4 ms·
Respectfully, this is an example of rigid thinking that isn't productive or accurate. Apply marginal thinking the way economists do. People's propensity to ret
by Brusco_RF 3y ago
Respectfully, this is an example of rigid thinking that isn't productive or accurate.
Apply marginal thinking the way economists do. People's propensity to return to the office falls on a spectrum ranging from 0 ( the people who are already back in their cubicles ) to 9 ( "You'll need a SWAT team to get me back to the office" ).
A 5 on that scale is a marginal worker. Provide an incentive for them to return, like a nice office, and they become a 4 and return to the office. Now give a nice office to a population of 1000 workers who are distributed evenly over the above spectrum. They all move down by 1, and about 1/10th of them return to the office.
Saying "People who like WFH will never want to return to the office" is only true of the 8's and 9's, not of the marginal worker. They are the ones who respond to incentives.
- regularfry 3y agoDepends on the distribution though, doesn't it. My personal hunch is that it's strongly bimodal, and that there actually aren't that many in the middle.
- Brusco_RF 3y agoI agree with that point but disagree about the distribution. I myself am a 5, I go in about half the time. Obviously we can only speculate about others
- eschneider 3y agoIt's much more "offer me work SO rewarding, the commute is worth it" or "money SO good, it makes the commute worth it." Office amenities probably won't get if done, as many folks can just setup the home office the way they want it, or at least as well as most private offices.
- Brusco_RF 3y agoFor me it's the colleagues. Rubbing elbows with people much smarter and further in their careers than I am is worth making the ~20 min commute. But any incentive provides the same effect.