Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by jayd16 on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:37AM (#38488717)

If worse leaders can be effective in office and not remote, isn't that a pro-office argument?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by happytiger on Friday December 01, 2023 @11:45AM (#38488836)

On identical logic: that on-prem companies don’t hire the best leaders because they aren’t needed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by bluGill on Friday December 01, 2023 @02:11PM (#38490860)

There are a lot more okay leaders than great leaders. And it is hard to developer new leaders.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by jayd16 on Friday December 01, 2023 @04:11PM (#38492464)

For that to follow, you'd have to assume that its irrelevant anyway because the best and not the best provide equal value. Conversely, if the best provides more value no matter the situation then companies are incentivized to hire the best and RTO.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by hot_gril on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:00PM (#38489918)

I'm confused by this too. What good is an in-office leader if everyone else is remote?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by jayd16 on Friday December 01, 2023 @04:15PM (#38492516)

The conversation is about remote or co-located leadership. If the lead is in-office and the team is not, it would be remote leadership in this context. The whole team needs to be in office to change that.

[ Parent | on HN ]