2 ms·
Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? Surely they'd love to get rid of those expensive commercial office leases and all the servicing
by Reason077 3y ago
Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? Surely they'd love to get rid of those expensive commercial office leases and all the servicing costs that come with them, if WFH was just as good or better?
I have no doubt that many employees are individually just as productive or more so when WFH. But collectively, does something suffer? Are teams less productive, less creative? Less opportunities for spontaneous collaboration, etc? What reasons are companies using for justification when they make these RTO decisions?
In any case, hybrid work (eg: 3 days in the office per week) seems to be becoming the norm here in the UK. That seems like a good compromise to me.
- mulmen 3y agoI have no doubt that companies perceive a benefit to RTO. It may even exist! I'd just like to see the data. What are these productivity metrics? How do I get access to them to optimize my own productivity? I have never seen any hard data on this. My performance has always been measured in soft terms, even when it uses "data". It is all perception.
- krainboltgreene 3y ago> Why would companies enforce RTO if there was no advantage to it? You'll have to ask them, but you can't possibly think that companies always (or even most of the time) do the best thing for the company, right? There's so much evidence to the contrary in just daily business life, not even including the big news events, that any sane person would know that companies often do things that are contrary to their own existence, because "existence" is not a driving factor in capitalism, it's profit.