[zapcto]

So many of these managers are basically saying, "in-office is better because I get to engage in high-status behaviors with other people IRL." I get that it makes you feel good but that's not necessarily translating to the bottom line.

[ericmay]

Nobody has any numbers on what is translating to the bottom line. There aren't any facts and even then the variables will be highly dependent on person, company, situation.

[pgeorgi]

That's not what the RTO proponents bring forward. A sincere "I prefer you to be here so that I can admire my kingdom and feel good" would be more productive than the currently preferred grasping for straws on why it's better for the bottom line:

Everybody gets a good laugh, and returns to their tasks, or coffee chats, or whatever it is that they were doing, where ever they were doing it.

[electrondood]

I mean, companies all did WFH successfully for 3 years without issue. The bottom line is probably more affected by multimillion dollar commercial leases than C-level "feels" about productivity.

[danenania]

I think this is pretty much the key to it, psychologically speaking. It comes down to status and personality type.

Higher status and more extroverted workers tend to get energy and motivation from going to the office. It feels good and is fun for them. Our brains have evolved to know when we're high on the social totem pole and give us copious feel-good chemicals as a reward.

For similar reasons, lower status and more introverted workers tend to not enjoy the office. They find it de-motivating and draining.

This isn't always the case across the board, and there are often other reasons involved like family/commute, but I think it explains the different camps fairly well in broad strokes.

All that said, an argument can definitely be made that having happy, highly motivated leadership actually is extremely important to a company's bottom line, so I don't think it can be so easily dismissed.