Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The return-to-the-office trend backfires

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 151 posts

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#61

Post by mcs5280 »

My company gave us 3 months notice and said 100% RTO in January 2026. I warned them this was a dealbreaker for me. They said sorry, no exceptions. In January I submitted my two weeks notice, citing RTO. They accepted my resignation letter and then called me a few hours later saying they could make an exception. Now I'm back to 100% remote.

I wouldn't consider myself to be an irreplaceable superstar employee, but they folded almost immediately. Not sure what the point of this dance was.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#62

Post by pdabbadabba »

asdff wrote: post #43
pdabbadabba wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to your sector, but from the perspective in my management role (in law) the explanation is quite simple: managing remote workers is more difficult and less pleasant than managing workers in the office. I actually hate it. And even granting that remote and in-office workers are "productive" in the sense that they bill hours (though not even this seems true in my anecdotal experience), we find that people…

>we find that people with less in-office time tend to have qualitatively worse performance. At least in my field, being in the office, spending time with your co-workers, and getting to know them has value. I think you are confounded by the fact your most overeager overachievers are going to return to office no matter what.

I'm not persuaded that's the only thing going on here, but I'm sure that is part of it. Nonetheless, I think this is why many employers pushed for RTO.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#63

Post by cdrnsf »

matchbok3 wrote: post #10
CivBase wrote: post #4

For something to "backfire" you first have to account for why it was done. This article assumes performance and retention are the only considerations. It does not account for things like commercial real estate value, a buesiness's ability to monitor and control its employees, or excuses for layoffs.

What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly?

Why is the company hiring people it doesn't trust? That sounds like a process failure.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#64

Post by pdabbadabba »

lm28469 wrote: post #37
pdabbadabba wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to your sector, but from the perspective in my management role (in law) the explanation is quite simple: managing remote workers is more difficult and less pleasant than managing workers in the office. I actually hate it. And even granting that remote and in-office workers are "productive" in the sense that they bill hours (though not even this seems true in my anecdotal experience), we find that people…

Get better or quit then, I don't give a shit about managers, do your job and let the dozens of people you manage live their fucking lives, we're not here to please you or make your job easier

> we're not here to please you or make your job easier

I don't mean to be a jerk but ... if you are one of the people I manage, you literally are employed (at least in part) to make my job easier. That's not the only thing that matters -- which is why we (like many employers) do still allow some remote work. But making management more difficult is absolutely an impact that a rational workplace would take into account.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#65

Post by 627467 »

mcs5280 wrote: post #61

My company gave us 3 months notice and said 100% RTO in January 2026. I warned them this was a dealbreaker for me. They said sorry, no exceptions. In January I submitted my two weeks notice, citing RTO. They accepted my resignation letter and then called me a few hours later saying they could make an exception. Now I'm back to 100% remote. I wouldn't consider myself to be an irreplaceable superstar employee, but they…

Most orders are issued assuming compliance, or they'd be more considered (and less of them) or costly to enforce. To say there's "no exception" it's to say "we've done NO analysis whatsoever to understand if there should be any exception so, we'll cross that bridge later".

You did well, because someone with actual some skin in the game considered you irreplaceable at that moment.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#66

Post by asdff »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #62
asdff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we find that people with less in-office time tend to have qualitatively worse performance. At least in my field, being in the office, spending time with your co-workers, and getting to know them has value. I think you are confounded by the fact your most overeager overachievers are going to return to office no matter what.

I'm not persuaded that's the only thing going on here, but I'm sure that is part of it. Nonetheless, I think this is why many employers pushed for RTO.

I think RTO/WFH also kind of hits on a fundamental cultural divide that is beginning to emerge in our society. There is idea of who are we working for that I think people are starting to reckon with: in support of ourselves or in support of someone else, maybe even to the point of detriment to ourselves.

The arguments for and against fall along these lines. For RTO: in favor of the company over the self. It is more "productive" by some invented measure to work in the office, so it is the correct choice damned any other factor. A total trump card to those with this logic, like arguing the sky is blue.

And then what is the for WFH argument but the following: in favor of the self over the company. Perhaps if one pushed as hard as they could, they could get more done. They could sacrifice their sleep. They could grey their hair, increase cortisol, have an early heart attack and die. But in that time, they'd get a whole lot more done for the company certainly. WFH argues that affordances toward the employee ought to be made and even favored. Things like having choice in where one might live, not being saddled with a commute costly in time or money or both, being able to parallelize tasks such as taking the two minutes to start the laundry machine then returning to the desk, being able to see pets and loved ones for more than a few fleeting hours at the end of the day, better food, the list of benefits pretty much endless and also bespoke to the worker in question.

To be pro RTO, you have to be able to sacrifice the self like an ascetic, to deny all these tradeoffs and to grant the company control over you, your family and life outside of work (as where you live and how your family has to then live is a factor with RTO), all to benefit the company over yourself. The company that will never show you loyalty, that will use the same logic you are using to return to work to one day fire you.

Among my peers, on the younger side, no one really likes working in the office at all. They all are stuck with it and would desperately like to not work in the office. I expect over time, RTO will die as the generations that are culturally inclined to put the company over themselves retire from the workforce.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#67

Post by GuB-42 »

Two possibilities:

- There are some statistical biases in the article, correlation != causation, Simpsons paradox, etc... things like that

- Company will return-to-the-office mandates will soon disappear or adapt as they will lose their competitive advantage, x1.7 is too big of an effect to ignore

What is possible is that work from home benefit companies in the growth phase while office work is more appropriate for companies that are already well established. So many possible explanations.

The usual narrative here is that work from home is just better and that management mandating return to office are control freaks, but I can't believe it is that simple. It wouldn't make economic sense, real estate is expensive, they would save a lot by not having offices, in addition to all the supposed benefits. Personally, I feel that I am really missing something by working 100% remotely, so much happens by the coffee machine and Slack/Teams/GMeet... doesn't replace that. Hybrid work is what I prefer personally. Office time for exchanging and socializing and at-home time for deep thinking and personal flexibility. Personal experience, but it shows that not just extroverts and managers want to go back to the office sometimes, because I am neither, but I still think some office time is good. In fact, I tend to be more of a lone wolf, but even as a lone wolf, I still need to know what to do, and daily calls often don't give the whole picture.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#68

Post by CivBase »

cdrnsf wrote: post #63
matchbok3 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly?

Why is the company hiring people it doesn't trust? That sounds like a process failure.

Because they're cheap.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#69

Post by imcrs »

ecshafer wrote: post #47
imcrs wrote: post #13

RTO is about controlling labor, nothing else. Everything else is a smoke screen. Ask yourself the following questions and you'll understand what happened: - why did RTO happen seemingly right after salaries jumped and labor became scarce? - why did RTO happen virtually in lockstep across all of white collar employment? - why did RTO happen despite no evidence that productivity had anything to do with it? (and in fact…

> why did RTO happen virtually in lockstep across all of white collar employment? This makes sense when you consider that all of these big companies are run by leaders who talk in similar networks and listen to the same consultants (McKinsey, BCG, etc). I know someone who is going through a McKinsey run structural re-org, that is identical to one they ran (and failed horribly) at a company I was in 8 years ago. > why…

> This makes sense when you consider that all of these big companies are run by leaders who talk in similar networks and listen to the same consultants (McKinsey, BCG, etc

Yes, it certainly does! I'm sure they also talk to Pinkerton :)

> decent lag between the peak of equity nonsense and RTO

Just about the amount of time it would take for management to (1) realize what was happening and what it meant for their power over labor; and (2) align on a policy.

> Company I was went from 1 quarter talking about the increases in productivity WFH brought to the next quarter town hall talking about RTO for the culture and productivity.

Yes, exactly. That's how you know anything about "productivity" is all a load of shit.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#70

Post by imcrs »

heraldgeezer wrote: post #52
imcrs wrote: post #13

RTO is about controlling labor, nothing else. Everything else is a smoke screen. Ask yourself the following questions and you'll understand what happened: - why did RTO happen seemingly right after salaries jumped and labor became scarce? - why did RTO happen virtually in lockstep across all of white collar employment? - why did RTO happen despite no evidence that productivity had anything to do with it? (and in fact…

What if I actually like the office? It is a nice building in a nice area. I have a 40min walk to it or 10min bus ride. I like my colleagues. Sometimes you need to meet and solve problems face to face, and not have it be planned. I like dressing up a bit, not a full suit but nice pleated pants and OCBD/sweater/blazer. I have a shift schedule, sometimes I am the only one in the office, that is bliss :) But my work is 1…

I like a full service espresso bar at the office. If I ask my employer for that, guess what they'll say? Fuck you, you're here to work. And I have to take it. I'm sure you can guess why.
Post reply on HN