After the return: can the office really raise levels of performance?

Bringing people back to the office is one thing. Improving productivity once there is another. A new report looks at the evidence for and against in-office working as a lever for productivity

In a volatile business climate, companies are bringing more people back to the office as they search for the extra edge that a high-performance workplace can bring.

But does working face-to-face in the office, as opposed to working in a hybrid or fully remote model, really improve performance? And is there a danger that in simply bringing people back to an office that has not been planned and equipped for the challenges of the future, senior leaders risk eroding productivity further rather than enhancing it?

These questions are addressed in a new discussion paper written by WORKTECH Academy in partnership with ACCO Brands, which supplies some of the most iconic products to the office market.

The report is entitled After The Return: Can The Office Really Raise Performance? It looks beyond the RTO (return-to-office) debate and goes in search of practical, evidence-based ways to build a more positive and productive workplace – essentially pivoting from where we work to how we work.

Study of studies

The discussion paper sets out to do two things. First, it reviews the abundance of recent global research in the field which has evaluated the effects on people of different work modes. It presents a ‘study of studies’ designed to inform the market about how in-office versus hybrid or remote working might influence performance at an individual, team and organisational level.

Second, it gives business leaders key insights into how they should view investment in the office over the next decade, with the aim of creating that high-performance workplace.

More than 90 separate pieces of research were reviewed. Most were published in a two-year period from January 2023 to January 2025, and many were peer-reviewed. Findings from the review were then discussed in two research roundtables and several expert interviews with senior workplace leaders.

Metrics for performance

At the level of the individual, the review identified employee satisfaction as the most important governing metric for evaluating performance in relation to different work modes. Broadly, there is considerable dissatisfaction with many aspects of the office environment as it is currently configured. Stress-reducing adaptations are required.

At the level of the team, the report identified trust within the team as the most important governing metric for evaluating performance. Generally, there has been a decline in trust in the workplace. However, there is some positive evidence that face-to-face contact in the office can create the conditions in which teams can flourish.

At the level of the organisation, the review identified company innovation as the most important governing metric for evaluating performance. Innovation is broadly defined in the report as providing the organisation with the ideas, energy, culture and resilience to constantly evolve in a fast-changing world – and closely linked to value creation.

There is evidence that in-office working supports creative collaboration, the quality of ideas, and the ability to make breakthrough discoveries. A contagious culture of innovation can spread more easily through workplace clusters.

Three scenarios

This paper concludes with the presentation of three overlapping workplace themes or scenarios:

A Precision workplace driven by data and by the predictive power of AI that enables more efficient control and coordination of the office.
A Prosocial workplace driven by empathy, wellbeing and relationships that uses the power of human connection to advance company aims.
A Proximity workplace driven by location that uses persuasive placemaking to maximise the value of being together onsite.