We have seen a big shift in how—and where—work happens in recent years. The rise of remote work during the pandemic was not just a temporary fix: it caused a long-running debate about employee autonomy and the role of the office. This conversation has created some tensions between employees who have experienced the advantages of working from home and employers who want teams back under one roof, at least some part of the week.

This debate where both parties are right is at the heart of the paradox of autonomy and control ​(Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart 2016)​.

Why employees want more autonomy

Many employees who got a taste of flexible work now know how convenient it can be. They can do great work without a commute, in a space they control, with the freedom to structure their day in ways that fit their lives. For some, it is about avoiding rush-hour traffic. For others, it is working alongside pets, kids, or even a view of the mountains. This autonomy lets people work in ways that suit their rhythms, and that freedom makes them feel happier, healthier, and even more productive.

It is not just about lifestyle, though. Autonomy also gives employees a sense of ownership over their work, which can lead to deeper job satisfaction and loyalty to the company ​(Langfred 2000)​. When people feel trusted to do their job, they are more likely to go above and beyond. From the employee perspective, working remotely is not just about convenience — it is a meaningful way to balance life with work, which is an essential part of the wellbeing at work.

The company’s side of the story

Many employers argue that office work brings unique advantages that remote work just cannot replicate. Being together in the same space can foster spontaneous collaboration, enhance collective problem solving, and build a stronger team culture. It is easier to grab a coworker for a quick brainstorming session, check in with a manager, or feel the vibe of a team meeting when face-to-face.

Managers often feel they can better support and mentor their team when everyone is in the same physical space. There is a level of visibility and access that is harder to replicate remotely, even with the best digital tools. With increased distant work, the distance between team members and the leaders may create challenges for effective leadership.

Moreover, some companies worry that too much autonomy leads to fragmentation. If everyone is working on their own schedule from different locations, it may affect collaboration and make it harder to rally around common goals. In short, teams are to be kept connected, cohesive, and productive. And for some, this means gathering in an office at least part of the time.

The tension point

So, we have a tension point ​(Putnam et al. 2016)​. Employees are asking for autonomy and they want to be trusted to get the job done on their terms. Employers, meanwhile, are asking for commitment to shared office time, believing it is essential for the health of the company and its culture.

While some organizations have fully embraced remote work, others insist on a return to the office, with various shades of hybrid in between. Each of these models has its pros and cons, and each company is trying to find the balance that best suits its goals and its workforce.

Finding the sweet spot: autonomy and alignment

Many companies are finding that a flexible hybrid model can offer the best of both worlds. With a hybrid approach, employees get the autonomy they crave on some days while coming into the office on others to maintain that team connection.

Open communication, flexibility from both parties, focusing on outcomes rather than inputs, and encouraging team-building activities at office are some ideas that could ease the tension. It is essential to create a culture of transparency and trust. Employees should feel comfortable expressing what they need to do their best work. In turn, employers should openly communicate their reasons for wanting in-office time, focusing on the benefits to the team and company culture.

Flexibility can also play a crucial role. Every team member has unique needs and work styles, so why not offer some flexibility within a structured model? For example, employees could be asked to work in-office on designated core days but can work remotely on other days. Companies can try different hybrid models to see what is effective and make adjustments based on feedback and results. This keeps both sides engaged and adaptable.

When evaluating productivity, it is helpful to focus on outcomes rather than where or even how long employees work. If people are meeting their goals and driving the company’s mission forward, does it really matter where the work is done?

Finally, if the office is no longer the default gathering place, then intentional team-building efforts become crucial. Virtual coffee chats, monthly in-person gatherings, or even quarterly off-site days can foster the sense of community that remote work sometimes lacks.

The future of work: a collaboration, not a compromise

Autonomy does not have to come at the expense of teamwork, and office time does not have to mean a rigid, five-days-a-week requirement. It is a collaboration, not a compromise, where employers and employees alike can create a model that works.

We are all in this together. With an open mind, a bit of flexibility, and a focus on what really matters—the people and the work—we can create workplaces that not just function but flourish. Let us find the sweet spot, where autonomy and community can coexist in harmony.

Picture: Shutterstock