Amazon, frequently under the microscope for its pioneering but often criticized management techniques, now requires its employees to commit to office work at least three days a week. This new policy will necessitate some employees to uproot their lives and move to larger hubs closer to main offices.

Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser has defended this return-to-office mandate, claiming it has stimulated more energy, collaboration and connections within the company. And it might benefit Seattle by attracting more well-paid residents to the area.

However, the ground reality as seen by the employees seems starkly different. According to Slack messages from several workers, a significant number of employees, previously operating virtually, now face a pressing dilemma: relocate to an Amazon hub, find a nearby office or tender their resignation. This abrupt policy shift has left employees feeling disconcerted and undervalued, with some already contemplating job changes and others anxious about the prospect of increased workloads due to potential colleague resignations.

This “relocate or resign” policy bears an uncanny resemblance to AT&T’s June ultimatum to its employees, which has raised several eyebrows and suspicions of a covert layoff strategy. It’s not uncommon for corporations to use intricate and complex language to obscure their actions and intentions. In this case, the seemingly straightforward phrase “relocate or resign” could be a smoke screen concealing an attempt to shrink workforce numbers without the accompanying negative press that mass layoffs invariably attract.

The policy lands like a one-two punch for employees. They are caught off guard by the sudden change, and then face a Hobson’s choice — a choice where only one option is realistically feasible. They are either forced to disrupt their lives and relocate or hand in their resignation, creating an environment akin to an ambush and leading to a lose-lose situation that leaves no winners.

The fallout from such a policy can be devastating to team morale and corporate culture — two cornerstones of any organization’s success. Forcing employees to relocate can severely destabilize team morale, similar to a gust of wind sweeping through a delicately constructed house of cards. Employees, feeling like expendable pawns in a grand corporate chess game, face an enormous emotional strain having to choose between their job and their home. This can lead to a significant drop in morale, causing a domino effect throughout the organization.

Moreover, such policies can fracture the company culture, the adhesive that binds an organization together, creating a sense of community and shared purpose. The fallout from these policies creates a ripple effect throughout the organization. Employees who remain, witnessing their colleagues forced to make life-altering decisions, may begin to question their own job security, leading to a pervasive sense of fear and unease. This can envelop the office like a fog, dampening productivity and motivation, and reducing the company culture to a mere ghost of its previous vibrant self.

However, amid such challenges, it’s essential to focus not just on the stumbles but also on recovery and prevention. Companies should make empathy and understanding the bedrock of their policies, treating employees as people with lives outside of work rather than just chess pieces to be moved around a board at will. Additionally, in the aftermath of the pandemic, the future of work has shifted. Embracing a flexible hybrid model that caters to employees’ needs, instead of adhering to a rigid structure, can prove to be more efficient and foster a more conducive work environment.

If companies seek to avoid the pitfalls of demoralizing their workforce and shattering their corporate culture, they should not follow in the footsteps of Amazon or AT&T. Values of understanding, flexibility and empathy are not just beneficial for the well-being of employees, but they also have the potential to boost business outcomes by fostering a motivated, engaged workforce.