40% of executives admit return-to-office mandates are driven by justifying existing leases, not productivity data

A survey of business leaders revealed that 40% admitted that a core reason for mandating in-person attendance is to make better use of already-paid-for office space -- not because data shows in-office work is more productive. Meanwhile, more than half of Fortune 100 companies now require five-day in-office workweeks, up from just 5% two years ago. Employees can see through this reasoning, and the mandates generate resentment rather than engagement. Why it matters: When employees perceive that a return-to-office mandate is about sunk-cost real estate rather than genuine collaboration benefits, they comply minimally -- showing up but working less effectively due to commute fatigue and resentment, so managers spend energy on attendance policing rather than actual management, so high-performers who have the most external options quit for remote-friendly competitors, so the company's talent quality degrades, so productivity drops despite full offices, so leadership concludes the mandate is not working and considers hybrid exceptions, which fragments the workforce into in-office and remote tiers with different career trajectories. The structural root cause is that most companies signed 5-10 year leases between 2018 and 2022 with no early termination clauses, and CFOs face the choice between writing off millions in remaining lease obligations or compelling employees to fill the space, and writing off the lease would require explaining the loss to the board, so the path of least resistance is mandating office attendance and framing it as a culture decision rather than a financial one.