Crappy article, but I'm sure there's more than a few board members who also happen to be real estate investors, and they're probably not disclosing that fact wh

Crappy article, but I'm sure there's more than a few board members who also happen to be real estate investors, and they're probably not disclosing that fact when they hype up RTO. Nevertheless something missing from this conversation is the somewhat complete dismissal of the premise: that RTO might be better for (some? many?) companies. Like it's possible that not every company, team, employee, project is fit for WFH? I've been remote for a long time and even I can admit it's probably not the best choice for most companies from a purely business value point of view. But it's pretty inconvenient to admit. In my experience, people with very high self drive, teams of dedicated people, in highly parallelizable projects, are successful at remote work. Many are successful in spite of remote work, and would fail without remote work not because of efficiency but because the practitioners wouldn't sign up to the work in the first place if it wasn't remote. But in a whole lot of cases, WFH _is_ a tax on businesses.