In a sweeping return-to-office (RTO) push, Republican-led states are rolling back flexible work policies for government employees, ignoring mounting evidence that remote and hybrid work models enhance efficiency and cut costs. Governors in Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin are issuing strict office mandates, aligning with the Trump-era federal RTO push—moves critics argue are more about political posturing than sound management.
Nebraska’s Gov. Jim Pillen, for example, has mandated full-time in-office work, affecting nearly 2,250 state employees who had been working remotely or hybrid. The order has ignited a legal standoff over labor contracts, sparking backlash from state workers. “Who cares where our IT developers are sitting, as long as the work gets done?” asks Justin Hubly, executive director of the Nebraska Association of Public Employees, which represents over 8,000 workers. His frustration highlights a broader, increasingly partisan debate over work location—one that has turned remote work into an ideological battleground rather than a productivity decision.
Ohio’s Gov. Mike DeWine has implemented similar measures, while Oklahoma’s Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an executive order demanding full-time office attendance. In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers, led by Speaker Robin Vos, have proposed reinstating pre-pandemic office levels, despite Democratic Gov. Tony Evers pledging to veto any such mandate.
Even Utah—once a trailblazer in remote work—has reversed course. Gov. Spencer Cox, who in 2019 dubbed himself a “televangelist for telework,” is rethinking the state’s flexible work policies. Though he once praised telework for saving taxpayer dollars and improving air quality, his recent comments suggest a shift in priorities, signaling that remote work, while valuable, requires careful management—a nuance that blunt-force RTO mandates fail to acknowledge.
Politics Over Performance
By prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic governance, red state leaders are sidelining substantial evidence that remote work reduces expenses, improves employee retention, and enhances productivity. Instead of treating flexible work as a tool for efficiency, they’ve cast it as a front in the culture wars—risking long-term damage to government workforces.
Research overwhelmingly supports the benefits of remote work. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) found that federal agencies saved millions in operational costs while maintaining or improving productivity with telework. Yet, despite these findings, several Republican governors are clinging to an outdated notion of workplace effectiveness, using executive orders to enforce full-time office attendance. Their goal appears less about optimizing performance and more about reviving a nostalgic vision of the workplace—one that aligns with broader conservative efforts to shrink government and weaken public-sector unions.
History suggests that rigid RTO mandates come with real costs. Even President Biden’s relatively moderate 2022 hybrid return-to-office policy—requiring federal employees to be in-office at least 60% of the time—triggered a spike in workforce attrition. A study led by Mark Ma at the University of Pittsburgh, using data from Revelio Labs, found that the policy led to a 26% increase in turnover among senior government employees and a 32% jump among highly skilled staff—a brain drain that disrupted key agencies.
Red-state RTO mandates are even stricter than Biden’s, raising the risk of replicating—and amplifying—this instability.
The Productivity Myth
Contrary to claims that remote employees are less efficient, a growing body of research demonstrates the opposite. A recent study by Alessandra Fenizia (George Washington University) and Tom Kirchmaier (London School of Economics) found that public-sector employees working remotely were 12% more productive than their in-office counterparts. Their research, based on extensive administrative data, attributed these gains to fewer distractions, reduced workplace interruptions, and greater focus.
The study also dispelled fears that remote employees lack accountability. Not only did they complete more tasks per day, but the quality of their work remained unchanged—debunking the notion that in-person oversight is necessary for effective performance. Moreover, hybrid models—where employees split time between home and office—proved especially effective, balancing individual productivity with periodic in-person collaboration.
Evidence-Based Policy or Political Theater?
Decisions about government work models should be guided by data, not ideology. The federal government’s experience with hybrid work mandates showed that even moderate office requirements can trigger damaging turnover. Meanwhile, international examples—such as the European Central Bank’s decision to extend its remote work policy for two more years—demonstrate that flexible models can sustain productivity while improving work-life balance.
Yet, in red states, the push for rigid office mandates appears driven by politics rather than performance. By dismissing the overwhelming evidence supporting remote and hybrid work, these leaders risk compromising government effectiveness in pursuit of a symbolic return to pre-pandemic norms.
Instead of using work location as a political cudgel, policymakers should adopt strategies that reflect modern workforce realities—prioritizing efficiency, cost savings, and employee retention over nostalgia-driven mandates.
About the Author
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with hybrid work and Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.
