I want the old in-office comraderie and collaboration but I'm not willing to give up WFH benefits.
My company went so far as to remodel huge new office for me. I thought it be great but then a four day onsite rule popped out of nowhere that applies to people with offices. I'm seriously considering leaving.
there is such a thing as hybrid. Having an office available for use, and schedule meetups deliberately in the office, and do it regularly (but not all the time - for example, once a fortnight is a good cadence imho).
The days you do meet in the office, you will do an all day "workshop", rather than regularly scheduled work - bounce ideas, talk about stuff, etc. Face to face discussions can be done there, and it's more productive.
And in exchange, you remove things like "status meetings" etc, to make time. A project manager or really, anybody, will need to come into the office on those scheduled days in office and chat in person, if they want a status update!
EDIT: I'm completely serious, persona.
Six out of eight of the board members are involved with companies located not just in the same state but clustered around the same area. Three of these companies have buildings in the same business park. All these companies have inflicted similar RTO mandates on their employees.
I went through our financial statements -- commercial leases were set to expire this year, they've renewed them for another thirteen (!) years and committed $100M to office space improvements. They've frozen hiring, they're cutting costs wherever they can, but they found it reasonable to dump $25M each quarter on leasing costs?
Whenever something like this is "difficult to comprehend" as the article obediently avoids scratching the surface, my first guess is that someone's making money off it. Is it board members with real-estate investments? Is it organized crime? Is it Blackrock and Vanguard (majority shareholders btw)? At this point, why not all three?
They get paid enough to have double-shift coverage on children, or they don't have children at all. Since they don't have to be home as much, they aren't. They don't mind the commute because they get to drive a fancy car, park in a reserved spot, and are usually on the road before the traffic starts. They get all their jollies from being in an office, talking to other people with the same lifestyle, and they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to be in an office (aside from malice or laziness). And they derive their energy from seeing all the activity -- people going to meetings, milling about, etc. They see that stuff and conclude that yes, problems are being solved, innovation is happening, and that gets them excited. It's all just vibes. No one actually doing the math on this stuff has seen a slam-dunk case for draconian in-office policies.
Most institutional shareholders are.
When business interest align no conspiracy is required.