I was right there with the author until this part: > I do have to ask whether the cost of the office, the discomfort of people and the impact on quality of lif

I was right there with the author until this part: > I do have to ask whether the cost of the office, the discomfort of people and the impact on quality of life (family etc) can be truly justified by the massaging of some exec's ego. From cost efficiency it might be more effective to replace the exec with someone able to adapt. IMO this perspective on what "being together" means and creates makes the rest of the thread read more like an introvert's career-longings mood board. To be sure, there are a lot of important strengths and leverage points mentioned, which are finally getting their fair exposure in the current workplace change-up. It can be emotional to experience that, for people who have suffered in the past and now see the light. But that doesn't mean the "other side's" perspective is garbage or even ineffective. And it _definitely_ doesn't mean that creative integration of both ends of this here/there dichotomy can't be accomplished. Humans are great at exploring new possibilities, and a lot of those possibilities can be worked out to be a win/win. (Yes, a win for the creative person at home, and also for the "tall extrovert" mentioned in the thread...both wins would be great. And here is the one place I'll mention I hold a certificate of ethics of personality type. ;-) No type is better than another! I know it feels great to stereotype sometimes, but c'mon...not every extrovert is that particular dick, and every introvert--so the theory goes--has an extroverted side.)