The company ignored it all and said "back in the office".
I suspect that it was because of the CEO who was saying throughout the pandemic that he wasn't a fan of remote work. That's how the decision was made, based on one old guys feelings.
They don't care about you as an employee, remember that.
Isn't this how all decisions get made on a company?
Its an "old guy" thats either appointed by stakeholders or personally heavily invested in the success of the company.
Like it or not his "feelings" are formed from decades of experience in making a business profitable.
I understand its not every case but lets not be overly-dismissive of his opinions, especially on HN where we are so concerned with ageism.
Their feelings are formed by cronyism, nepotism and ignorance. When it comes to embracing change, they're fine when it something motivated by these three factors, but when it means a perceived loss of control, or a loss of prestige, then they resist.
I'm not aware of any empirical evidence that working in person is better for productivity. But what it does do is make 50% of the people feel happier - the people who want to escape their home-family to be with their work-family. In this sense I totally understand why management is forcing people to come into the office: it's because management just likes in-person, and they don't want to learn how to work hybrid or remote-first if they keep the office.
I think there continues to be a competitive advantage for remote-first companies. They can be more productive, have a global pool of talent to choose from, and potentially lower overhead. I think we're going to see incumbents remain in-person while disruptive companies will be increasingly remote-first.