I said "not the least of which because". I didn't say that was the only reason.
This is precisely the kind of cynical reading-between-the-lines that I'm talking about.
> At my workplace they keep nodding at "hybrid" without any specifics and the resulting fear due to uncertainty is far worse than a clear policy that some (many) people might not like...
The issue in my org is that, starting from the executive level down, everyone is saying "we are not forcing people back to the office", but no official policy has been written and published that lays that down in writing.
Then mouzogu came along implying that, even with a written policy, they still wouldn't believe it, thus the tangent about being frustrated.
But in my own org, today, absolutely staff have good reason to feel uncertain, if only because fear is filling the communication vacuum.
As for karaterobot's comment, they extrapolated a brief remark into a conspiracy theory. Rest assured, when communicating with my staff, there's a lot more nuance that's being conveyed.
But, it was the only reason you gave.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I wasn't attempting to give you a complete and thorough explanation of our work-from-home policy or the reasoning behind it, but rather just one (very important) factor that's part of the overall calculus. I believe that was clear from the context.
It sounds like you have a disconnect with your ICs if you don’t understand why they don’t trust you.