Rethinking Work: Why Human-Centered Collaboration Beats Return-to-Office Mandates

Following a 2021 study, he and his Ross School of Business colleague, Maxim Sytch, Jack D. Sparks Whirlpool Corporation Research Professor of Business Administration and professor of management and organizations, proposed that leaders design “immensely human interactions” to meet employees’ needs for meaningful connections with others. Organizations that utilize his themes to create these interactions appear to be weathering ongoing turbulence better than those that focus on returning to the office. 

As a cultural psychologist and behavioral scientist, Sanchez-Burks’ research explores the role of emotion, culture, and group dynamics in organizational life. His forthcoming book with HarperCollins offers a fresh approach to structuring work life — one that draws on deeply human experiences to foster meaningful collaboration, fuel momentum, and enhance productivity. 

What is the return-to-office paradox?

The "return-to-office paradox" is, itself, a meta-paradox. The real issue is our continued reliance on the language of and sentiments associated with "return." We're stuck in a narrative that emerged in the wake of the pandemic, but the data clearly shows we've moved on. Recent Gallup data, for instance, indicate that we've settled into a new equilibrium: approximately 52% of remote-capable jobs are now hybrid.

When leaders keep talking about "returning," it sounds less like a strategic plan and more like nostalgia for a pre-2020 world. We have to remember, for an entire cohort that entered the workforce in the last five years, that "world" is an old-timey era they never even experienced. The paradox is that leaders are trying to "return" to a place that no longer exists for many in their own organization.

What are the statistics on remote work in the United States?

The scale of the shift is staggering — unlike anything in modern labor history. For example, in February 2025, more than 25% of paid days in the United States were work-from-home days. The proportion of employees working remotely in the United States has surged by over 230% since 2019. This isn't a minor fluctuation; the percentage of remote days worked has grown fourfold. 

What this means, practically, is that typical office attendance in the United States and in the United Kingdom has been cut in half, dropping from an average of four days a week to just two. And this isn't just a U.S. phenomenon. Globally, remote work is nearly five times higher than pre-pandemic rates. According to the World Economic Forum, hybrid positions now account for over half of all remote-capable jobs, a massive jump from just one in five in 2019.

While remote work increases, some prominent companies are mandating a return to office this year. How is that influencing manager-employee relationships?

It’s creating significant friction. From a group dynamics perspective, it’s a classic conflict over norms and perceived equity. This tension might just persist as long as the debate over the definition of "casual Friday." It's not a purely logistical issue; it’s a cultural one about what "professionalism" and "commitment" look like, and that's a much harder negotiation for managers and employees to have.

Are hybrid positions proving to be a happy medium for managers and employees?

They are proving to be the dominant medium, but not always a "happy" one. What's fascinating from a behavioral science standpoint is how unspoken, bottom-up norms are shaping it. A tacit understanding has quickly emerged that "hybrid" largely means "no one is required to be in the office on Mondays or Fridays." This isn't a formal policy; it's a collective, emergent behavior. It shows employees and managers are co-creating a new rhythm of work, seeking to blend autonomy with in-person connection, regardless of what top-down mandates might say. 

Are there industries or organizational structures that are successfully managing remote work better than others? What drives that?

Success isn't cleanly divided by industry, like "tech" versus "manufacturing." It's divided by culture. The organizations — and, more specifically, the teams — that are thriving are those that replaced "passive presence" with "active management." They've shifted their cultural defaults. 

Success isn't measured by who is visible at their desk — and for a wonderful twist on how remote work fosters certain forms of equity, see this new piece by my colleague Justin Berg — but by clarity of goals, a high degree of psychological safety to discuss challenges, and a deliberate structure for collaboration. The driver isn't a specific tool; it's a leadership mindset rooted in trust and a focus on output, not on monitoring inputs.

Some organizations have emphasized returning to work. How are leaders succeeding (or struggling) with employee relationships?

They are struggling when there's a disconnect between a leader's mandate and their own behavior. First, let's be clear about the language: leaders are emphasizing a "return to office," not a "return to working," which implicitly devalues the productivity of the last five years. This alone creates tension. But the problem is compounded by a perceived hypocrisy. 

We've seen several high-profile reports, like those from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal, highlighting leaders who mandate RTO while enjoying significant remote flexibility themselves. This "rules for thee, but not for me" dynamic is incredibly corrosive to trust, which is the foundational element of any healthy leader-employee relationship.

What does it mean when you say people are becoming numb to the roller coaster of work over the past five years?

"Numbness" is a psychological response to chronic, unresolved stress. If you look at broad data on daily emotional experiences, the significant spike in stress we saw during the pandemic hasn't substantially declined, even five years later. We've adapted to a higher baseline of anxiety. 

The people I talk with, from C-suite executives to individual contributors, articulate this perfectly. They say the old hope used to be, "Please, no new bad news today." Now, that's shrunk to, "Please, no new bad news this morning... or this afternoon." That's not resilience; it's a form of emotional exhaustion from the sheer velocity of change.

Is there anything that gives you optimism during this chaotic time for leaders and employees? Or if you had a "magic wand" to fix a situation, what would you address?

What gives me immense optimism is the "why" behind the chaos. The old structures are breaking down because they're no longer fit for purpose. This isn't just a crisis; it's a defining moment. We have a rare opportunity to reimagine what work means, what it demands of us, and what we can gain. If I had a magic wand, I would move the entire conversation away from where we work and onto how we collaborate. 

The future isn't about hybrid schedules; it's about a fundamentally human transformation of our work life — structuring our days around our deep, human needs for connection, focus, and meaning. My research and forthcoming book are built on this idea: Leaders who are willing to revisit their oldest assumptions about work will find entire organizations eager to help them build something better.