It's a symbolic embodiment of their products' build quality, attention to detail, design-lead ethos and green credentials.
It also provides a place for some people to work.
Soemthing tells me that if your competitors start offering 3 days a week remote work and people start taking them up on that offer, your company will change their stance mighty quick.
>they themselves might be more redundant than they want to admit to.
I really expect there to be a look across all businesses at mid level management. C-suite will save themselves, but people downstream won't be able to.
Having companies brag about their offices in order to attract talent, after all employees will spend 40-80 hours a week of their life there, is not that weird to me.
Of course my degree is in human/machine interaction. I automatically look past pretty and see how awful some buildings are for actual use. I'm weird that way.
The employee impact is real in that these same executives and managers are loathe to see their pride and joy empty. even my work place shocked a lot of people with a declaration that anyone looking to continue remote work post pandemic will need VP approval for three days a week; as in they don't even want to consider full remote and the previous two days with permission is being clawed back. the biggest boon for many in my work for WFH has been the severe reduction in meetings.
what it tells me is that if their claims of everyone is doing so well remotely is that perhaps they feel threatened that they don't need to exercise on hand control for work to be done, as in they themselves might be more redundant than they want to admit to.