Why does there need to be something "driving the decision"?
You may as well ask why I want my cleaner to descale the bottom of my taps. There may well be no reason beyond aesthetic preference.
Maybe it's not more profitable or less profitable. Maybe it's within margin of error, and maybe the people running Amazon for the most part prefer working in an office.
"I want you to return to the office."
"Why?"
"Just do."
Is so unfulfilling a response that it's stupid on the part of management to not have even a noble lie explaining why it's so.
I can make up reasons - I can say, it looks better because it's more visually ordered, it's shiny and it looks nice, family and friends I invite over have this arbitrary bias too and so they'll look more kindly on me... etc.
But at the end of the day I just want the taps descaled and my cleaner does it for me.
It sounds really as if what it comes down to is that you want more ownership over your job than what is being offered. Amazon are saying, explicitly, this is our decision, agree or disagree, we're doing it.
For what it's worth. I tend to agree that most explanations of desires are post hoc rationalization or justifications. It's nice to encounter someone who's honest with themselves in that way.
I deliberately use the cleaner example because - I'm hiring a person to clean my tap. They might disagree with my reasoning for cleaning it. At the end of the day, I don't care what your opinion is on tap descaling, I want it done, so you either do it or I'll find someone who will.
The management doesn't owe you a reason for preferring in-office work. It's not an unreasonable request, it's not illegal, they're not assaulting you or degrading you or something like that.
I believe this is the truth. I worked for a startup 20 years ago and the founder told us all to come in early in the morning and look as busy as possible, because key investors were touring the office. He told us that they wanted to see where their money was going and we need to play our part.
Normally we worked nights and weekends at home and in the office, but the management class actually want to see us sweat IRL.
Another part of this is the management class has a herd mentality. If they see another dominant manager with some modicum of success do something, they will mindlessly copy it.
This isn't an opinion shared by everyone, which in my opinion is a good thing. Some people prefer all-remote teams, some people prefer a mix, and some prefer to work on teams where remote work is not allowed. I think everyone should find a workplace that is suited to what they want.
At the scale of Amazon, it's hard to pass up even a single-digit increase in productivity. Furthermore, they're in a position where they have the clout and prestige to attract the workforce they need.
Remote work is still probably a good decision for smaller companies, where they might struggle to hire if they don't offer remote work. A less productive worker is still better than not hiring a worker at all.
I watched a replay of a billionaire summit/conference once. They get these ideas in those echo chambers and bring back anecdotal evidence to the company and represent it as empirical fact.
> Is there that much solid evidence that they get more value out of people in the office rather than home?
Nope
> Or are there other reasons like tax incentives that encourage in-person work over remote?
In the corporate real estate sector, there were grumblings about incentives to companies. Basically, if you stay or extend the contract then we will improve the space “for free” or reduced rate.
> Is this just a control thing or or there a compelling argument that I am missing?
Some say it has to do with future layoffs. There are hints that AMZN is going to layoff people anyways but instead of having to pay out severance. They put these shitty policies in place to nudge people towards leaving on their own accord and thus paying out severance package.
Have seen this at a previous company. Unfortunately the people that do leave tend to be the people that you really want to stay. Almost the “anchor beings” of the team so to speak. Those people tend to find new jobs relatively quickly and the people you are left to work with simply just cannot replace those that left.
Velocity decreases. Management rushes to hire and push through the ranks with not so qualified individuals. Velocity further decreases because of the increased training and onboarding of a very inexperienced persons. People get annoyed all over. Veterans begin to slowly drop every month. New people begin to leave as well (within a year). Management then hires the worst off shore contractors. Velocity decreases further. Regression bugs, new bugs increases. Stability of application or platform is questionable.
Honestly these B-grade MBA losers are just clueless. This is all just a game to them every quarter so they can get their precious golden parachute or minimally meet the boards bonus requirements. These same losers then get rotated through various companies.
See CrowdStrike CEO, and Google CEO
CRE firm lobbies local politicians that remote work is killing Main Street.
Local politicians attach tax breaks/incentives for companies with office workers.
Companies mandate RTO to save some tax money while unwittingly being a toadie for commercial real estate.
The key difference being that the people mandating RTO aren't biased because of their own investments in CRE.
Has that actually happened?
And will this affect productivity and morale? Yes. But the C-Suite don't care as long as they make their $10 mil vest next quarter. This is a problem lower level managers should handle automagically.
To answer your question though: the number of people who are motivated and disciplined enough to be productive remotely is in the minority. Most managers don't know how to manage remote teams (they need to micromanage or they can't fall asleep at night). Most people do the bare minimum at the office and do even less from home.
This is fine when the times are good, but when times are difficult, then everyone feels the squeeze.