> Withholding any self reflection to qualify myself as “high caliber”, I can say > I’m an experienced employee - and feel that my productivity dwindles in perso

> Withholding any self reflection to qualify myself as “high caliber”, I can say > I’m an experienced employee - and feel that my productivity dwindles in person > due to distractions and thus an inability to “zone in”. > That means that I’m putting in extra hours outside work to achieve the same > level of pre-RTO productivity. I’ve heard the same from others. Together, we’ve > expressed concerns about the sustainability of these efforts. I agree with this observation. WFH gives you the ability to mute chat where as with the office if you don't respond, its show up and discuss(aka interrupt). I've had some days in the office where I've left not knowing what exactly was done for the day but being mentally exhausted. I would say its the intangible items or project status such as all the information you dispensed or clarified, stopped people looking at the wrong problem, figured out the real problem, commented on a proposal, etc that is over-looked and not counted towards "work". This "glue" is what employers are really paying you for by being in the office, but don't want to recognize, instead basing what they pay you on the language you know, vendor products, projects, etc. With WFH you don't have to make the "glue" as much since you can focus on your project, setup the meetings you need, when you need, and you don't have to use non-work time for work. This makes other employees less effective, more-so caused by the organization than the individual, which leads to the perception/feeling that "more gets done" when people are in the office. In my job experience good management recognizes the glue, can make the glue, account for needing glue or provide the justification for someone else to make glue. Poor management can not, thus everyone back to the office.