> Sometimes that translates to aloofness for staff, but what more often happens is that when the CEO _does_ come in they expect other people to be there.
Anecdotally, I have seen companies that have "oscillations" in their WFH policy and this, in my experience, has often been the driver of it. Instead of putting trust in the process or the data, you will simply have a situation where the CEO or (especially) where a group of the top level execs are all in the office on a particular day when the office 'feels empty', which then results in a "where is everyone" conversation. Couple that with a sniff of an internal deadline being missed or something behind schedule and suddenly you have a perfect storm of discontent resulting in updated WFH rules and policies being hastily fired off without regard to actual performance data or previous commitments or conclusions drawn around WFH policy.
> Make a fun space, and make people's work schedules be loose enough to where they can actually relax in the space, and some people will show up!
Personally, I don't care about having my workplace be fun or loaded with too many amenities. But if I'm going to be in a company workplace, I do need an office with a closing door if I'm expected to be able to focus and be productive. So much of the insanity with the WFH debate is employers who think that people can be productive or enjoy their work when working in loud, open-concept office configurations. For a lot of employees the WFH vs. office debate then feels very much a "my private, quiet home office vs. chaotic, loud office environment" debate.