Whereas in any thread about WFH it seems that 95% of HN has concluded that remote just really is the best. Case close. No further study needed. The only reason to think otherwise is corporate greed.
I suspect that people in both the main "sides" have decided what they'd prefer, either for their own individual interests, or some gut feel about what's better for the organization. And people feel threatened by moves against what they've decided.
(Disclosure: I'm pro-WFH overall, or, ideally, my own version of hybrid. I can see some benefits to some uses of in-person. I can also see WFH problems that still need creative solutions. I'm also aware that, in dialogue around this, some other people might not be playing the same game of nuance and problem-solving.)
Asking me to come into the office extends my workday by three or four hours, and when I’m at the office and not collaborating it’s just a stream of distractions; constant motion in my peripheral vision, people on calls, it’s a busy place!
From my perspective WFH saves me so much time, money, and stress that I’d be insane to not insist on it. Why would I read a study that doesn’t take my perspective into account?
WFH saves me tens of thousands a year. Any conversation that ignores the financial impact of return to office from my point of view is worthless.
Pre-covid, and this WFH/RTO conversation, the focus was on hating the open office floor plan, which does suck, I agree ... The most repeated anecdote was how you're coding, in zen, and someone taps you on the shoulder or starts talking, and the entire day is lost. Thus, the alternative was to have your own office, like at Stack Overflow.
(Disclosure: I'm pro-WFH overall, or, ideally, my own version of hybrid. I can see some benefits to some uses of in-person. I can also see WFH problems that still need creative solutions. I'm also aware that, in dialogue around this, some other people might not be playing the same game of nuance and problem-solving.)