Why Trump's Return-to-Office Mandate Could Backfire on Federal Workforce Efficiency

Trump's Mandate and Its Implications for Federal Employees

President Trump’s recent executive action mandating a return to full-time in-person work for federal employees is not just misguided; it blatantly disregards empirical evidence and modern workforce trends. This heavy-handed approach to government management is likely to be counterproductive, undermining the very efficiency and accountability it seeks to promote.

The Evidence Against Full-Time In-Person Work

The Office of Personnel Management's recent research shows that remote job postings attract significantly larger and more diverse applicant pools, with an average of 233 applicants—over 14 times more than non-remote positions. This allows agencies to be more selective and hire higher-quality candidates, a reality seemingly ignored by the current administration.

Faster Hiring Times

At the University of Southern California’s CLEAR Initiative, we found that remote job postings not only attracted larger applicant pools but also closed faster, with an average posting length of 11 days compared to 21 days for non-remote positions. This efficiency in hiring is critical for federal agencies, yet the executive action appears determined to overlook it.

Regional Variations in Job Applications

Our analysis of federal jobs using a “coarsened exact matching” approach reveals that remote positions receive over 200 more applications and take 10 days less to close. States with fewer available workers, such as South Dakota and Oklahoma, would benefit significantly from offering remote jobs, while states like Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia still maintain a healthy applicant pool.

STEM Job Insights

Notably, over 85% of the federal workforce operates outside the DC metropolitan area. Agencies in regions with less robust worker supplies would gain substantially by offering remote jobs for STEM occupations. For instance, states like Montana and Kansas saw up to 200 fewer applicants for location-based STEM jobs compared to remote roles.

The Risks of Eliminating Telework Flexibility

The abrupt removal of telework options could lead to a talent exodus from federal agencies. As Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, emphasizes, hybrid work schedules are essential for attracting and retaining talent in both public and private sectors. By stripping away this flexibility, federal agencies risk falling behind in the competitive landscape for top talent.

The Misguided Justifications

The executive order relies on political rhetoric rather than solid data. Studies indicate that telework can lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction. For example, OPM’s fiscal 2022 report found that employees who telework at least three days a week rated their engagement at 77.1 out of 100, compared to 58.5 for those who do not.

Cost Savings Overlooked

The order fails to consider the potential cost savings associated with telework, such as reduced office space, lower utility costs, and decreased commuting expenses. Mandating a full return to office work could waste taxpayer resources rather than save them.

A Tailored Approach is Needed

A more effective strategy would allow agencies to tailor their telework policies based on mission requirements and employee performance. This could include setting clear performance metrics and conducting regular assessments of telework’s impact.

In summary, while maintaining an efficient federal workforce is crucial, this executive order is a regressive step that ignores empirical evidence and modern workforce realities. It could undermine the government’s ability to attract and retain top talent, leading to a less effective and diverse workforce.

William G. Resh, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Sol Price School of Public Policy.
Elizabeth Joun is a doctoral candidate at USC’s Price School.