In my company we are now in some unofficial hybrid approach where everyone works where they want or where they need to. It works really well. There is enough people at the office for it to be a sufficient socializing place, and enough people who WFH to « force » the remote way of work.
It went naturally, we never were a remote first company before pandemic but working from home for personal reasons never felt like an issue.
Nothing changed officially except that if WFH was socially an exception before, a lot of employees liked it to become their default, others don’t.
So since nobody cares where others works, this new organization came organically.
Our CEO is personally against remote as a standard, but there was never an official communication and since management is decently decentralized and managers just don’t care where you are, they know our job is to be done.
Interesting, however I think any data gathered during the pandemic is not too useful. WFH is very abnormal currently for most. My current WFH productivity is certainly lower than when I WFH pre-pandemic.
If I was making decisions about the future of a company I would allow totally flexibility for at least 6 months post-pandemic so I could gather more accurate data. Trying to make people decide what they want (remote/office/mix) now is going to lead to decisions that people end up changing a little down the line.
Interesting. Given it was just a couple of months was there any element of getting adjusted to the new arrangements/developing better remote processes that could have contributed?