Original thinking.
Consequential questions.

Barclays / workforce capability. If experienced colleagues have no time to support newer colleagues, moving them into the same building doesn’t create that time. It’s not Back to the Future. The building cannot mentor somebody by itself. The organisation needs to establish what each role contributes to the result it needs. Quality, customer service, team delivery, developing colleagues, whatever the work requires, then they assess that contribution. So if me, Ruth-Ellen, delivers it with one arrangement and John delivers it with another, why does matching their office days become the priority? What additional value justifies the change?

Colourism / power and proof. Everybody can carry bias, everybody’s bias does not carry equal consequence. My private preference is one thing. A recruiter’s preference can close a door. A manager’s interpretation can change a rating. A senior leader’s idea of what leadership looks like can shape succession. A CEO’s preference can become normal, a metric, a strategy, a policy because people begin operationalising what power wants. Power amplifies preference and power amplifies the potential cost of being wrong. Which means power should increase the burden of proof, not reduce it. The more people your judgement can affect, the less entitled you should be to say it’s just my instinct.