Especially since board members are typically execs at other companies. Anyone remotely competent knows that the macro changes leading to remote work surprised everyone. I just don't find it credible that RTO is about CEO's wanting to keep office leases looking like smart decisions.
If anything, it's exactly the opposite. If remote work is genuinely good for the company, a good CEO will acknowledge that and work to minimize downside from unnecessary leases.
IMO execs are often wrong about RTO, but for simple cause/effect reasons, not elaborate conspiracies to retroactively justify office leases.
> I just don't find it credible that RTO is about CEO's wanting to keep office leases looking like smart decisions.
It's not credible. It's stuff folks make up from a myopic view of the situation. I have had more than a few intimate very open conversations with executives on the topic and not a single one has stated this as a reason. In fact, many are happy to be able to cancel expensive office leases when able.
The executives may be wrong, but as a group they certainly understand sunk cost theory. Most of them are even smart enough to not to fall for the fallacy by the time they reach that point in their careers. Of course lots of self-serving myopic behavior in that group as well.
It's difficult for some to empathize that there is genuine disagreement on what makes for a more productive workforce. That an individual's performance is irrelevant - group and team performance is the metric that actually matters. One does not necessarily correlate with the other.
It's very interesting to me that folks can hold the opinion remote learning is far deficient to on-campus classrooms, but simultaneously state that WFH is good for everyone. I think it's far more nuanced - and certain types of personalities and life stages will do better in one or the other.
I've worked remote most of my career since the late 90's - I have hired dozens if not hundreds of remote employees over this time. There is absolutely a group of workers who do quite well under such conditions, and some who do horribly. And it doesn't mean the latter can't be productive anywhere - or that these groups are static over an individual's entire career. This was not a controversial opinion prior to the pandemic.
You can go further into company/team structure and communication methods as well. Some have the culture to do remote well, some do not.
In the end I'm confident the market will figure out the right mix. Companies will be punished for making the wrong choices for themselves here.
> I have had more than a few intimate very open conversations with executives on the topic and not a single one has stated this as a reason. In fact, many are happy to be able to cancel expensive office leases when able.
If anything, it's exactly the opposite. If remote work is genuinely good for the company, a good CEO will acknowledge that and work to minimize downside from unnecessary leases.
IMO execs are often wrong about RTO, but for simple cause/effect reasons, not elaborate conspiracies to retroactively justify office leases.