The technology exists to "just talk" in high-definition audio and video. If somebody isn't asking for help when they're stuck that's a people problem, not a remote work problem. There are several possible reasons for their avoidance; if multiple people are exhibiting the same behavior it could be cultural (specific to your workplace, not the person's upbringing). Using physical presence to force their hand is curing the symptom, not the underlying cause.
We could develop new technology, research culture solutions... or... meet in-person.
The technology and culture solutions have existed and been evolving for 20 years. It really sounds like your experience with remote work is not representative.
Seriously, how much software have you used that was genuinely good? For me, almost none. All the software I use, I tolerate.
Look, companies are made up of people and have all the downsides of humanity. That means the people making the decisions are egotistical, emotionally-driven, irrational, and a bit narcissistic. They still do okay enough, and that's all they need to achieve.
If you want my perspective, I think WFH ended just because executives did not like it. That's it. They didn't like how much autonomy it gave their workers, it didn't feel fair to them, so they said no, because they can. All the other analysis is mostly bullshit.
I mean, Jesus Christ, do you think my company makes just about any decisions because of data or economics? No! That's not to say they don't have data behind it. Of course they do, it's just very obviously bullshit. Everyone knows what's going on. People want things done a certain way, so they do that and then just make up a justification later to tell their dumbass investors who couldn't tell a hole in the ground from their asshole. Nobody has the balls or humility to say "look, I just want it this way". So, everyone has to lie and make up numbers and reasoning.
I check in, and it ends up being story time about non-issues.
In person, its a 'hows it going?' and they say either 'good, still working' or 'stuck...'.
I would love if WFH was as effective. I could reduce my labor costs and probably have happier workers.
It's possible to build a high performing remote team, but it's not easy.
Structure is what makes remote work well. IME places that rely on everyone being together in-person to make sure things get done have poorly-defined structure.
It's possible to drive results and create a culture of accountability without dragging people into the room with you just so you can interrupt their work in-person.
But I also am a bit reluctant to hire introverts for this specific (entry level) job. They will not ask for help to their and my detriment.
Being a bit casual and not making grand claims: I should hire Senior introverts and have them WFH. I should hire entry level extroverts and have them in person.
Especially these days where it's soooo easy to chat, video call, share screens, etc.
I am easily twice as productive in my own hive than I am in the office. The office is full of distractions, noise, it is not as ergonomic as my setup at home and i get to waste 90min a day commuting.
In some very specific instances i see value in going to the office, productivity during everyday work is not among them
If I had to guess, we are such a small office that its obvious if someone is distracted and I can nudge them back to work.
Saying all of this outloud, you are making me realize I have the office style of a panopticon. At least my workers seem to genuinely like working.
I'd like to think that you see "my 2 programmers" as "my team" but I've come to expect phrasing like "when we have our 2 programmers in office". That perspective emphasizes that we're all in this together, rather than serfs working for the benefit of the lord.
The "my programmers" phrasing plays into my prejudice that one reason you like having "your programmers" in office is the exhilaration you feel in seeing them at your beck and call.
The majority of my career (years before the pandemic) has been remote work. I find in office work painfully slow. I pair program quite often remote, and when someone gets stuck we also "just talk". Honestly I prefer screen sharing to leaning over someone's shoulder (much easier to doing supporting work in parallel).
I find it really depends on the type of org though. Large corporate places do tend to suffer from remote work because so much of the work is performative anyway. Remote small companies and startups the velocity is very high, but you do need more senior people capable of independent work.
Especially when you factor in the easy of "after hours" work, the amount of emergency stuff I've shipped around midnight is incomparable to the 'in office' equivalent.
Though I suspect the key word here is "my 2 programmers", I find managers don't feel like their doing work unless they're physically watching it get done.
Not understanding how to run a remote team is not the same as remote teams not being effective in principle.
I'm introverted and did just fine in an office, because the company culture was that coworkers all talked to each other about how they preferred to work (preferably no more often than once a quarter) and then respected that. When we moved to WFH during lockdown, that practice continued.
I've also WFH at remote-first companies that did not practice, encourage, or enforce ICs communicating to find and document better ways to work together, and have not been served remotely as well by the result.
I know its unpopular to say, but when I have my 2 programmers in office, we get sooo much more done than at home. Someone gets stuck and we don't message/call, we just talk.
Although, if you want to justify WFH, introverted-like people do not get the same level of benefit as extroverted-like people in this situation. The extroverted people will just start talking. The introverted people need to be asked.