"If you're going to mandate full-time office attendance, you'd better have a rational reason." — This reflects the consensus among today’s younger employees.


 Read the original article (in Japanese):完全出社なら「仕事を辞めたい」と回答、若手社員の半数に - オルタナ


Going to the Office Isn’t “Bad”—But Meaningless Attendance Is

Recent surveys reveal that nearly half of younger employees say they’d consider quitting if forced into full-time office attendance. This isn’t about rejecting the office itself—it’s about rejecting forced routines that lack clear justification.

Modern workers are not lazy or entitled. They’re asking: What’s the point of coming in? And if there’s a good reason, they’ll show up. The real issue is the absence of that reason—when companies fail to answer the question of why office presence is necessary.

Time Investment and Work-Life Balance: The Logic Behind Presence

For today’s workforce, going to the office is seen as a time investment, not a given. Commuting one or two hours daily for tasks that could be done remotely isn’t just inefficient—it’s irrational.

They ask:

  • Does being physically present lead to better learning or feedback?

  • Does it foster creative teamwork or strategic alignment?

  • Does the in-office experience provide value beyond what remote work allows?

If the answer is yes, workers are open to commuting. But if showing up means simply sitting at a desk in silence, doing solo work on a screen, then the office becomes a cost center, not a value generator.

Commuting as Unpaid Labor: The Hidden Overtime

While legally not part of working hours, commuting is practically a form of unpaid labor—especially for those spending over 10–15 hours a week just to get to and from work.

For younger generations raised to optimize time and output, the old notion that “commuting is normal” doesn’t hold. They see it as a burden with no ROI. And unless the company can show how that time results in better outcomes, they’re right to question it.

Why Do Companies Still Insist on Office Work? The Culture Argument

Executives often justify return-to-office mandates on the grounds of:

  • Preserving company culture and shared values

  • Enhancing collaboration and innovation

  • Building team loyalty and engagement

  • Encouraging “serendipitous” creativity

These aren’t invalid. But there’s a gap between intention and implementation. Culture becomes a one-way demand—"Absorb our values, follow our norms, be loyal to the tribe"—without any reciprocal commitment.

The Core Contradiction: Cultural Demands Without Security

Many companies simultaneously demand cultural assimilation and enforce job-based, performance-driven employment models. This creates a fundamental contradiction:

"Show loyalty, but don’t expect long-term job security."

Workers are told to internalize the company’s vision and values while being treated as disposable. They’re expected to read the room, join the rituals, and commit to the brand—but receive no clarity about career progression or job continuity.

That’s not culture. That’s coercion.

Loyalty Must Come With Rewards and Opportunities

If companies want holistic engagement—from presence to participation to belief—they must offer meaningful returns:

  • Clear links between in-office presence and career development

  • Transparent pay and benefits that reflect commuting costs

  • Shared visions and goals that employees can internalize and believe in

Professional athletes don’t stay with teams out of sentiment. They weigh compensation, opportunity, and the likelihood of winning. Workers, too, assess whether the “team” is worth their full commitment.

Office Presence and Loyalty Are Now Choices

Neither office presence nor loyalty can be assumed. They must be earned.

  • Office mandates must come with clear purpose

  • Loyalty must come with reciprocal investment

  • Employment must be accompanied by respect and clarity

In short, workers no longer accept one-sided demands. And they shouldn’t have to.

Without purpose, they won’t come in.
Without reward, they won’t stay.


Read in Japanese↓

出社の意味を問い直す時代へ──合理性なき強制と、報われない忠誠の終わり（2025.5.2）

Read more articles (in Japanese)↓

仕事は信頼契約である──キャリア形成と企業の採用責任を問い直す（2025.5.1）

コメント

コメントを投稿

このブログの人気の投稿

Why Aren’t Wages Rising in Japan?

イメージ
  Why Aren’t Wages Rising in Japan? — How the Labor Share Ratio and Retained Earnings Are Stalling Economic Growth Read the original article (in Japanese): 生産性3割アップも「増えない給料」　原因は「貯めこむ大企業」にあった | TBS NEWS DIG Chapter 1: The Illusion of Wage Growth Despite government announcements of a “historic wage increase,” most workers in Japan feel no real difference in their paychecks. The reality is that real wages have barely moved in 25 years , even though labor productivity has risen by roughly 30% during the same period. This growth rate exceeds that of major European economies like France and Germany. The popular narrative — “wages haven’t increased because productivity is low” — is no longer credible. The real question is this: Why are companies making more money, yet not paying workers more? Chapter 2: Record Corporate Profits, Yet No Pay Raises The most glaring figure is Japan’s retained earnings , also known as corporate savings or internal reserves. In 1998: approximately...
続きを読む

Proposing the Radical Idea of a “Tenure-Based Retirement System”

イメージ
Read the original article (in Japanese): 「もう長すぎた…」宇宙飛行士・野口聡一氏が57歳でJAXAを辞めた納得のワケ( ダイヤモンド・オンライン ) The Reality Behind the 45-Year Retirement Debate The ongoing public debate around the “45-year retirement” and early retirement plans in Japan was initially intended to encourage self-directed career development. Yet, many workers interpret these initiatives as thinly veiled attempts to push them out. As astronaut Soichi Noguchi has noted, Japan’s work culture tends to reward compliance over skill-building or career ownership. If we want to change that, we need structural reform—not just slogans. The Proposal: A Tenure-Based Retirement System A better alternative is the Tenure-Based Retirement System . Rather than setting a fixed age for retirement, the idea is to define an employee’s career cycle within a company by tenure—say, a 20-year maximum. Such a system allows for natural career reflection without age-based discrimination. More importantly, it promotes a mindset where workers are exp...
続きを読む

How “Incompetent Seniors” Drive Young Employees Away Through Broken OJT Structures

イメージ
 Read the original article (in Japanese): なぜ「OJT」ばかりの企業に若者は定着しないのか？　上司が部下育成を勘違いする理由 「うちはOJTで育てる」と胸を張る企業がある。OJTとはOn-the-Job Trainingの略で、現場で実務を通じて部 www.itmedia.co.jp Introduction: Is “We Train Through OJT” a Cop-Out? “We develop people through OJT”—how many times have we heard this in Japanese workplaces? On-the-Job Training (OJT) is originally meant to be a practical learning method where skills are honed through real work. Yet in practice, many companies abuse this term as a way to justify throwing new employees into unfamiliar tasks without guidance. This leads to frustration, underperformance, and ultimately, resignation. This article explores why such “OJT in name only” is problematic and what structural improvements companies must make—drawing comparisons to the foundational training methods found in sports and the arts. 1. Without Form, Growth Can’t Begin Karate, Baseball, and Art: Why Mastery Begins with Form Karate has kata. Baseball has standard stances and pitching mechani...
続きを読む