With this policy, you'll keep the 20% capable staff. Anyone else (except a few both too afraid to leave and too comfy with their current pay) will leave.
That'll leave you with a few 10x staff, too lazy to leave, but capable, and a lot of ballast.
That'll leave you with a few 10x staff, too lazy to leave, but capable, and a lot of ballast.
YMMV.
I will say though thinking back to those times I was younger and more naive. I was a slave to that employer, often there until 8-9 at night. My life revolved around them. It wasn't healthy.
1. That 20% number. What if it's 40%? 50%?
2. How easy/quick is it to replace the people you will lose who don't prefer this work style?
3. What percentage of your current workforce likes the environment as described? Maybe hiring off the street is 20%, but you've already selected for 80% through other selection factors.
Basically, at what point does the value gained from the in person work / setup overtake the loss of potential workforce? You're making an argument for why some people won't want to work there, but so long as the environment is not discriminating on things like race/gender/ability, a partial in person setup may actually be the right call for some teams/companies, without any "luring" needed.
I say all this as someone who primarily prefers to work at home now, but goes into the office once a week or so without any requirement to do so. I agree with OP's initial points a lot, though I think I would lean less towards requirements and more towards guides.
I see that as a total misapplication then, as it actually assumes way worse - that 100% of the people would not like this work condition described, which is evidently false as OP has a company of people working in that. The question still remains though: what percentage of people would choose to stay / join this environment?