What do I do when an employee refuses to return to the office?
Stop trying to get them to comply and go into the next conversation to understand instead. When explaining the policy, listening to objections, offering flexibility, getting firmer, and escalating have all failed, the problem usually isn't the employee — it's that every one of those approaches came from the same place: get this difficult person to do what I need. Change the question to "what's actually going on for this person, and how do I connect with that?" and the conversation changes with it. In the real case below, that single shift resolved a months-long standoff — and left the working relationship stronger than before it started.
The misdiagnosis happens early and quietly. Someone resists, so you make a decision about them: they're difficult, they don't want to cooperate. From that point, everything you try comes from that label. The label closes down your options before the conversation has even started — it tells you what you're dealing with before you've actually found out. Every approach becomes an attempt to move an obstacle, not connect with a person. And while you push against the obstacle, the situation quietly drains you.
A real case from the CFL program
A manager in my Conflict Free Leadership program had exactly this situation. His team had been working from home for months and he needed everyone back in the office. Most made the shift without much fuss. One person wouldn't come in.
He tried everything. He explained the reasons. He listened to the objections. He gave extra flexibility. He got firmer. He escalated. Nothing moved.
And the longer it went on, the heavier it got. His boss was asking why it hadn't been sorted. The rest of the team was restless — why does he get to stay home when we all have to be here? The manager was caught in the middle, fielding pressure from every direction. He was thinking about it on weekends, dreading Monday mornings, lying awake running through conversations that hadn't happened and probably never would. From the outside it looked like one person not coming into the office. From the inside it felt like the whole thing was sitting on his chest.
When we looked at what was actually happening in each of those attempts, every single one was coming from the same place: get this difficult person to comply. Even when he thought he was being flexible, he was still trying to move someone he'd already written off. He wasn't curious.
So he tried something different. He went into the next conversation not to get a result, but to understand what was actually going on.
The conversation shifted quickly. The team member opened up — there were things happening the manager hadn't known about. By the end, the team member thanked him and said it was the most useful conversation he'd ever had with a manager. They ended up with a stronger working relationship than they'd had before any of it started. And the manager got his weekends back. He told me afterwards he hadn't realised how much of himself he'd been pouring into that one situation.
How to run the curiosity conversation
This is the APE Principle applied to a standoff — emotion first, facts later:
Drop the goal for one conversation. Not forever. For one meeting, the outcome is understanding, not agreement. Say so: "I'm not here to re-litigate the policy today. I want to understand what's going on for you."
Ask what, not why. "What's making the office hard right now?" "What would need to be true for this to work?" ("Why won't you come in?" is an accusation wearing a question mark.)
Acknowledge what you hear. "That sounds like a lot to be carrying." You're not conceding the policy — you're meeting the person.
Then, and only then, problem-solve together. Real constraints on the table, options built jointly. Solutions people help build are solutions they keep.
Notice what this isn't: it isn't capitulation. The office requirement didn't vanish in the story above. What vanished was the wall — because the manager stopped talking to a label and started talking to a person.
FAQ
Isn't understanding them just delaying the inevitable directive? The opposite, usually. Standoffs run on being unheard. One genuine understanding conversation often unlocks in an hour what months of directives couldn't — and if a directive is still needed afterwards, it lands on a person who's been heard, which changes how it's received.
What if they still refuse after I've listened? Then you move to clear expectations with full knowledge of the real situation: "I understand what's going on, and here's what the role requires. Let's work out how to bridge that." Curiosity first doesn't remove the boundary; it earns it a fair hearing — and it tells you whether you're dealing with a solvable obstacle or a genuine mismatch.
How do I deal with the rest of the team resenting the hold-out? Acknowledge the fairness feeling without breaching privacy: "I know this looks uneven. I'm working on it directly, and I'm not discussing anyone's situation with the group." Teams tolerate difference far better when they can see the leader is engaged with it.
How do I know if I've already labelled someone? Listen to your own language. "They're difficult," "they just don't want to cooperate," "typical" — verdicts, not observations. If you can predict the conversation before it happens, the label is running it.
What if the real reason is personal and they don't want to tell me? They don't have to. "There's something making this hard that I'd rather not go into" is a legitimate answer — and still progress, because now you can problem-solve around a real constraint instead of a character judgement. Point to whatever support your workplace offers and keep the door open.
Doesn't my boss just want compliance, not connection? Your boss wants the situation resolved. In the case above, connection was what resolved it — faster and more durably than any escalation had. Resolution is the deliverable; curiosity is the method.
Key takeaways
The label closes your options before the conversation starts.
Explaining, flexing, firming, escalating — all the same move: push the obstacle.
Change the question: not "how do I get compliance?" but "what's going on for this person?"
One curiosity conversation resolved a months-long standoff — and strengthened the relationship.
Curiosity isn't capitulation. The boundary stays; the wall comes down.
Find where conflict is quietly costing you
If one standoff is eating your weekends, measure what it's really taking. Take the Leadership Energy Audit — five areas, a score for each.
This post links up to the pillar: Why do I keep avoiding difficult conversations at work?
John Faisandier is the founder of TUF: Thriving Under Fire and creator of the APE Principle. Since 1999 he has trained thousands of managers and frontline staff across New Zealand and Australia to handle emotionally charged situations at work. He is the author of "Thriving Under Fire: turn difficult customers into business success" and runs the Conflict Free Leadership program for managers.
