By own free will

If we were to measure it on an emotional scale, it would be a blend of nostalgia for the 90s, a craving for control, and a deep-seated belief that “real work” only begins once someone can see us sitting at a desk.

The debate about remote versus office work has less and less to do with facts. It is, instead, a clash of narratives. On one side, corporate preachers proclaim that physical presence automatically gives rise to innovation, creativity, and the mythical organizational culture. In this story, the office is almost a temple, and the open space a place of miracles, where a chance for chat at the coffee machine turns into a revelation and a breakthrough project. The problem is that most employees remember those conversations more as small talk about the weather and traffic jams than as the womb of great ideas.

On the other side of the barricade stand the defenders of remote work, often accused of laziness and lack of commitment. According to this version of the world, the home office is a paradise where one can bask in the absence of commutes, more sleep, deeper focus, and less office drama. And yes, for many people it simply works. Productivity goes up, stress goes down, and professional life stops being dictated by the timetable of a perpetually late public transport system. Of course, this vision can be sugar-coated too. The line between work and home can blur, and a laptop on the kitchen table does not always foster a healthy balance.

The most ironic part of the whole discussion is that both sides are often talking about completely different problems. Supporters of returning to the office focus on control, symbols, and old habits, rarely on the real organization of work. Opponents of mandatory office presence talk about time, autonomy, and the meaning of daily tasks. One camp believes culture is born of presence, the other, that it grows out of trust and sensible processes.

There is, however, one more aspect that is mentioned only in whispers in official communications, if at all. A return to the office can be a clever and exceptionally cheap tool for downsizing. During the remote-work era, many employees genuinely reorganized their lives. They moved out of the city, changed their daily rhythms, and enrolled their children in schools far from business centers. When they suddenly hear they are expected to show up at the office five days a week, they often cannot do it overnight. The result is predictable... resignations “of one’s own free will,” no severance packages, no media headlines about mass layoffs. The company can announce a successful reorganization, while in reality saving vast sums by shifting the cost of the decision onto employees.

In the background lurks yet another thread that people are reluctant to acknowledge. Returning to the office is sometimes a convenient substitute for actual management. Instead of improving communication, goals, and performance evaluation, it is easier to order people back to the office and hope the problem solves itself. Visibility then replaces effectiveness, and presence becomes a value in its own right… “Control is the highest form of trust,” as one rather unpopular person once put it.

Meanwhile, reality - as usual - is more prosaic. Remote work is neither salvation nor catastrophe. The office is neither a breeding ground for genius nor hell on earth. The key lies in flexibility and organizational maturity. Where clearly defined goals, sensible collaboration, and mutual trust matter, the place where work is done fades into the background. Where they are missing, no return to the office will help.

So one might get the impression that this whole war over desks and couches is largely a proxy battle. It is easier to argue about where we sit than about how we work and why. And yet most employees dream of neither an eternal home office nor five days a week in an open space. They dream of normality, of work that makes sense, does not waste time, and does not treat people like pawns in a corporate game of appearances. As is usually the case, neither side has a monopoly on the truth. The question is no longer where we work, but how willing we are to adapt to changes that will be imposed anyway - by the market, by technology, or by those who currently hold the keys to the office building.