Reply to RTO in many cases is the height of hubris.

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "RTO in many cases is the height of hubris. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In oversimplified terms:

There are people who really thrive in the "everybody in the office meeting face-to-face and interacting constantly" environment.  Let's call these people group 1. Since most white collar work was structured that way before 2020, it was those people who rose to leadership positions.

Then 2020 happened and the standard white-collar work environment changed.  Those who thrived in a remote work environment began to rise (group 2), while group 1 struggled with both a work environment that they felt ill at ease in and the emergence of new competition from group 2.

It's no wonder that group 1 would really like to go back to pre-2020 office life.  They are most comfortable in that environment and happier - and it can sometimes be very hard to understand that what works for you doesn't work for others.  Additionally, though they may not even be aware of this, I believe that leaders who want a full RTO are often subconsciously motivated by a desire to reduce competition and protect their own positions within the organization.

[FWIW, I'm personally a fan of hybrid, with all hands meetings and 1-2 days per week in the office - that is an environment where we get the benefits of occasional face-to-face interaction while also giving people the opportunity to work in the environment that suits them best.   Hybrid with 1 day a week in the office also expands your talent pool in terms of both geography and diversity (people with children, people with health challenges).][/quote]

No, no, no. Managers and executives who want RTO are not part of a Group 1 who didn’t thrive in the Group 2/WFH environment. That’s just silly and self-justifying for the WFH crowd.

The more fair argument is that people used to work almost exclusively from the office; during the pandemic, people were forced to WFH; post-pandemic, leaders are trying to capture the best of both work locations through hybrid.

Why can’t people understand this? Why must leaders be demonized as non-thriving WFH types hell-bent on misogyny and micro aggressions? Overwhelmingly, executives are not the crazies WFH types make them out to be, and so the WFH crowd loses credibility every time they make that argument. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics