> Where I work, RTO is partially Finance driven, bean counters just don't like seeing seats they paid for go empty

Same here. Leaders up the chain get a "use it or leave it" mail for office space and suddenly everyone is asked to keep those seats warm by coming in x days a week.

Hmm, that could explain what's happening, but this doesn't sound "Finance driven" to me. What those "bean counters" are doing is actually quite rational.

If leadership wants people to RTO instead of just giving up seats, then it's 100% on them.

If you buy 2 machines but only use them at 50% capacity, the only you might as well just buy one machine.

Problem is office space doesn't work like that when the entire team is in on 'office' days to collaborate, you need the all seats. If you right size down to 60% seats (3 days office, 2 home) and have people rotate, you lose the 3 in-office collaborative days because everyday it's likely 30% of people are dialling in from home. You save 40% rent but it's closer to full remote in terms of collaboration.

Aha, good point. That makes sense, thanks!

I work in Finance and we recently decided to sell our building and just rent office space catered toward meeting rooms since hybrid has worked so well for us. I think it just depends on the company's culture and the pragmatism of its leadership.

Even if it's set up with the "right" incentives, internal cost allocation can cause bad unintended side effects at the firm level. I worked at at large bank during the financial crisis. Individual teams got charged an implied rent for the space they occupied to their P&L - sensible because it means you can get a better idea of how profitable they really are. However, they went further and the rent was also higher for "nicer" parts of the building (which the firm owned and did not sublet to anyone). So when lots of space became available as large numbers of people were let go, teams moved themselves to empty space which was "less desirable" so had a lower internal rent. The space they left was left unoccupied, so this didn't save the firm any money. Worse, an external contractor was used to move the stuff between desks so it actually cost the firm money while "saving" the team money.

> it actually cost the firm money while "saving" the team money.

Only in the short term. It left the desirable parts of the building empty. It might be possible to rent out this space. That's what happened when the company I worked for downsized the factory; they just partitioned the building and rented out the empty space.

I guess those bean counters forgot all about the sunk cost fallacy.