I’ve been writing a lot about hybrid work lately—defending it, even. And that’s because I’ve seen firsthand how it can drive efficiency when done right. But here’s the thing: the ongoing debate about hybrid versus office work has been a distraction. The real issue isn’t where people work—it’s about how businesses optimize performance. Hybrid work, when implemented thoughtfully, is a powerful tool for boosting efficiency and engagement. But too often, return to office mandates are used as a convenient way to cut costs, rather than a genuine attempt to improve productivity.
Take the Trump administration’s latest move: a buyout program offering federal employees seven months’ pay to voluntarily resign by February 6. This sounds like a strategic way to reduce headcount without outright layoffs, leveraging voluntary exits – founded on the belief that the best employees are the ones that show up to the office 5 days a week. The extended pay and benefits through September 30 could serve as a soft landing for employees, but the real question is whether this will result in a more efficient government or simply fewer workers doing the same amount of work.
More Than Just RTO
The official line is that this will boost collaboration and productivity. But if this was really about productivity, then getting hybrid work right is the best way to achieve it—studies have consistently shown that well-implemented hybrid models drive efficiency, engagement, and output. But for many, it feels more like a push to make federal jobs less appealing and encourage people to throw in the towel.
A recent study showed that 85% of leaders admit they struggle to trust employees’ productivity in hybrid setups. Yet the evidence tells a different story: productivity has remained stable—and in many cases, it’s actually improved. In fact, 61% of those surveyed reported getting more done thanks to hybrid arrangements. The truth is, the office alone doesn’t guarantee productivity. The reality is, productivity isn’t about where people work—it’s about who they are, what they’re working toward, and whether they have the right tools to do it. High-performing teams thrive with clear goals, strong leadership, and the flexibility to do their best work—whether that’s in an office or not. So why the rush to pull the plug on a model that’s clearly working?

Is This Really About Productivity?
I’m not convinced the federal buyout is really about productivity. Workforce reductions aren’t inherently a bad thing—sometimes they’re necessary to create a more efficient system. But what matters is how it’s done. The real concern here is whether these policies are being implemented in a way that actually improves productivity or if they’re just an excuse to push people out without a clear plan for making work more effective. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has even said the administration seems more interested in making jobs unbearable than in making government work better.
Take Schedule F, for example—a controversial policy that reclassifies certain federal jobs, making it easier to replace career civil servants with political appointees. If the goal is to create a more responsive and effective government, then transparency and a thoughtful approach are key. Otherwise, it risks disrupting institutional knowledge and creating instability.

A Smarter Way Forward
Losing experienced employees could create gaps in critical areas like national security and healthcare. If productivity and efficiency are the goals, there’s a better way to get there. Hybrid work models have already proven they can work. They give employees flexibility while keeping accountability intact. Instead of pushing people out the door, why not focus on upskilling the workforce and investing in tools that make collaboration easier?
Creating a work environment where employees actually want to stick around would go a long way, too. That means fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability rather than one of frustration and burnout.
Final Thoughts
The Trump administration’s federal buyout program and return-to-office mandates might hit their target of reducing the workforce, but let’s not pretend it’s all about efficiency. The Executive Order for AI this past week talked about “Sustain[ing AI] to enhance America’s dominance in AI to promote human flourishing.” We should ask ourselves whether this feels like a human flourishing move – what does it look like to empower employees to do their best work?
If your organization is looking to make real cost-cutting changes while improving efficiency, talk to Kadence’s experts. We can help you build a smarter, more productive workforce—without relying on rigid, outdated mandates.