By Jennifer Maffia, Owner of Advanced Recruiting Partners

Lately, I have been hearing the same topic come up repeatedly in conversations across life sciences and biopharma. Return to work policies are back on the table. Some companies are tightening expectations. Others are formalizing what has been loosely defined. Most leaders I speak with are not trying to be inflexible or out of touch. They are trying to do what they believe is best for their teams and their business.

There are real motivations behind these decisions. Collaboration, culture, performance, and connection all matter. Offices absolutely have a place, especially in scientific environments. This is not about being pro remote or anti-office. It is about slowing down just enough to make sure these decisions are intentional, well communicated, and aligned with today’s talent reality.

The life sciences talent landscape has changed

Even with economic uncertainty and slower hiring cycles, the talent market is not what it was pre-2020. The professionals I speak with every day, from clinical research leaders to highly specialized scientific talent, still value flexibility deeply. Not because it is trendy, but because they have experienced how it supports focus, balance, and long-term sustainability.

Specialized talent is still hard to find. The roles may be fewer than they were at peak hiring, but the competition for the right people has not gone away. Companies are more selective, and candidates are doing the same.

From a recruiting standpoint, rigid return to work policies narrows the field quickly. Geographic requirements alone can eliminate exceptional candidates, especially in niche areas where experience is not easily replaced.

What return to work mandates mean for hiring

I regularly speak with candidates who are interested in the work, the science, and the mission, but ultimately decline to move forward because flexibility is off the table. These are not candidates who want to disengage. They are professionals who know how they work best and are willing to wait for the right fit.

The retention risk leaders do not always see coming

One of the biggest risks with abrupt return to work mandates is that disengagement often happens quietly. People may comply, but they also start to reconsider. They stop raising their hands. They start exploring options. Over time, that becomes attritional.

Replacing experienced scientific professionals is expensive and disruptive. Beyond the cost, there is lost knowledge, lost momentum, and lost trust. When policies feel sudden or poorly explained, employees fill in the gaps themselves, and rarely in a positive way.

Presence does not automatically equal productivity

I still hear the assumption that being onsite leads to better productivity. Productivity comes from clarity, accountability, and outcomes. Many life sciences teams have proved over several years that they could perform, innovate, and meet regulatory expectations in remote or hybrid settings.

The strongest teams I see are measured on results, not visibility. When expectations are clear and trust is present, performance tends to follow, regardless of where the work happens.

Why one size fits all policies miss the mark

Life sciences organizations are complex. Lab based roles, clinical operations, commercial teams, and corporate functions all have very different needs. A blanket policy rarely accounts for that nuance.

Flexibility within the structure allows leaders to maintain standards while respecting role specific realities. When policies acknowledge these differences, they are more likely to be accepted and supported by the people expected to follow them.

What I am hearing from candidates and hiring managers

In conversations across the industry, the same themes come up consistently. Trust. Autonomy. Transparency. People want to understand the reasons behind decisions, not just the rule itself.

Flexibility is often seen as a signal of leadership values. When leaders trust their teams, that trust is usually returned. When flexibility disappears without context, it sends a message that goes far beyond scheduling.

Flexibility as a real competitive advantage

In a cautious market, flexibility can be a differentiator. Companies that take a thoughtful approach tend to attract candidates who are more engaged and more intentional about their next move. These are often the same people who stay longer and contribute more once they join.

Flexibility should not be viewed as a temporary concession. It is a strategic choice that supports resilience, adaptability, and long-term performance.

A more intentional way forward

Before enforcing return to work mandates, it is worth stepping back and looking at these decisions through a talent and retention lens. Do they truly support the goals of the business and the needs of the workforce.

Clear communication matters. Role-based decision making matters. Most professionals are reasonable when they feel informed and respected.

A pause worth taking

Return to work decisions are not just operational. They are strategic. They shape how organizations are experienced from the inside and how they are perceived from the outside.

Pausing to listen, assess, and communicate may feel uncomfortable in the moment, but it often prevents much bigger challenges later. The companies that get this right are not choosing between performance and flexibility. They are building teams that can sustain both.

About Jennifer Maffia
With over 20 years of experience in clinical staffing, Jennifer Maffia connects pharmaceutical, biotech, and life sciences companies with top-tier clinical talent. She is known for building lasting client relationships, supporting tenured recruiters, and driving impactful hiring strategies. Through industry partnerships and active board involvement, Jennifer remains committed to advancing the life sciences field and improving patient outcomes.