The Office Day Count Is Not a Strategy: What the Barclays Reversal Teaches Leaders

Note: This story was written with AI assistance and edited by me.

Over the summer, Barclays told its UK staff that from October 5, most people coming into the office two days a week would need to come in at least three, and managing directors and above would need four. On September 29, with six days to go, the bank's executive committee told staff it was extending the implementation period and reviewing its flexible working policy. Employees could defer until 2027 if their line manager agreed. On the same day, a spokesperson said the updated arrangements would take effect as planned.

Thousands of staff had signed an open letter drafted by Unite, which represents around 36,000 of the bank's employees, asking for support such as travel allowances and childcare vouchers. When asked why senior staff needed a fourth day, Barclays said it would support "collaboration, decision-making and leadership visibility."

Those are the facts as reported, from an analysis in The European by Marcus Iles. Everything below is my opinion.

My view: a number of days is not a strategy. Mandates without a clear reason buy attendance, not results.

The missing why

Barclays cited collaboration. That is a real goal. But nothing in the policy explained why collaboration required three days rather than two, or four for senior people. When leaders give a number without a reason, employees fill the gap with the most cynical story available.

"Leadership visibility" is the tell. Being seen is not the same as being useful. A senior person behind a closed door in the office teaches no one more than the same person on a video call.

Two stories at once

Telling staff the rollout is extended while telling the press it is on track is the fastest way to lose trust. People compare notes. And routing deferrals through individual managers turns one company decision into thousands of local ones, each read as a verdict on how much a manager trusts that person.

What works instead

I have run fully remote teams for years. The companies that get this right set outcomes, not days. They decide what in-person time is for, such as onboarding, planning or mentoring, and they schedule it on purpose.

They also measure output, not badge swipes. If a team ships, serves clients well and develops junior people, the number of days in a building is a detail.

Trust is the real cost

The article also cites Gallup research from September: 59% of surveyed US workers believe their employer collects activity data such as hours worked and badge swipes, but only 19% say anyone at work has talked to them about it. When people are counted without being told why, they conclude the counting is the point.

That is the hidden cost of a mandate with no explanation. Even if attendance goes up, goodwill goes down, and goodwill is what makes people go the extra mile when a project is late or a client is unhappy.

A fair counterpoint

To be fair, there are serious arguments for in-person work, especially early in a career, and Barclays has said it values balancing flexibility with working together. Some roles and some people do better in the office. My point is not that offices are bad. It is that a mandate only works when people understand and accept the reason for it.

Takeaway

Barclays may well get the attendance it asked for. What it cannot mandate is the reason people give their best work. I took a firm from $6M to $60M in under three years, and most of that growth came from teams who understood what they were working toward, wherever they sat.

If you lead a team, try writing one sentence that explains what your in-office days are for. If you cannot write it, your people cannot either.