I'm sure your manager does. They aren't the ones demanding 40 hours and return to office.
It's the C-suite that is doing it. The C-Suite got where they are because they are extroverts who excel at in person interactions. They can't use that skill unless you're there in front of them. They also came up in a world where everyone worked in an office 40 hours a week. And since they are in charge, they get to choose the rules of engagement, and are seemingly choosing to ignore productivity studies that show their decisions don't make sense.
Eventually they will be eclipsed by C-Suites that follow the science as they will get out-competed. But it will take decades.
>and are seemingly choosing to ignore productivity studies that show their decisions don't make sense.
I also don't buy this. Companies are all profit oriented and don't like leaving money on the table if research shows there is left over money on the table.
They can't monetize control but they can monetize money. If research would show they would make more profits using AWS instead of Azure(example pulled out of my ass for simplicity), they would immediately switch to it.
So if research would be universal and clear cut that working 32 hours outcompetes those companies working 40 hours, then at least a significant proportion of companies would be using this new way of work as leverage to outcompete their competitors working 40 and beat them at profits and market share, and then that would become the new norm as it's the proven winning strategy, since that's how competition in capitalism works.
"Any one of the three economic factors described above (real estate, retention and recruitment), by itself, could justify the alleged loss in productivity. When you consider all three, it is extremely hard to imagine any organization for which the losses resulting from a strict RTO policy would be offset by a possible increase in worker productivity. As a further consideration, a strict RTO policy will also disproportionally impact certain traditionally disadvantaged groups, leading to further decreases in organizational diversity.":
You said you didn’t believe C-suites were ignoring things that could make them more money. I showed you a bunch of cases where C-suites are hurting themselves by ignoring data.
Except the money they currently make, or not make, is directly related to the stock market's performance or lack thereof due to the zero interest days being over, not to that of WFH or RTO employees.
Well, I suspect that--based on what I've seen from talking to people--remote makes it easier to do no-meeting, maybe do some light cleanup Fridays. So there's some relationship probably.
Highly factualized comment. I believe the mental model in question is not yet flexible enough to update based on the data, and there is an expectation of logic from fancy emotional monkeys ("executive leadership") grounded in status, control, and work as identity.
> So if research would be universal and clear cut that working 32 hours outcompetes those companies working 40 hours, then at least a significant proportion of companies would be using this new way of work as leverage to outcompete their competitors working 40 and beat them at profits and market share, and then that would become the new norm as it's the proven winning strategy, since that's how competition in capitalism works.
Your reply seems to assume that companies are efficient. Which is not the case, and the larger the company, the lower internal s/n ratio and, arguably, the larger percent of wastage.
Also, "immediately" switching across cloud vendors is not even a pipe dream, it's an impossibility and the very act of switching is incredibly expensive both short and long term (unless your cloud usage is one VM or so). So there's no simplicity in that example, it's a counter-example.
