This is precisely what top-level comment addressed by stating that 'a multi-billon dollar company' shouldn't be 'kindergarten'.

"shouldn't be", but is. Wishing something away doesn't actually make it go away. I'm a tech lead, not even a true manager, but I have to deal with kindergarten level emotional problems all of the time.

So what do I do? Fire everyone? Don't think that's a practical solution. Try to hire people who are easier to work with? Sure, but good luck. Hard to determine that during the interview process. I don't think telling people to 'grow up' is a real solution here.

No, ideally anyone with similar roles should be able to work from home.

You also say to the complaining employee that you monitor all of your employees and ensure that they are being productive (any good manager should be doing this.) and that their productivity is none of their concern. Then you ask them if they are holding up the project, and how, and then you go from there.

It's just poor management. Managers are mostly incompetent, or if they are, they are afraid of backlash and unable to lead.

I still don't see how you're solving the problem if people who aren't productive working from home, but will also feel that a selective policy is unfair. It's going to happen.

It's simple, if they are not productive, then you tell them they need to be more productive. If they continue to be, you put them on probation as per the standards, and they will have to come into the office.

This isn't nuclear fusion. If this is difficult for a manager they shouldn't be a manager.

Have you ever been a manager? Do you really think dealing with people, all of whom have different strengths and weaknesses, is this simple? Do you appreciate that putting someone on a PIP may very well lead to them quitting? Maybe they don't work well from home, but you still need them. Hiring has overhead, causes some amount of friction and (hopefully) short term loss of productivity as you ramp them up (bigger problem for small teams).

>This isn't nuclear fusion. If this is difficult for a manager they shouldn't be a manager.

That's what makes me think you don't actually have any experience here. That... or you've just been blessed with more luck in your management endeavours than I have (or maybe I am just bad, certainly a possibility.)

Don't put them on probation. Just simply ask them to work in the office because they are not meeting deliverables.

Ahh, so I must never have done it, if I offer a different experience. I've managed teams before-with a mix of remote and onsite. And trust me-it is not that difficult, for competent managers. Managers are too often afraid to lead. The peter principle is very true.

The fact is not offering WFH causes many people to move on as well. I've lost many team members to it. Just as low pay does. People leave. This is the new reality. Businesses want to disrupt but don't want to be disrupted. They want to commoditize workers-not be commoditized themselves.

My problem is to ensure my team's success, and my team knows what their deliverable are by their deadlines. If you don't do anything for 20 days and finish it on 21 because it's easy? Fine by me. Just get it done.