‘Incredibly disruptive’: Readers react to Fidelity’s five-day return to office mandate

On Wednesday, Fidelity Investments told employees at its Boston headquarters they will be required to return to the office five days a week starting in September — a move that quickly drew strong reactions from Boston.com readers.

The policy marks a significant shift from the company’s current hybrid model. Since 2024, Boston-based employees have been expected to work in-person for two full weeks out of every four. 

Under the new plan, all 6,200 employees in Boston — including managers at the vice president level or above — will transition to a full-time, in-office schedule. Customer support phone roles will be exempt. Three other Fidelity sites — Merrimack, New Hampshire; Kentucky; and New Mexico — will also adopt five-day in-person workweeks.

In a statement to Boston.com, Fidelity described the change as part of a “thoughtful, gradual approach” to returning to the office full-time, adding that it is intended to balance the needs of both customers and employees.

“Fidelity’s belief is that being physically together creates more opportunities for a meaningful associate experience filled with connection, mentorship, and learning — elements that are central to our long-term success,” a general Fidelity spokesperson said in a statement.

The company acknowledged that the shift may affect employees differently, noting that “with such a large and diverse associate base, we know there will be varying personal situations.” Still, Fidelity said the move reflects an ongoing focus on strengthening its culture, collaboration, and ability to deliver for customers.

It also said it will continue hiring and expanding capacity across its regions as it adapts its workplace strategy.

Boston.com asked readers to weigh in on the return-to-office mandate, and more than 550 responded. The majority (69%) opposed the move, citing concerns about work-life balance, commuting costs, and potential employee turnover. Just over a quarter supported the decision, saying in-person work can improve productivity and social connection, while 4% said they were unsure.

The divide in responses reflects a broader tension between flexibility and in-person collaboration — one that many readers said carries real consequences for both employees and employers.

Some readers predicted the policy could drive talent away from Fidelity.

“They will lose talented employees,” Martin from Boston said. On the bright side, he argued any potential mass departure presents a “great opportunity for other Boston-based employers to grab these individuals.”

Others focused on the impact to workers’ daily lives, particularly those who have come to rely on flexibility in recent years.

Cate from Brockton posited that if you can do your job from anywhere — and do it well — you should have flexibility to work how you’d like.

“This penalizes working parents, caregivers, and more,” she said. “And with the cost of gas and commuting so high, with raises stagnant, this policy costs employees money. Sorry you signed a lease – why do good employees have to pay that price?”

Still, not all readers were critical. Some argued that returning to the office full-time could benefit both employees and the broader economy.

“In-office and in-person work promotes teamwork, education, and self-esteem,” Tim from Medway said. “Workers have become stale, unmotivated, and less social. In-person work is good for the employee, good for the employer, and a boost to the economy.”

Below, readers share their opinions on Fidelity’s decision to return to the office five days a week.

Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.

What’s your opinion on Fidelity’s decision to bring Boston employees to the office five days a week?

I oppose the decision

“In-person working is more about real estate. Most non-customer facing work does not need to be done in person. Remote work gives better work/life balance, cuts down on traffic, costs less for the employee, and cuts down on chit chat, etc.” — Brenda, Chelmsford

“I believe we have learned how to be effective and productive while working from home. I’m also saving 3+ hours of commuting time, so I’m at work earlier and often later. I appreciate the work/life balance and I have discipline around that. Perhaps not everyone does.” — Jane P., Newbury

“This is about control, not productivity. A hybrid work schedule is truly the only way to achieve a healthy work/life balance. Not to mention the drive times, traffic and hassle to get in and out of the city. It’s just not sustainable.” — James, Reading

“Employees’ lives and schedules have changed. Employers seem to think that it is just a simple switch because they ‘said so.’  RTO is nothing more than having control. With teams and messaging the collaboration that is always mentioned is non-existent in most cases.” — Terry, Kingston

“Going from half-time to full-time will be incredibly disruptive to the employees and is a dramatic shift away from creating a work-life balance. While I agree that more in-office days are beneficial to an employee’s long-term success, there have been plenty of studies done that show this can be accomplished with a hybrid schedule of some sort. Losing the flexibility of working from home even only one day a week will be a tremendous loss of a critical benefit to Fidelity employees. I can see them losing a lot of good employees as a result. The best employees will leave for more flexible opportunities; they’ll be creating adverse selection against themselves.” — Rich, Easton

“I have worked in financial services in Boston for over 25 years, though not at Fidelity. While I believe there are functions that work better in person, forcing people who do not need to be in the office 100% is not always the best move. For the past 15 years of my career, I have worked from home 1-2 days/week and I have found that I tend to be more productive working remotely due to several factors, with the commute being one of those aggravating factors and workplace distractions being another.

“If I were in my 20s starting out, I would likely want to be in the office meeting people and learning the ways of the workplace. I am a seasoned employee who knows what works, does her job, and is just trying to do that job without added stress. It seems like companies are just trying to justify corporate real estate at the expense of human capital.” — Lynn, Boston

“In the end, back-to-the-office mandates are about protecting the value of corporate real estate. Every study done shows that employees are happier and more productive when they can work from home or on a hybrid schedule. Fidelity is the latest in a long line of companies that overpaid for real estate and now need to protect that asset by forcing people into city centers when they could just as easily do their jobs remotely.” — Scott, Waltham

“This is a move to reduce headcount. Will force many to explore other job opportunities.” — Chris, Hopkinton

“Schedule flexibility is a major factor in job satisfaction and many people have organized their lives around it. There’s certainly a benefit to having people working together in person but it doesn’t need to be every day, particularly if you spend much of the day working independently or on the phone.  My current and prior employer required three in-office days and it works very well. If they suddenly changed that to five in-office days then I might consider going elsewhere.” — Jack M., Lynn

“I think this will immediately put working parents at a disadvantage and increase stress/burn out. Flexibility in the workplace allows for prioritized, meaningful workplace interactions as well as prioritized, meaningful family interactions. I strongly believe you cannot have both if you are commuting a significant length of time into an office each day, which most people are with the Boston traffic (3 hours round trip for me!).” — Kayla, Salem, New Hampshire

“This policy is likely to increase traffic and congestion in the city without a clear operational benefit. Many employees have already demonstrated that they can perform their jobs effectively while working from home, and making a full return to the office feel unnecessary. Hybrid schedules, in particular, have been shown to improve employee satisfaction and support a healthier work-life balance. When employees have flexibility, they are often more engaged and productive.

Additionally, a traditional 9–5 schedule does not suit everyone. Some employees perform better outside of standard hours, and allowing flexibility in scheduling can lead to stronger overall performance. Overall, this approach feels like a step in the wrong direction, especially when more flexible models have already proven successful.” — Charlie, Boston

“I am a teacher, so I work in person every day. I think it’s very beneficial to have workers in person on site. However, I also think flexibility is important. The ideal for businesses and workers would be 3 days in person, such as every Monday and Thursday, with people choosing a 3rd day to come into the office … That’s a better work/life balance and people will be more rested and productive. Commuting to the Seaport District for most Fidelity workers is going to eat up nearly 2 hours of their day, cause stress, result in more sickness, and  be expensive, whether they drive or take public transportation. The weather in New England can be crappy so it’s nice to have that hybrid option.” — Rafaela, MetroWest

I support the decision

“Time to put the pandemic behind us. Too much isolation continues to tear and fray the daily fabric of society.” — Jim M.

“Work from home is nice but creates friction and allows it to persist if there is no interpersonal connection aside from a video call.” — John M., Boston

“I believe being together in-office adds value that isn’t achieved by being remote. Being able to have one-off conversations that aren’t scheduled, whether related to work or personal life, builds foundational relationships that organically occurred pre-pandemic.

“But focusing on flexibility and not a rigid ‘5-day in-office’ policy gives employees ownership in their lives and career, that isn’t an option with RTO mandates. Overall all, in-office does add value that is intangible, and managers understand that and it should be enforced. But a full-time mandate is a bit extreme, given it has been proven that hybrid works effectively. I’m very curious to hear how folks balance appointments, child-care, and other activities that were managed effectively without impacting one’s work day.” —Keith, Sharon

“The employer also has some social responsibility to contribute to the society by having their employees work where they were hired to work and help the city and town in many ways to develop both economically and socially. That is the only way to contribute to the city and town where the employer is located.” — Manu S., Boston

“It is gratifying and fun to work in an office with other people, learning from casual meetings and relationships.” — Mimi C., New Hampshire

“Let’s get back to work! With AI coming, people need to be collaborating more and learning more.” — Anita, Boston

“I agree with Fidelity that being physically together is better; for the company culture, growth and development of young employees, mentorship, collaboration, and innovation. Credit to the leaders at Fidelity for recognizing this.” — Phil B., Newbury

Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.

Annie Jonas is a Community writer at Boston.com. She was previously a local editor at Patch and a freelancer at the Financial Times.