Could you link to some data that demonstrates that?
> A lot of it was to create an environment where workers worked longer hours and thus the firm got more productivity out of each worker.
"longer hours" "more productivity" is obviously false for the extremes. It is unclear what is the threshold when a programmer starts to introduce more issues than they fix.
It is hard to measure productivity for a programmer (e.g., what might be productive short-term may be counter-productive long-term).
Can we see the data?
> Work from the office a couple days a week to enable coordination, connection, innovation, and alignment.
I see you are fully buzzword enabled.
> This forced experiment in 100% WFH was clearly bad for productivity.
"Clearly"?
Can you back up your dramatic claims with evidence?
When I worked at Google, it was so noisy that I did most of my work from home anyway, but showed up for a few hours a day because I had to.
Negative cost but also negative revenue / productivity loss if not done properly.
Most data appears to show the hybrid model is the best for productivity. WFH several days a week, enabling focus and limiting distractions. Work from the office a couple days a week to enable coordination, connection, innovation, and alignment.
This forced experiment in 100% WFH was clearly bad for productivity. The reason tech companies provided so many perks in the past wasn't simply as a recruitment technique. A lot of it was to create an environment where workers worked longer hours and thus the firm got more productivity out of each worker. The cost-benefit analysis clearly supported that before. A caterer's salary is far lower than an engineer's.