IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedrrf/97486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opinion: Why Is Returning to the Office Contentious?

Author

Abstract

A trusted colleague recently relayed an article about CEOs taking a harder line on bringing staff back to the office. I found the employers' views expressed in the article understandable. When it comes to bringing people together in the workplace, it's often the case in specialized teamwork settings that what I as a leader am looking for is simple availability. Stuff needing quick attention comes up in any organization, especially when others are waiting for one team member to dispose of an issue. It is bad for business, and personally frustrating, when such agility is compromised. A rigid in-office policy more or less solves this in a crude but effective way: Team members are physically available should the need arise. Yet I suspect that return to office, or RTO, is not a "return" in the sense of going back to the past. Instead, it is a new approach combining what we always knew about physical proximity with what we learned about its costs and benefits during the pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Kartik B. Athreya, 2023. "Opinion: Why Is Returning to the Office Contentious?," Econ Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, vol. 23(4Q), pages 31-32, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedrrf:97486
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/RichmondFedOrg/publications/research/econ_focus/2023/q4/opinion.pdf
    File Function: Journal Article
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Human Capital; Labor;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedrrf:97486. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christian Pascasio (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbrius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.