Recently, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy gave notice that all AMZN corporate staff were to be back in the barn working in January 2025.

(Before anyone sends any inflammatory emails, we’ve used the Cows metaphor for better than 25 years and have gone to great lengths to be clear that we are NOT comparing people to cows. With that point made, if anyone chooses to see such a comparison, that’s on them, not us.)

Having spent ten years in two different corporate staff assignments, I’ve worked from cubes & offices @HQ, from a desk in the room over my garage, and in Delta seat 2-B. I can appreciate one facet of reasoning behind the order: Specifically, the notion that the folks in HQ need to set an example for the rest of the organization which, in this case, is among the world’s largest private employers. Fair or not, corporate staff members (generically) have long been viewed by others in an organization as privileged, well-paid characters, exempt from normal rules and expectations. (Normal jealousy rules apply.)

Among the reasons given for backing such a decision are things like quicker/better staff acculturation, better bonding of teammates, enhanced leader development, greater accountability, and more fluid/effective coaching. Okey dokey. We get it. There is no disagreement there. 

Before going further, some clarification is in order: This is about management smarts, not worker rights. If you (or Amazon, or any organization) can find the right people willing to work at high output under your rules, go for it! If not, you’d be wise to revisit the rules.

On the opposite side of the fence, slamming the door shut on teammates who’ve opted to keep working from elsewhere after the pandemic passed is a hard move that comes with a price:

1. Amazon will doubtless lose some talented, valuable staff. A disproportionate number of the departing staff will be women, not easily replaced in highly skilled jobs.
2. Amazon’s brand and employer reputation are taking a hit (already), making recruiting significantly harder and salary comps higher for some period. I know, I know, the tight labor market has relaxed for now. People’s memories have not, however.
3. If the company really plays hardball, it will lose some treasured, hard-to-replace talent.

Following are two issues that Mr. Jassy and his peers at other organizations currently observing from the cheap seats should be mindful of:

1. Leading from a distance requires a skills upgrade, specifically around coaching, performance management, communication, and team development. Like their peers at many organizations, Amazon leaders are accustomed to coaching from less than three feet, not thirty, let alone three hundred miles. If they can’t have eyes on or reach out and touch someone (literally), they feel that they’ve lost control. (Truth be known, they never had it.)
2. Their hard-earned reputation as a better-than-average, high-performance employer is very much at stake. That oughtn’t be treated lightly. The ability to attract and retain top talent and keep them giving their maximum effort makes the organization more productive and profitable (motivated people move faster). Or, as we’ve put it, “Contented Cows Still Give Better Milk.” At the end of the day, this isn’t about what the organization CAN do, but what it SHOULD or MIGHT do.

Four suggestions:

1. Consider offering some (repeat, some) exemption for AMZN HQ staffers who’ve been with the company longer than X years AND have been consistently performing at an “Exceeds Expectations” level.
2. If an individual is performing at an “Exceeds Expectations” level and has moved > 70 miles from AMZN HQ, the company will provide either temporary living or relocation assistance not to exceed six months’ base pay.
3. The company should ensure that AMZN staffers (in all major locations) have access to top-notch childcare.
4. Perhaps most importantly, make strenuous effort to equip the Amazon leadership team (all of it) with coaching skills and methods better suited to remote relationships and the disposition of the modern workforce.