[treis]

I feel like it's an all or nothing proposition. If you have some WFH and some in the office over time the office folks will out politic the WFH folks. It's also hard to be a remote attendee of a meeting that's happening with some in person. Definitely feel like a third wheel.

IMHO, if you mix WFH and office the WFH folks will end up like internal contractors that don't have the same advancement potential as their office colleagues.

[ghaff]

I respectfully disagree.

Many larger companies already are coordinating across multiple locations and timezones. One of the teams I work with has people on Eastern US time (though not all in the same office even before this) and Europe.

Another group is in two geographically separated offices in Eastern Time.

And other groups are just scattered all over.

[tuna-piano]

Just going to guess that whichever location the team has the most people and wherever manager works from become the places where big decisions are made and promotions come from.

I've worked remote when the rest of the team is in an office, and it's definitely not for all positions/teams.

[ghaff]

I agree that situations where N-1 of the team is physically located in an office and one person isn't tend to be difficult. But we're mostly now often talking about significant distribution/WFH.

The groups I'm involved with were already distributed with not much in terms of a "home base."

[spfzero]

But it would have to be some really serious “advancement opportunity” to make up for the 90 minutes of your life spent commuting every day, no?

[arbitrary_name]

Yeah, I am early thirties, working in consulting, strong resume including faang member companies... and you will have to drag me back to an office screaming. I simply don't care enough about my career trajectory to have my entire lifestyle dictated by where my office happens to be.