When we decided to implement an RTO policy at Flingster, a hybrid tech startup where remote work had become a core part of our culture, it was anything but smooth sailing.

The initial decision stemmed from leadership’s belief that face-to-face collaboration could spark creativity and strengthen team dynamics. However, communicating this policy revealed significant blind spots in our approach, and the employee response was both vocal and unforgettable.

We announced the RTO policy during an all-hands meeting, followed by an email detailing the schedule and rationale. The email aimed to highlight the benefits of in-person collaboration but lacked sufficient acknowledgment of the flexibility and autonomy employees had grown to value.

The response was immediate and passionate. Employees expressed their discontent in anonymous surveys, Slack channels, and even direct meetings with HR.
One employee made a poignant point during a one-on-one: “Why should I spend hours commuting when I’ve proven my productivity working from home? This feels more like a lack of trust than a strategy.”

Resistance came in many forms—missed commutes were the minor gripe. More concerning were increased turnover rates, productivity dips, and even a sense of disengagement among teams.

The most striking example of dissent was a mid-level manager who staged a “team protest,” where several members worked from a co-working space rather than coming to the office, underscoring their preference for flexibility over a corporate mandate.

Ultimately, the backlash led us to re-evaluate the policy.
We pivoted back to a hybrid model, offering more structured flexibility. The experience taught us an invaluable lesson: successful policy changes must account for employees’ lived experiences, not just leadership’s aspirations.

RTO mandates need to be conversations, not commands, balancing business goals with the realities of a modern workforce.