This is such a cynical take. Why is it so ridiculous to believe that teams that work together in-person are more effective/innovative?
Why must a company hyper-maximize the effectiveness of every employee at the expense of their work-life balance and happiness (assuming they would rather be remote, of course)?
And if the employee isn't happy, they're probably a lot less effective in-person than you might think, but you assume they are just because they're physically present.
Yes, for some subset of people.
Many people found they did prefer to be in-person to be effective, innovative, and enjoy their work. Some companies are going to want to hire those people and avoid hiring the ones who don’t prefer in-person work.
Nothing wrong with that. It’s somebody at the the company’s decision to make. And maybe it’s a bad decision or a good decision, who knows.
Both sides here think they’re correct and are incredibly dogmatic and protective of their side.
Companies can choose to let workers decide. It’s definitely one of the options available. But companies can also mandate RTO or mandate continued remote work.
All of those choices allow the employee to decide if the company’s choice is a dealbreaker for them when it comes to where they choose to work.
Another issue is that the pro-remote workers love to assume that a pro-office person sitting alone in the office while everyone else works remotely makes everyone happy. This isn’t always the case.
So anecdotes?
That's also not evidence, of course, but I'm not the one trying to convince people to return to a less-than-ideal working environment.