[Kadin]

I get that the WSJ needs to run these sort of pieces every so often to sell papers, but "No One Wants [Whatever]" think-pieces should be treated the same way as the overly-speculative question headlines that led to "Betteridge's Law" in the early 2000s.

Office culture, like the rest of culture, is cyclical. People are reactive, and tend to move in herds. Given an intense external stimulus like the pandemic, we should expect to see waves of behaviors propagating out through time for at least the next few years.

During the pandemic, nobody was in the office, so right after the pandemic, there was a boom in office socialization (in some quarters). Now, apparently according to WSJ, the pendulum is swinging back. This isn't indicative of very much, except that there was a big shock to the office-work social system and it's still not stabilized.

In particular, it's not especially suggestive of what the steady state will be, once these perturbations diminish.

I think we probably have several more back-and-forth cycles around everyone-works-from-home! vs. 40-hours-in-office-or-bust!, before the market works out what the relative value is (to the employer and the employee) of having people in the office and paying for a physical office for them, vs. the flexibility of working from home and of having a potentially international hiring pool. There are benefits and hazards for both parties in either arrangement.

My personal feeling, just based on how the job market has tended to stratify in the past, is that we'll see multiple approaches within each industry/sector, based on how fundamentally creative the work is.

The organizations in a particular sector who are really pushing the boundaries of that industry, who are actually advancing the state of the art, will likely be in-office cultures, because nobody has yet found a substitute for in-person communication particularly as it applies to creative problem solving. But those will represent a small tip of the workplace iceberg, sitting atop (and demanding higher rates than) a larger volume of companies whose work simply isn't that fundamentally creative or challenging, and have to compensate by offering flexible / WFH arrangements, and actively court the employees who are more interested in work-life balance than in working in their industry's version of the Manhattan Project.