IMO there’s more nuance to it than that. Is a team that works in person 5 days a week five times as cohesive as a team that meets once a week? I don’t believe so.
Pure anecdote but I currently work in the office two days a week and it could probably be one. That one day is productive in terms of team building, it’s basically an entire day of meetings, we all get lunch together etc. Most of the rest of the week is spent on more isolated work (including pair programming which I find works better remotely sometimes).
Of course Google has the right to fire anyone that doesn’t do what they want. But I also think it’s fair for employees to question the level of in person commitment required beyond just “more in person = better”.
(Not to mention plenty of FAANG teams are distributed. If you’re coming into the office just to join video calls with a different backdrop it’s fair to question why)
I think you’re bang on. it’s a lot more subtle than the hard and fast rule manner in which the notion is most often put forth. It’s definitely myopically maladaptive to view it as a binary—in-person is always better than remote.
There’s a spectrum—how frequently and in what amount is in-person interaction for a team actually needed to result in optimal productivity and collaborative workflow as a team collective? certainly not every marginal hour/day in person is accretive to the goal of optimal collective collaboration. so there’s an inflection point or plateau somewhere… which intuitively should vary depending on the underlying dynamics of a given team, are they a well oiled machine already? or is everyone just recently starting work together for the first time? what is the nature of the work process creative or technical or a mix? what are the inherent personalities comprising the team and how does that impact things?? etc.
the relative determination of finding the right balance is an important and worth doing carefully, regardless of the corporate culture. especially if the argument is that effective team collaboration is of SUCH high importance that companies are happy to let go of human capital that isn’t on board with their proscribed mandate around remote work on the basis of its impact to their work life balance… if thats the case, then surely something that important is worth determining a bit more scientifically than “3 days in person minimum or gtfo”— applicable for all teams. all employees.
surely if it is in fact so important, then it’s not credible to be so rigidly unthinking in determining the "optimal" policy. any company that isn't inclined to fully consider that notion, and establish a mandate "just because" shouldn't get to imply the mandate serves them best on any basis related to team productivity and collaboration, because its wholly unsubstantiated andnot credible. they are however free to establish any such mandate of course, without need substantiate it, but then i think we all need to be transparent about the factthat is is entirely arbitrary... not some baseless idealized notion of "optimal"
FWIW my personal view (not suggesting it’s a universally established truth with consensus, just my opinion based on experience) is that ~some amount of in-person interaction is beneficial and optimal, even for experienced teams with well established workflows and a long standing track record of collective work. eventually if you never see one another in person, sosci dynamics will change, perhaps not always to the detriment of team productivity, but at least in a manner worth evaluating/considering.
and I think the less time a team has spent together in person prior to collaborating remotely the more important it is to prioritize in person work. lastly i think the determination of the "optimal" policy mandate will necessarily be team-dependent.
as such, i believe team managers should be empowered by the powers that be to figure out what the best strategy is for their team specifically, and be held accountable to the results perhaps... as a far more sensible approach than it being a universal corporate mandate from the top of the house.
Pure anecdote but I currently work in the office two days a week and it could probably be one. That one day is productive in terms of team building, it’s basically an entire day of meetings, we all get lunch together etc. Most of the rest of the week is spent on more isolated work (including pair programming which I find works better remotely sometimes).
Of course Google has the right to fire anyone that doesn’t do what they want. But I also think it’s fair for employees to question the level of in person commitment required beyond just “more in person = better”.
(Not to mention plenty of FAANG teams are distributed. If you’re coming into the office just to join video calls with a different backdrop it’s fair to question why)