The ‘rules’ are set by company leadership—yes, people like me. With today’s announcement from Amazon of a full return to a 5-day in-office environment, the post-pandemic norms of 'in flux' working arrangements are brought into sharp focus. In my opinion, we are witnessing a shift where "100% or nothing" is starting to translate into a clear-cut expectation: you’re either in the office five days a week or you’re not. Gone are the days of three days, four days, or the laissez-faire, come-in-when-you-want approach. It’s all or nothing—hybrid is for confused leaders.

There are plenty of reasons why ‘hybrid’ work can feel like a joke, but there are also arguments for why it can work to varying degrees. As the pandemic dragged into its first year, the constant back-and-forth of returning to the office caused uncertainty and frustration. Trying to dictate who should come in—especially with a remote workforce hired during the pandemic—was never going to be easy. Should employees living in states without a local office be treated as fully remote, while those within 30 minutes of the office are required to come in three days a week? These ‘in flux’ policies were doomed from the start.

It’s not just about convenience. These decisions reflect how companies value autonomy versus control. It’s no longer about merely showing up but about the kind of culture leadership wants to foster, while also weighing the personal toll on employees and the business costs of hosting employees in person.

Both sides have a dog in the fight. I can tell you from experience that having our team together two to four times a year (even at a conference) helps build strong bonds. But we are a smaller company, with under 100 employees, where excitement can flow more freely than in an organization with 500+ people.

Take, for example, this past summer: our interns wanted to be in-office—none wanted to be remote. I can’t help but think they had seen their parents go into an office or heard stories of what office culture used to be like at tech companies. Personally, I believe our interns learned more, and learned faster, about what we do than several of our remote hires did in the same time frame. Of course, that’s subjective, and I’d defer to their leadership on the specifics, but the randomness and routine of coming into the office were key to our culture. Who, what, where, how, when—random happy hours, impromptu talks about company issues, on-the-fly trainings. We're moving fast, and now sending a Slack message feels like sending a telegram in 1889—when is the other end going to respond? Versus just walking over to their desk for a quick resolution.

Amazon's move signals that the pendulum might be swinging back toward more traditional structures, at least for now. Selfishly, I like it—for the city of Seattle and for the ‘pulse’ of the city. But it raises a bigger question: is "butts in seats" the true measure of success, or is it about delivering results, no matter where you’re sitting, alongside employee satisfaction?

In today’s landscape, the rules are fluid, not by choice, but by the data around cost, size, culture, and industry. The real measure of success will come down to how well a company can balance structure with flexibility, control with trust, and presence with output. Because, let’s face it: the future of work is still being written by a few, and the winners will be those who define their own rules—and do it effectively.

Return to office: all-in or all-out

Powered by LIFE