The thing that I keep coming back to, is that if a company is taking an action, it should be about reducing friction to go to and making the office space a better place to work.
If the company is taking an action that makes it less likely for people to come to the office or enjoy it, then it's pretty clear what they are doing.
Yes, I view it as an amplifier for the existing management culture. If your system is supportive and focused on shared goals, RTO falls naturally into a balance where people come in when it makes sense (e.g. meaningful meetings & collaboration) and stay home when it does not. If your system is distrustful and based on dominance displays, which is far too common, the mandate is inflexible and transparently based on things like not expecting managers to be effective at measuring productivity, and it will be unpopular for those reasons. Both dynamics existed before the pandemic but the change in what people were used to and the current business climate demanding performative layoffs really cranked the intensity up.
> If the company is taking an action that makes it less likely for people to come to the office or enjoy it, then it's pretty clear what they are doing.
Cheaper staff reduction without redundancy payments!
Except for the intangible domain knowledge loss, but that won't appear on a finance spreadsheet.
And you get to target people with families who can’t move so easily, without explicitly targeting them, helping ensure whoever is left is really focused on the company mission and not any other less important aspects of their lives like being there for their kids or partner or whatever.
If the company is taking an action that makes it less likely for people to come to the office or enjoy it, then it's pretty clear what they are doing.