Why inconsistent return-to-office exceptions destroy trust

Why two different decisions can look like one privilege

Since January, Ania’s team has been required to work three days a week in the office. Paweł comes in for two, and Iwona can work fully remotely in some weeks. The rest of the team only sees the difference in schedules, so comments soon start: “Some people have better deals.” Ania replies: “These are individual arrangements – I can’t go into the details.” That answer protects privacy but does not explain how the decision was made. Different schedules may stem from different tasks, justified adjustments to working conditions or temporary organisational arrangements. There is no reason to disclose Iwona’s health, family situation or other private circumstances. At the same time, it is not enough to ask everyone to trust rules they cannot see. If the criterion “the manager decides based on who they like” has not been replaced by a more open procedure, it is hardly surprising that tension builds. The team should know the criteria behind decisions, not the details of colleagues’ private lives.

Fairness of outcome is not the same as fairness of procedure

A 2001 meta-analysis by Colquitt and colleagues, covering 183 studies, shows that perceived justice has several distinct dimensions: it concerns the outcome, the procedure, the way people are treated and the explanations they are given. In a return-to-office policy, this means that even someone unhappy with a decision may find it easier to accept the process if they know the rules and have the opportunity to present their situation. This is not proof that an explanation alone will fix every inequality. A 2013 meta-analysis of organisational justice also examines its links with emotions and with people’s relationship with the organisation. It does not, however, provide a ready-made number of office days that suits every company. Meanwhile, a 2024 experiment by Bloom, Han and Liang at one technology company found that a hybrid model with two days of working from home reduced staff turnover, with no detected deterioration in performance ratings. That does not automatically confirm that every exception, or every attendance requirement, is effective.

First, identify the work that genuinely requires being on site

Before sending out the rules, it is worth analysing tasks rather than people. When is access to equipment, on-site customer service, teamwork on a specific machine or a joint design session needed? Which meetings can be held remotely without the results suffering? If someone spends the whole day doing independent analysis, the argument “so that people see each other” needs to be developed: who do they actually need to see, how often and for what purpose? This kind of review helps distinguish the constraints of a role from ingrained habit. It does not mean, however, that all roles can be organised in the same way. A maintenance technician may be required to be physically present, whereas an analyst can handle most of their data remotely. The criteria should be written down and linked to the outcomes of the work. If the company finds significant differences between similar roles, it should check whether they stem from genuine duties or merely from the preferences of individual managers.

How to talk about exceptions without compromising privacy

Ania can tell the team: “Our rules are based on the tasks that require being on site and on individual needs, which are considered through a set procedure. We don’t comment on colleagues’ private situations. Anyone can submit their own request; we explain the decision as far as it relates to their work.” It is important to name the person responsible for requests, the response time and the possibility of a fresh review if circumstances change. To the complaint “Paweł can, so I want to as well”, there is no need to reply: “Paweł’s situation is special, trust me.” It is enough to say: “I understand you’d like similar flexibility. Let’s look at your duties and the criteria we use.” If an employee suspects unequal treatment, they should have a real channel for getting an explanation, rather than taking every complaint to the person whose decision they are challenging. The rules can be open while the situations of people granted exceptions remain confidential.

When an exception is justified and when it risks being arbitrary

A legitimate difference is easier to defend when you can point to a general criterion, a similar approach in comparable cases and a date for reviewing the arrangement. Arbitrariness begins when the same manager says on one occasion that “being in the office is essential” and on another changes the decision for no reason. Inconsistent messages are also a problem: the official policy says three days in the office, but promotions and opportunities for advancement informally depend on being in the office every day. The company should check that its assessment criteria do not penalise people who use agreed arrangements. It is worth separating organisational arrangements from statutory employee rights: not every request for remote work is a matter of the manager’s discretion. In such situations HR should apply the current regulations and internal procedures instead of being guided by personal sympathies. A good system does not remove all differences, but it does make them possible to check.

How to assess whether the policy really strengthens collaboration

After a month, it is worth asking about the real effects of the new rules. Are customers getting answers on time? Is on-call cover in place? Are meetings called because they require a joint decision, or just because people happen to be in the office? Do employees know on what grounds they can request an exception? Separately, you should compare how decisions are made across similar teams and look at anonymous signals of unequal treatment. It helps if the manager can admit: “The first version of the rules didn’t take fieldwork into account. We’ve corrected the criterion.” Otherwise the organisation starts defending the rules simply because they are already in place. Not every absence is a problem for collaboration, and not every presence improves it. Effectiveness should be measured by whether tasks get done, whether the right people are available and how well work is coordinated – not simply by counting entries to the building.

People do not need to know the private reasons behind every exception, but they should understand the rules for granting them. Fairness does not always mean an identical schedule. It means consistent criteria, respect for the people you are talking to, the possibility of challenging a decision and regular checks on whether the policy serves the work and collaboration.

How Em helps you explain an exception without explaining someone’s life

A team leader hears from an employee: “Why do I have to come in three days when others only do two?” Before the meeting, she describes to Em the type of role, the attendance rules and the limit on information that must not be disclosed. She asks for an opening sentence that acknowledges the frustration but does not promise identical conditions: “I understand the difference is hard for you. I want to show you the rules we use to make these decisions, and look at your situation.” She then practises her response to “That’s unfair” and a proposal to review an individual request. If data on the team’s communication preferences is available, Em can help her choose a way of announcing the rules that does not obscure the key criteria behind generalities about organisational culture. The team leader also prepares a short note on where to raise anything unclear and how to get an explanation of a decision. She leaves the conversation with a concrete plan: what she will explain publicly, what she will discuss individually and which inconsistencies she will pass on to HR to look into.