Some light game theory to add to this discussion.... > A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from

Some light game theory to add to this discussion.... > A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd. For all of the negative stuff coming from people who do not want to return to an office I find one thing in common: they all usually really like their company and job. While "If you don't like it, leave" is the reality of the situation it doesn't change that this is somewhat irrational behavior. It is the {CEO, Boss, Manager}'s decision as to who gets to work remote obviously. That's the power dynamic at hand. However, if you think of this in any other situation you can see that there's something about remote work that makes some managers loose their cool. Imagine employees saying this: 1. I have back pain and if I had an (ergonomic chair|standing desk) I'd be able to work for longer without getting up and walking around. This would make me more productive. 2. The coffee machine makes bad coffee and everyone walks to the coffee shop across the street 3 times a day. If we just got good grinds and a machine in the office we'd all save money and we'd save ~1hr/day/engineer on context switching for coffee. A {CEO, Boss, Manager) has every right to say: "If you don't like your (coffee|desk|chair) then you can leave" but they are obviously acting pretty childish here. If you look at all of these situations logically you're looking for a small input effort for a large continuous return on investment. If you add into the fact that myself, and many others, think working from home makes us MUCH more productive you can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. We are not more productive, we just think we are. 2. We are more productive, and we commute less (save money + sanity). If we think out this decision matrix: - Employee + !Productive, Boss + WFH: the employee is no more productive - maybe even slightly less productive - and this comes up in their performance reviews and they're asked to come back to the office. The employee will probably see that WFH does not work for them if this performance review is fair (ex not "You called into the meeting but since you didn't come in person you were obviously not listening as well"). - Employee + Productive, Boss + !WFH: The employee can quit and find a WFH company. The employee may be willing to accept *less* money and will produce *more* value for the new employer. This new employer now has a major leg up (in most industries) over the old employer. - Employee + !Productive, Boss + !WFH: The employee could still jump to another company for less wages at a lower output if WFH means a lot to them. - Employee + Productive, Boss + WFH: Company gains efficiency for no extra money. Employee is happier. In this chart we see in every situation except one the employee wins out over the company. In the situations in which the employer allows the employee to try WFH the employer wins out massively: their employee is either happy that they were given a chance or the company has found a way to make someone much more productive.