brianary
There is work like construction, transportation, and customer service that can’t really be remote.
I’m not sure if there’s a good argument for work that can be done remotely to insist on both in person and remote work. It doubles the amount of workstation resources required, or compromises on at least one of them.
Maybe teams benefit from in-person communication? That’s probably simpler for some that haven’t found comparable online versions of whiteboarding tools or whatever. Good tools do exist, but feel people that haven’t adapted to them by now, it’ll take some real demand to make it happen. This might not be a characteristic of a highly effective team, though.
Most frequently, hybrid insistence seems do be more about justifying middle management, based on my highly unscientific observations.
I’m not sure I’d put much stock in modern polling.
A study suggests the debate had very little impact, but even if it didn’t, historically, changing candidates this late hasn’t worked out.
https://boingboing.net/2024/07/10/impacts-of-the-presidential-debate-far-overestimated.html
How do you not know boingboing.net?
Anyway, that’s not the source, but Rawstory doesn’t allow ad-blockers, so I linked that synopsis.
https://www.rawstory.com/rs-exclusive/biden-debate-2668724330/
None of those, including my link, is accurate enough to really matter, especially this far from the election.
A job is not a social club. You may need a mix of personality types, but if you lock yourself into a candidate pool from a tight geographic area, that’ll be far more constraining.
You can’t just make up a percentage based on anecdotal observation and expect anyone to take it seriously.
Generally, my online meetings work great. When there’s lag, or for low-priority or asynchronous points, we use the text channel. No interruption. That’s not really available in person. It also allows more input from thoughtful introverts, which typically get steamrolled and ignored in person.