Microsoft. Fidelity. NBCUniversal. What do these big corporations have in common? 

This year, they, along with many others just like them, have implemented return-to-office (RTO) mandates for their employees. Even my own state has recently put an RTO policy in effect for state workers. 

As the Gen Z marketing intern at WAHVE, I find these growing RTO mandates particularly interesting. Having started my higher education after the pandemic reshaped the world, I, like the rest of my generation, am accustomed to remote and hybrid models for learning, communicating, and working. 

And now, as someone beginning their career at a time when employers are calling their employees back to the office, I want to understand the sudden shift in the work environment – and whether returning is always the best solution.  

In my research, I found the RTO debate is far from simple. 

On the one hand, business leaders are pushing for these policies because of the potential advantages they could offer their employees and organization. According to a recent Forbes article, many business professionals believe employees should return to in-office work because it’s easier to maintain organizational culture, monitor employees’ output, foster teamwork, and boost overall morale. 

These are valid considerations; however, research into RTO policies challenges this belief. A study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh found that RTO policies don’t necessarily improve an organization’s productivity or financial performance and may decrease employee satisfaction. 

These conflicting considerations raise an important question for business leaders: Instead of debating whether an organization’s work will be conducted in-person or remotely, should organizations consider which work environment is best for different positions? 

The Importance of this Question in Fields like Insurance

Take, for example, the insurance industry. 

In this industry, some work requires physical presence. Whether it’s a field claims adjuster inspecting physical property damage or a client-facing professional who needs to build and maintain relationships through face-to-face conversations, these positions can’t be fulfilled through a digital barrier.  

While in-office work is essential for these roles, it is not for positions such as underwriting, data analysis, policy processing, accounting, or other desk-based roles that don’t require a physical presence. These positions can be performed effectively through digital systems and virtual communication, making them well-suited to remote work. 

Of course, the other factor that cannot be overlooked in this time of a staffing shortage within the industry is talent. Given that a position is most suitable for remote work, this working environment can give organizations access to more qualified experts regardless of geography. 

That is why a single in-person or remote work policy may not be the best solution for an entire organization. Instead of implementing strict RTO mandates across the entire workforce, business leaders should evaluate the actual work requirements of individual positions. 

Here are six factors to consider.

1. Physical Presence 

Does the position require an employee to be physically present? 

In-person work indicators: The work requires inspections, physical records, equipment, or frequent on-site activity 

Remote work indicators: The work primarily involves digital files, virtual meetings, and desk-based analysis

2. Customer Interaction 

How important is face-to-face interaction in this specific role? 

In-person work indicators: Relationships with clients depend heavily upon in-person meetings, especially involving sensitive topics 

Remote work indicators: Customers can comfortably operate virtually, and relationships are maintained well through virtual channels

3. Workflow Digitalization 

Can the entire workflow of the position operate virtually? 

In-person work indicators: Role depends on paper processes, office-based systems, and manual handoffs of work

Remote work indicators: Work can be completed through cloud systems, e-signatures, electronic documents, and other digital tools

Can employees collaborate and perform effectively across digital distances?

4. Collaboration & Supervision 

In-person work indicators: Work needs constant, hands-on supervision, collaboration in real-time, and in-person training and development 

Remote work indicators: Responsibilities and outputs of work are clear, employees work well independently and communicate effectively, and performance can be measured through established SLAs or KPIs

5. Risk, Security, & Compliance

Can regulatory and information-security requirements be fulfilled remotely? 

In-person work indicators: Sensitive processes or information requiring controlled environments, or regulatory jurisdictional requirements limit where work can be performed

Remote work indicators: Secure online access, appropriate controls, and established remote procedures allow the work to be done securely outside of the office  

6. Talent & Business Impact 

Does remote work improve or hinder the operating model?

In-person work indicators: Remote work has a measurable negative impact on productivity, service, development, or team effectiveness

Remote work indicators: Geographic flexibility expands the talent pool, provides access to scarce expertise, and improves retention without compromising performance 

The Goal isn’t Remote or In-Person Work. It’s the Right Work Environment.

During the pandemic, organizations had to adapt quickly to remote work. Now they have the opportunity to utilize that experience to their advantage, using this framework to maximize productivity and financial performance. 

By assessing physical requirements, customer interaction, digital workflows, collaboration, compliance, and talent impact, business executives can determine which work environment best supports each position–and the overall organization–in succeeding. 

This approach to work is particularly valuable to the insurance industry, as it will expand the available talent pool beyond an organization’s geographic location to include more highly qualified insurance experts nationwide. This work environment may also attract younger professionals to the insurance industry who entered the workforce with different expectations about where and how work gets done than what corporations are currently laying out with RTO mandates. 

Speaking as a Gen Z, I know flexibility is appealing. But that doesn’t mean every young professional expects to work from home all the time. Many prefer hybrid schedules. But the bottom line is that it’s important to understand why a position needs to be performed in a certain work environment to create a more effective workplace.

For insurance organizations that decide some positions are best suited to remote talent, WAHVE provides both experienced contract staffing and direct-hire talent solutions for the insurance industry. These options can help employers broaden their search beyond geographic boundaries while matching their staffing approach to the needs of the role.

As you evaluate your workforce strategy, consider: Which roles truly need to be in the office—and which could benefit from access to a broader talent pool?