critical role in this evolving work landscape, particularly for companies with a diverse, international workforce. These professionals are responsible for managing assignees who often work across different regions and time zones, coordinating relocations, and ensuring compliance with local employment laws. They are on the front lines of designing flexible work policies that consider the unique needs of their assignees, who may be juggling varying work environments, cultural differences, and the challenges of remote work.

For assignees, the mandated office attendance model can be particularly problematic. These professionals often travel frequently or are stationed far from company headquarters, making rigid in-person schedules impractical. Global mobility professionals must balance the need for physical presence with the reality of assignees’ circumstances, advocating for flexible arrangements that allow for meaningful, high-quality interactions without unnecessary disruption to their work or personal lives.

By focusing on individualized support and tailored work arrangements, global mobility professionals help their assignees feel connected to their teams, regardless of physical location. This approach aligns with the broader understanding that trust, autonomy, and quality of interaction—not mere presence—drive employee engagement and retention.

The flawed promise of office “hotelification”

In a bid to entice employees back, some companies are investing in “hotelified” or resort-like office spaces—complete with amenities designed to mimic the comforts of home and create a welcoming environment. The idea is that transforming offices into appealing, multi-functional spaces will encourage more employees to show up. However, while these enhancements may temporarily attract employees, they don’t address the core issue: the mandate itself.

At its heart, the push to “hotelify” offices is a reaction to the reality that many employees prefer the flexibility of remote work. No amount of office perks can replace the value of autonomy, and when attendance feels forced, the result is often resentment rather than connection.

The cost of bringing employees back

For some US companies, the push to bring employees back on-site comes with a steep price tag. Wages for fully in-office roles have surged as companies try to compensate for the loss of flexibility. ZipRecruiter data indicates that average salaries for fully in-person roles increased by more than 33% between 2023 and 2024. Employers who can’t offer flexibility are now competing aggressively on pay, underscoring the economic impact of trying to lure employees back to the office.

Yet despite the higher costs, some leaders remain committed to filling their offices. Many are psychologically and financially invested in their corporate spaces and perceive remote workers as less productive. As a result, they are willing to pay a premium for a fully occupied office, believing that the trade-off will lead to improved business outcomes.

Rethinking the future of work

The ongoing tug-of-war over office attendance highlights a fundamental disconnect between what employers think employees need and what actually fosters engagement. The data is clear: a forced return to the office does not inherently drive connection or productivity. Instead, organizations should focus on creating meaningful, high-quality interactions—whether in the office or remotely—and trust employees to manage their time effectively.

In the end, the companies that succeed will be those that embrace a flexible approach, prioritizing employee autonomy and recognizing that connection is built on trust, not mandates. The challenge lies in finding the balance that respects both the needs of the business and the evolving expectations of the workforce.