[hdjjhhvvhga]

> others (who I think are the silent majority).

[citation needed]

But let's go to the core of the argument: there are 2 groups, one values social interaction/bonding at work and the other doesn't. One group likes to have a mental image of who other people are, the other group prefers to focus on their work instead. The first group may even find it more difficult to work with someone with "no bond" whereas the other group just goes on with their work.

The problem is, each of these groups project their vision of co-operation to the rest, that's why the first group insists on hybrid and the other group on remote-only (fortunately nobody except some PHBs insists on RTO...). If you can't understand the other group, it's difficult to have an agreement.

My take is: work for the company that is in accord with your values and the ways you prefer to work. For me it's remote-only and there is no way I would change it, no matter what.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Even if a company prefers RTW (or partial RTW aka forced hybrid), that doesn't mean every employee does. The mismatch is not ideal. Additionally, this limits the company to either hiring from a fraction of the available talent pool, or enduring the strife you speak of. As a company grows, these issues compound and become more likely to present.

That's why the ideal solution here is a choice arrangement (aka flex), where the people who want RTO or Partial RTO can self-organize in the office, and the others can self-organize elsewhere.