Does a ‘Return to Office’ Mean a Reversal of Progress?

By Emma Burnaby-Atkins, Senior Director, Madison Lincoln

Working at a London executive search firm provides a unique perspective on the strategic shifts defining the market. From our position at Madison Lincoln, we have a clear view of the decisions which are shaping leadership across the city. Within the last year, we have seen a change to the working landscape across London’s real estate and investment sectors. The change is seen by some as a signal that the era of widespread hybrid work is coming to an end.

Many firms are making a clear statement, mandating a full five-day return to the office. The rationale is presented as essential for rebuilding a vibrant company culture. Companies feel that it will help with collaboration and also promotes business credibility. However, the desire to return to pre-pandemic operational norms, which is understandable, is also raising difficult questions such as what this mandate might mean for the industry’s senior female leaders and, by extension, the future of diversity at the top.

In my daily conversations with both clients and candidates, I witness both sides of this debate. For many senior women and indeed all women, the balancing act of leadership and caregiving is a constant reality. This shift means that they are now faced with a new sustainability challenge. A rigid five-day-a-week mandate presents a significant insurmountable barrier, not just an inconvenience to their lives. This is a critical point. If firms prioritise physical presence over flexibility, they risk prompting a quiet exodus of top-tier female talent. This could mean a shrinking of an already narrow leadership pool. Furthermore, this could create a significant pipeline risk.

If we take the real estate and investment industry in particular, then we see an industry that has spent years pushing to increase the representation of women in senior roles. This could feel to some now like a potential reversal of hard-won progress. We’ve been celebrating a growing cohort of female leaders across professional industries, yet this rigid office culture risks rolling back that momentum precisely when the real estate investment and financial sectors are under pressure to prove their inclusivity and adaptability.

However, it should be said that the conversation is not entirely negative. We are also hearing a surprising counter-narrative, even from some senior women themselves. For a section of senior women, they say that a full return brings a welcome sense of fairness. It eliminates the “visibility penalty” that often afflicts those who work flexibly, where their commitment or presence can be subtly questioned. When everyone is in the office, everyone is measured by the same yardstick of physical presence and engagement. In theory, this levels the playing field, ensuring that advancement and opportunity are based on merit, not on whether you are seen at your desk five days a week.

This push for “equal footing” and the removal of the “less committed” perception is a powerful driver for many who support the mandate. The irony is that while one group of senior women may be considering exiting the industry, another sees the new policy as a means to solidify their standing and remove the ambiguity that hybrid work can create around professional perception. The truth is, we haven’t yet reckoned with the long-term impact of this shift. If senior women, particularly those with caregiving responsibilities, begin to depart firms, the resulting leadership gaps will be significant. The message this sends to younger, ambitious female colleagues could be damaging, creating a perception that leadership requires an unsustainable commitment that doesn’t align with their life goals.

As we move forward, the conversation is no longer just about where we work, but about the fundamental shape of leadership. The choice to prioritise physical presence over flexibility will have a direct and lasting impact on the diversity of our executive ranks. For firms across industries, not just real estate, the question is simple: Are we building an inclusive leadership model that retains and attracts the best talent, or are we reverting to a system that, however unintentionally, narrows our pipeline when diversity and adaptability are most critical to success?

I don’t feel like a strict 5-day RTO mandate will ever fully come back into force for many companies, especially the smaller ones. However, I do believe that the return to office will not be stopped, but it can be integrated in such a way that everyone is catered for. There does need to be a shift in how companies present their offices. They need to be attractive places to be, provide things that the modern workforce needs and desires. We need to look at wellness, accessibility and the social aspect of it. I believe some companies are already getting this right, and it will be those companies that ultimately retain their talent whilst enticing their workforce back into the office more.

What is definite is that the time for an open and honest dialogue is now. It is a conversation about the future of leadership itself, and it is one we are uniquely positioned to help facilitate.