Three days a week is rapidly becoming the new default for office attendance in hybrid models, replacing the pre-pandemic all in, all the time approach. 

Here’s the thing.  There is no evidence at all that three days is best.  The academic research on hybrid work effectiveness remains scant.  There’s been one study that found that intermediate levels of WFH (23-40% of the time spent in the office and the rest remote) correlates with some positive outcomes.  There’s another that has found that, in terms of remote work intensity, there’s a point at which benefits start to reduce and problems can increase.  These studies however are set in a specific context and may or may not be replicable to other organisations.

Three days is a finger in the air.  It’s got a good beat and we can dance to it.  Even Amazon, who have recently doubled down hard on three days in the office have reportedly acknowledged it’s a judgement call. There is however no clear evidence that three days is better than two or four, or one or five. 

Too often, when organisations argue for three days, their stance is explained by vague statements about how important it is to come together in-person for culture and the like – but this position lacks a robust evidence base. There’s no doubt that there is value in people coming together for some forms of work.  The critical question is – how much time and for what activities?

A three day mandate is a blunt tool.  For some roles in some organisations this might be more attendance than is really necessary.  For others, too little.  Requiring people to attend the office when they don’t need to may well lead to frustration and disengagement and in turn, poor organisational outcomes.  

A three day mandate also reduces employee choice and autonomy, key drivers of wellbeing, engagement and motivation. 

Three day mandates are easy to manage. They let managers simply implement a policy and say ‘HR says’.  Mandates can also help with scheduling work and certainty. However, they lack nuance and are extremely unpopular with employees, often resulting in unintended consequences in term of retention and recruitment.

Whilst good practice and new evidence will emerge in the future, it is highly like that there will never be an idea number of days that works for everyone in every situation and for all desired outcomes, only what works best for the specific context.  ‘Optimal’ might only be possible at a team and individual role level.  Of course, this involves high levels of trust and more management work.  And it so much easier to demand three days in the office. 

Ultimately, ‘how many days’ is the wrong question, the wrong place for our focus. Instead, we should be asking this: how do we, with regard to our own unique context, enable people do their best work?’