Amazon’s office mandate: A bold move or a risk to workforce resilience?
January marked the mandatory start of five days a week on-site for a reported 350,000 of Amazon’s corporate employees following the company’s announcement in September 2024.
In an update, Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy suggested that returning to pre COVID-19 pandemic work patterns would strengthen their culture and create benefits. He said: “Collaborating, brainstorming, and inventing are simpler and more effective; teaching and learning from one another are more seamless; and, teams tend to be better connected to one another.”[1]
This strict policy is unpopular with some employees. Staff have petitioned HR and protested on social media, citing unfairness after years of remote or hybrid work since the COVID-19 pandemic, but this return-to-office trend isn’t confined to Amazon. Organizations including UPS and Dell also recalled some staff to the office full-time last year. This stance contrasts with evolving workforce expectations and recent government policies, such as in the UK, where new laws have made flexible working requests a default right from day one.
What does a return to on-site working mean for resilience?
Remote working has long been a business continuity strategy for organizations facing disruptions like utility failures, adverse weather, or mass health concerns. The pandemic’s shift to remote work equipped organizations with the knowledge and tools to work from home effectively, enhancing resilience to workplace disruptions. Underlining this is BCI research[2] highlighting that during a crisis, virtual communication from home was easiest and therefore the preferred method of managing critical events by crisis management teams. Over half of respondents used virtual crisis room technology to collaborate securely, benefiting from global representation and wider availability of subject matter experts regardless of location. Only 7% of respondents felt their crisis management team couldn’t work effectively remotely, indicating a strong move towards flexible working during crises. Organizations enforcing a full-time return to the workplace may find their remote working resilience is weakened as employees lose practice, confidence, or the necessary equipment they have gained over the past few years.
Detrimental effects on work life balance and mental health
A study reported by Forbes[3] indicated that over half of employed Americans had the opportunity to work from home at least one day a week, and 35% could work full time at home. Nearly 90% of those surveyed took the opportunity to work remotely where it was offered indicating a desire for workplace flexibility. BCI research[4] highlighted the importance of a work life balance in achieving workforce resilience, which a full on-premises working pattern is detrimental to, and also uncovered negative impacts on staff morale, wellbeing, and mental health had increased in 2024. This emphasises the already increasing mental health challenges faced by organizations and highlights the dangers of removing preferable flexible working options on staff wellbeing.
Another challenge of enforced on-site working is that flexible working policies are more favourable towards groups such as parents, caregivers, or disabled employees, discouraging diversity in the workplace. A lack of diversity could reflect badly on an organisation’s reputational image. McKinsey research[5] indicates that top-quartile companies for racial and ethnic diversity tend to outperform their industry medians financially. So too does evidence indicate that BC/resilience teams benefit from a diverse range of practitioners with differing experiences, outlooks, and knowledge when planning for or dealing with a crisis.[6]
Full time on-site working can also push out experienced employees who leave for organizations with preferable flexible working options, and lead to a narrower pool of talent to recruitment from. A survey reported by Deloitte suggested that more than three quarters of Gen Z and millennials in the UK would consider looking for a new job if their employer asked them to work on-site full time[7]. Unfilled roles, dissatisfied and inexperienced staff can hinder an organization’s response in a crisis, and its overall resilience.
If 2025 heralds a shift towards returning to the workplace, as per Amazon’s example, resilience practitioners should ensure their organization carries out regular, effective exercising that trains on premises staff to work remotely during a crisis. Communication information should be regularly updated to ensure staff are contactable, and practitioners could work with top management, using BIAs and risk registers, to ensure that mental health and employee retention and attraction are not affected by a lack of flexible working policies.
It is also worth noting that the risk of pandemic is still high on global risk registers. Even though COVID-19 is fading from organizations’ memories, the possibility of a pandemic outbreak is possible. Ensuring their organization’s remote working capabilities are effective should remain high priority for resilience professionals.
More on
About the author
Rebecca Mathews
The BCI
