If its not left up to 100% employee choice and nothing else (and therefore, the policies, processes and procedures don't equally accommodate remote workers) then I think its a power play, as there is no discernible benefit to the business, as others have stated, the Microsoft study that came out, as have other studies, shown that WFH has been a net increase in worker productivity.
I do think it should be an employee choice though, there are some folks, even if its less than majority, that work better in an office, for whatever reason, and they should be supported too
One thing that I worry about is that the “choice” is actually not real.
Those individuals that work better in an office setting, do they work better when everyone else is in the office and they get to interact with them in person?
If the person shows up to an office that is pretty sparsely populated and then has to sit in Teams calls — does that even meet their desire?
I’m saying this as someone who is strongly pro WFH, have seen my own productivity rise, etc.
The idea is that indeed, yes, choice is real. Being in an office should have tangible benefits beyond seeing people (its nice to just not be home to work). Having to be on calls isn't supposed to be negated by being in an office, since you need to accommodate remote workers too right?
If the only reason you're going into the office is to socialize with other people, then I think there's bigger questions to ask
If its not left up to 100% employee choice and nothing else (and therefore, the policies, processes and procedures don't equally accommodate remote workers) then I think its a power play, as there is no discernible benefit to the business, as others have stated, the Microsoft study that came out, as have other studies, shown that WFH has been a net increase in worker productivity.
I do think it should be an employee choice though, there are some folks, even if its less than majority, that work better in an office, for whatever reason, and they should be supported too