Coming into a work location should make sense for what you’re trying to do, not to justify a building cost. I see too many CEOs simply follow what another CEO is doing even if they’re in a completely different industry.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
graybeard
239 readers
2 users here now
Stories, links, experiences from calculator manipulators with a few grays in their beard
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree with you, but is it not across the board that humans benefit from face to face interactions to some extent? So "what you're trying to do" may be makeing widgets or shuffling business paperwork, but they all have meaningful interactions that can benefit from being in a centralized location for some amount of time, no?
For any business you have to consider the cost to benefit. Many times a face to face meeting will be highly beneficial, or can foster closer working relationships. That’s awesome, but what if by having a physical location prevents us from hiring better talent from another location? Is the face to face meeting going to offset paying for a physical space in prime real estate with all the additional costs that this brings? Could this face to face meeting just be a face to face zoom call? It depends on the role and business. I’m all for a company making the choice based on what their vision is, but it becomes laughable when a company models their choice on an arbitrary standard, like three days in the office. There are also many managers who feel that if they don’t see someone working, that person isn’t working.