The Productivity Myth Behind Office Mandates in Technology Transformation

Why Some Large Canadian Institutions Still Insist on Office Presence for Technology Transformations — and Why It’s Counterproductive

Executive summary:

Mandated office presence in technology transformations is less about productivity and risk control, and more about legacy management assumptions and misaligned economic incentives—often at the expense of delivery quality and long-term outcomes.

Despite years of successful remote delivery, many large Canadian institutions—particularly banks—continue to insist on office presence for technology transformation initiatives. The stated rationale usually revolves around collaboration, oversight, and risk management. In practice, this requirement frequently undermines the very outcomes these programs are meant to achieve.

Technology transformations are not proximity-driven activities. They are knowledge-intensive, outcome-based efforts that depend on deep expertise, sustained focus, and clear accountability. For senior engineers, architects, program managers, and business analysts, productivity is far more closely tied to autonomy and uninterrupted execution than to physical co-location.

Mandatory office presence introduces several counterproductive effects:

• Reduced access to top talent

Highly skilled professionals increasingly expect remote or hybrid flexibility. Rigid in-office policies narrow the talent pool and force compromises on capability.

• Lower productivity disguised as collaboration

Open offices and meeting-heavy cultures fragment attention, replacing deep work with performative alignment.

• Higher cost with weaker delivery

Attrition increases, contractors command premiums, and timelines stretch—while output quality often declines.

• Visibility over value

Physical presence becomes a proxy for performance, encouraging optics and attendance rather than measurable outcomes.

• Cultural drag on transformation

For organizations pursuing digital modernization, enforcing legacy work models sends a contradictory message.

Ironically, many of these same institutions already operate globally distributed platforms, rely on offshore and nearshore delivery, and run 24/7 digital systems. Insisting that transformation teams be physically present conflicts with the digital operating models they are actively investing in.

The Unspoken Incentive Behind Office Mandates

There is also a less discussed—but widely speculated—dynamic behind the push for office presence, particularly in downtown cores. Large institutions are not just employers; they are deeply intertwined with urban commercial ecosystems. Office towers, retail corridors, transit systems, and surrounding small businesses depend heavily on dense weekday foot traffic.

For banks, this matters. Commercial real estate exposure, business lending, service fees, and broader downtown economic activity directly and indirectly affect balance sheets. Encouraging a return to the office helps stabilize these ecosystems, which can support asset performance, ancillary revenues, and ultimately shareholder value.

At the executive level, incentives can align even further. Short-term financial stabilization, optics-driven metrics, and stakeholder signaling may positively impact earnings narratives and compensation structures—regardless of whether these policies improve technology delivery outcomes.

This does not imply malicious intent. But it does highlight a misalignment of incentives: decisions optimized for urban economics and financial optics may conflict with what actually drives effective, modern technology transformations.

When office presence is justified as a productivity or risk-control measure—without clear evidence—it raises a reasonable question: is the policy serving transformation objectives, or broader institutional economics?

Rethinking What Actually Drives Results

Successful technology transformations are built on clear outcomes, strong accountability, and trust, not on where work is performed. Institutions that continue to equate office presence with productivity risk slower execution, higher costs, and weakened competitiveness.

In an industry that prides itself on efficiency and risk optimization, clinging to mandatory office presence may be less a safeguard—and more a legacy habit that quietly works against progress.