But this argument is fundamentally flawed, assuming that proximity bias (an archaic concept that favors "face-to-face" contact) will still exist, and the discriminatory beliefs and behaviors plaguing society (racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, and more), will not exist, in a post-COVID world. Importantly, this argument suggests that the only way to move forward is to move back — to pick up where we left off. But the reality is that employees that were discriminated against, and marginalized before Covid, will likely face the same issues now.

The reality is the complete opposite. In the last 18 months, it's become apparent that remote work can assuage some of the difficulties faced by minority groups in the workplace, like discomfort, casual racism, implicit and explicit bias; you know, the type of activity that can cripple an individual's sense of self-worth and wellbeing, dragging their productivity down in the dumps along with their confidence. It's also become apparent that remote work is better for employee output; 77% of those who worked remotely in the last year showed increased productivity.

The fact of the matter is that, for some employees, remote work is about much more than flexibility and productivity. It's about the ability to work at all. Only when a workplace is designed to support (and protect) a diverse workforce will it attract one. And as we know, a diverse workplace is an innovative one. A more profitable one. Ultimately, a better one.

Why do these benefits experienced by minority groups often fly under the radar?

Because processes that exist in politics, education, business, and more reliability over-represent the visible majority, and unrepresented the minority-majority. And when the dominant voice is that of the white Caucasian male, others are less likely to speak up.

There are very real and pervasive problems that disproportionately affect women, people of color, and underrepresented minorities in business and tech, like harassment, implicit bias, and other behaviors that communicate the message: "you don't belong here." This is imposter syndrome to the tenth degree. Feelings of isolation, anxiety and pressure to fit in don't lend themselves well to emotional or mental health. They don't lend themselves to honest or open conversations. The minority voice has been stifled for so long by fear that it is no surprise that when experience improves, we do not speak up. And, even if perspective was more actively shared, it would be incumbent on the other side to listen.

Progress is only made possible by partnership. This is where allyship and understanding come into play.

What challenges will these individuals face if their employer enacts a mandatory return to the office?

If you are great at what you do, shouldn't you be able to work wherever you are most comfortable? Individual success should not depend on in-office presence. It should depend on making a positive impact on company performance. COVID has brought to light the reality that making the location of one's home an implicit qualification for employment creates major hiring barriers for workers in many demographic groups.

Mandatory return to office measures will rebuild many of the barriers to work that the opportunity to work remotely initially solved.

For women, for example, who shoulder the majority of family care responsibilities in our society, mandatory in-office measures are a major barrier to joining the workforce. Were office work to begin again, women will be burdened with the stress of balancing childcare schedules, commuting traffic, and emergency phone calls. Not only is this a heavy weight to carry for mental and emotional health, but it's an unfair choice women should not be forced to make.

The same logic applies to people with physical or mental health disabilities. Not is bias and discriminatory reactions faced in the office a debilitating reality for some, but commuting also poses a significant barrier to many of these people depending on the nature of their disabilities. A simple trip downtown for work? A small inconvenience for some, but an incredible division for those with limitations in mobility.

LGBTQIA+ employees will also face challenges if forced to return to office work; one LinkedIn survey of 2,001 LBGTQ professionals found that 31% have faced blatant discrimination or microaggressions at work. A physical workplace that replicates the power dynamics of a less tolerant and more close-minded society can be harmful for marginalized individuals, including LGBTQ people. Returning to the office would mean less control of their surroundings and more pressure to present themselves in a certain way.

The option to work remotely is not just good for employees, it is a major step toward creating more inclusive organizations. Organizations who return to pre-COVID in-office work will be symbolically putting the brakes on progress in diversity and inclusivity.

With companies proudly touting their DEI work over the past year, what impact do return-to-office mandates have on their continued progress?

The fact of the matter is that people have been under merely two years of stress, anxiety and strain since the pandemic first began. Under this strain, priorities have shifted, and employees have put the "Live to Work" mindset on the backburner. This new workforce is demanding, and importantly, discerning.

Candidates will be attracted to organizations offering creative and progressive benefits options that provide for and protect employees' quality of life. Benefits that cover mental and emotional health and personal and professional growth are a good start. But an even better investment for employers? Investing in and integrating intangible benefits, like transparency around pay equity and inclusivity practices.

It is care, authenticity, and transparency, not perks, that differentiate truly supportive workplaces, from workplaces that are touting DE&I work for short-term benefits. I view this as a major opportunity for employers who have a history of progressive policies that support DE&I to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Current employees and future talent are less likely to sacrifice their happiness for a paycheck. The "nine-to-five" narrative is no longer resonating. Business leaders would do well to shift their mindset to better serve their workforce, away from the classic retention questions of "how can we keep employees at the company," and toward a more mission-driven inquiry like "how can we create opportunities for people to feel connected with our organization and make meaningful work?" Remote work is paramount to this narrative.

How can employers further implement and support inclusive initiatives moving forward, whether they have in-office, hybrid or remote policies?

This inquiry is inextricably linked to the question above – "Why do these benefits experienced by minority groups often fly under the radar?" Early on in my career, I recognized that the predominant narrative in American business is the Caucasian male narrative. In fact, I came to understand how prevalent this narrative was in the world and how much this narrative shapes what we consider to be normal, fair, and safe. The loudest voice at a dinner table is always the one that is heard.

But one perspective is never right. It's never smart. And for too long, one perspective has dominated the conversation when it comes to business design. To reiterate a point I made above: "Only when a workplace is designed to support a diverse workforce will it attract one". Business leaders must be intentional about integrating different perspectives and different people into their workplace design conversations to keep it relevant and equitable. A benefit might behoove one individual may not, for instance, satisfy the needs of another. Employers who mitigate the minority voice by implementing non-inclusive policies will stifle the success of inclusivity in their organization in the short and long term.