[JohnMakin]

a significant factor in choosing my current role was that it was 100% on-site. Of course, this comes with a significant amount of nice amenities like catered lunch, free beverages/snacks, a gym, etc. It's also close to where I live. I understand people's reasoning for wanting to WFH, and they are valid, but just wanted to voice there is a subset that don't prefer this way (or thrive when WFH, I am like you, I am much less productive at home).

At the risk of getting downvoted I do think there's another subset of people who are convinced they are more productive WFH but actually aren't. Or, know they aren't, but don't care. I think this realization is what sparks these draconian RTO policies by upper management.

[TeMPOraL]

> At the risk of getting downvoted I do think there's another subset of people who are convinced they are more productive WFH but actually aren't. Or, know they aren't, but don't care. I think this realization is what sparks these draconian RTO policies by upper management.

Part of it may be that working on-site is still culturally considered the default, and WFH an exception. This creates an interesting asymmetry: if you're less productive at home than in the office, then obviously you should work from the office; if you're less productive in the office than at home... then you're a bad employee and should be let go.