Return-to-office (RTO) policies are associated with more self-reported technology-based workplace deviance in one peer-reviewed U.S. study, but the study does not show that RTO caused it—or that workplace sabotage is rising. A separate survey of workers who recently experienced stricter RTO rules found reports of rule-evasion and reduced output, alongside suspicions about employers’ motives. Those findings are worth examining, but they are not proof of a new era of sabotage.
What counts as workplace sabotage?
“Sabotage” can make ordinary rule-breaking, job searching, and harmful misconduct sound like the same thing. They are not. A 2025 study in Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal uses the broader term technology-based deviant workplace behavior, defined as “an employee’s voluntarily using organizational technology to engage in behavior that violates significant organizational norms.”
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The study measured 18 behaviors across three categories: three time-abuse items, four communication-deviance items, and 11 production-deviance items. Examples included excessive personal internet use during work hours, pretending to attend a virtual meeting, and unauthorized access to shared files or emails. These behaviors differ in seriousness; the study’s umbrella measure should not be treated as a count of deliberate sabotage alone.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhat the peer-reviewed study found—and what it did not
The study’s authors surveyed 1,228 U.S. working adults online from mid-September to mid-December 2024. They randomly split the full dataset into two analytic samples of 643 and 585 respondents. These were two samples for analysis, not two independently recruited, representative populations. Across the study’s models, having an RTO policy was consistently associated with higher self-reported technology-based deviance.
#1 Best Overall
That is an association, not evidence that a mandate caused misconduct. The data were cross-sectional and self-reported, so they do not establish what came first or whether employees’ behavior changed after a policy was introduced. The study also did not record when each RTO policy began or how strictly an employer enforced it. Most participants said their employer had no formal RTO policy, and hybrid work was the dominant arrangement.
As a result, the study cannot demonstrate a before-and-after effect, a rising trend, or a “new era” caused by RTO. Its findings do suggest that policy context matters, but not that RTO alone explains the behavior.
What workers recently exposed to stricter RTO reported
Enhancv says it surveyed 1,000 full-time U.S. workers who had experienced a new or stricter RTO policy in the preceding 12 months. The survey used Pollfish and screened for full-time employment and a mandatory shift. Its results describe this selected group’s self-reports and perceptions; they should not be generalized to all workers.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →| Enhancv finding | What respondents reported | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| Employer motive | 72% suspected the mandate was intended to drive voluntary attrition. | This is a belief about employer intent, not evidence that employers adopted RTO for that reason. |
| “Coffee badging” | 46% reported swiping in and leaving early. | This is attendance-rule evasion in the report’s description, not automatically destructive sabotage. |
| Job search | 36% reported applying for a new job from their current office desk. | Looking for another job is exit planning, not sabotage of an employer. |
| Reduced output | 32% reported intentionally reducing daily output. | This is closer to production deviance, but remains a respondent’s self-report. |
Enhancv also quoted an anonymous respondent saying, “The idea that we need to be present is asinine. Many come in just to socialize and then go home. No more work is getting done here than at home.” That comment illustrates one person’s view; it is not an independently verified productivity finding.
Why the two surveys are not interchangeable
The peer-reviewed study and Enhancv survey measure different things in different populations. The study surveyed working adults generally and tested an association between RTO policy and a multi-part measure of technology-based deviance. Enhancv filtered for full-time workers who had recently experienced mandatory RTO changes, then asked about their reports and perceptions. Their percentages cannot be ranked against the academic study’s result: one is not a competing estimate of the same measure.
A separate Resume Now Pollfish survey offers background on interpersonal conflict, not RTO. Conducted on February 3, 2025, it asked 1,010 U.S. respondents about workplace blame-shifting. Resume Now reported that 61% said they had been thrown under the bus at work, 63% had witnessed it, and 29% said they witnessed it at least weekly. Those figures concern broad workplace experiences and do not show that RTO produced blame-shifting or sabotage.
Rank #4
What may matter alongside an RTO policy
The academic study also reports associations involving supervisor relationship quality and employees’ perceptions that employers had not fulfilled promises. Those findings point to workplace relationships and expectations as relevant context, but the survey cannot establish that changing either factor would prevent deviance.
The study’s authors recommend clear expectations for technology use and supportive management. These are recommendations, not interventions tested by the study. For employers, the practical implication is to make attendance and technology rules explicit, explain why a policy exists, and address performance through clear, consistent expectations rather than assuming that physical presence guarantees productive work.
Best Value
For workers, it helps to distinguish disagreement with an office policy from conduct that violates workplace rules or harms colleagues. Seeking another job is different from deliberately lowering output; leaving early after swiping in is different from accessing files without authorization. Keeping those categories separate makes the evidence—and the workplace conversation—more honest.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
