If you're starting an article with a strong, absolute, data-devoid, and highly opinion-based quote from an executive (not an engineer or direct manager), then I'm not going to take much stock in your writing.
Look, I'm not saying remote is better or worse. But I will say that as an engineer, a hybrid model works excellent for my personal productivity. If anything, I spend more hours focused when I'm at home or at my local coffee shop. I am fully aware that I am missing social interaction, serendipitous productive conversation, yada yada, when I'm not in the office. I am aware that my company might be more productive if we were all in-person. But statements like this?
> Full WFH is a two-day workweek.
Yeah, fuck off. Why are we trusting executives' opinions on day-to-day lives of their line workers anyway? Their work is different: it's largely based on connections and debates and presentations and deal-making. My work is centered around focused writing and refinement of code and prose. Obviously our ideal work environments might differ.
Also, tangentially, every image in this article seems to be a stock photo of someone stressed out in an office :)
'cause executives are the ones whose neck is on the line for success of their business division so they are extremely motivated to keep a close eye on profitability and progress on business goals, particularly when the economy looks wobbly. [mic drop]
(Yes, there are examples of executives who are incompetent and/or just plain dumb, but they are the minority.)
And, of course, before I get attacked as pro-RTO, I myself WFH and only go to the office when circumstances require it.
...so? What is the conclusion? You force people to do what they hate and hope for better results? It really makes no sense.