I’ve been working as a resume writer and have noticed a troubling trend among my clients this year. It seems that several individuals from the same company have been reaching out to me within just a few months, and it appears to be linked to their return-to-office (RTO) policies. Initially, I had a wave of clients who quit due to the RTO mandate, and shortly after, I started seeing clients who were laid off. What’s striking is the difference in how these exits are handled. Those who chose to leave receive no severance, no notice period, and their resignation is recorded as voluntary. In contrast, those who were laid off at least walk away with a severance package. It’s the same company and a reduction in headcount, but the outcomes for the employees differ drastically depending on who made the first move. I initially thought this might just be a coincidence, but then I came across a survey of about 1,500 US managers. It revealed that a quarter of executives actually hoped RTO would drive employees to quit, and nearly 40% admitted that their organizations had resorted to layoffs because not enough people were resigning. This pattern I’ve seen in my client list appears to be part of a larger strategy. What really frustrates me is how the individuals who quit frame their decisions. They often say, "I chose to leave," and negotiate their next steps as if they had a real choice, sounding hesitant and apologetic. In reality, they were effectively managed out, just without the formal paperwork that would typically accompany a severance agreement. So, if your company suddenly imposes a strict RTO mandate, I suggest thinking twice before resigning on principle right away. It might be wiser to let them handle the layoff instead.