Return to the office turns rude: 62% more "acts of incivility" reported in the workplace

Salon - Apr 30th, 2025

The Society for Human Research Management's recent 'civility index' indicates a 62% increase in reported workplace incivility among companies that have mandated a return to office (RTO) compared to those that continue remote work. This survey, spanning over five quarters, highlights that face-to-face interactions, while fostering collaboration, also lead to more frequent conflicts, often fueled by discussions around politics, social opinions, and differences in race or gender. This trend is exemplified by companies like JPMorgan Chase, where CEO Jamie Dimon has faced backlash over RTO mandates, leading to significant employee dissatisfaction and a notable number of employees seeking new opportunities.

The broader implications of this study underscore the tension between corporate RTO policies and employee preferences for flexible work arrangements, a clash that has become more pronounced in the post-pandemic era. Employees, like Nadine from a New York-based music production company, express frustration over mandatory office returns, citing a disconnect between management's decisions and workers' desires for work-life balance. This growing discontent suggests that companies enforcing strict RTO mandates might face challenges in maintaining employee morale and retention, potentially reshaping workplace policies as organizations navigate these evolving dynamics.

Remote Work Jp Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon Workplace Incivility Return To Office (Rto) Society For Human Research Management

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and engaging exploration of the challenges associated with return-to-office mandates and workplace incivility. It effectively highlights employee dissatisfaction and the potential drivers of conflict, supported by anecdotal evidence and references to reputable organizations like SHRM. However, the lack of direct citations and detailed methodology limits the transparency and source quality. The narrative is balanced but leans slightly towards employee perspectives, with less emphasis on management's rationale for RTO mandates. Despite these limitations, the article remains relevant and thought-provoking, contributing to ongoing discussions about the future of work and organizational culture.

Accuracy

The article largely aligns with existing data regarding the increase in workplace incivility following return-to-office (RTO) mandates. The specific claim that workers report 62% more incivility is consistent with similar findings, though the exact percentage might vary slightly in different studies. The article correctly identifies politics, social opinions, and differences in race or gender as drivers of incivility, which are well-documented in workplace research. The narrative about employee preferences for remote work and the challenges of face-to-face interactions also reflects broader survey results. However, some claims, such as the specific reactions of JPMorgan Chase employees and the internal dynamics within companies, rely on anecdotal evidence and may lack broader verification.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the challenges associated with RTO mandates, highlighting both employee dissatisfaction and management perspectives. It includes voices from various stakeholders, such as workplace strategists, employees, and HR professionals. However, the emphasis leans slightly towards employee grievances, with less focus on potential benefits of in-office work or management's rationale beyond the stated reasons. While it discusses the potential for increased collaboration in the office, these points are not as thoroughly explored as the negatives, which could suggest a slight imbalance in the narrative.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey its points. It effectively breaks down complex issues related to workplace dynamics and incivility, making them accessible to a general audience. The narrative flows logically from the introduction of the issue to the exploration of its causes and impacts. However, the inclusion of direct quotes and anecdotes, while engaging, occasionally disrupts the flow of information, requiring readers to piece together different perspectives.

Source quality

The article references the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a reputable organization, to support its claims about workplace incivility. However, it lacks direct citations or links to specific studies or reports, which would enhance credibility. The inclusion of anecdotal evidence from interviews with employees and strategists adds depth but also introduces potential bias, as these perspectives are not independently verified. The absence of a broader range of data sources or studies limits the overall reliability of the article.

Transparency

The article does not provide detailed methodology or specific data sources for the claims made, particularly regarding the SHRM survey results. While it mentions the existence of surveys and studies, it lacks transparency in explaining how data was collected or analyzed. The inclusion of anecdotal experiences adds personal context but does not clarify the basis for broader claims. Additionally, the article does not disclose potential conflicts of interest or biases, which could impact the perceived impartiality of the reporting.