I don't think that's a counterpoint. It depends on executives continuing to believe F2F is superior.
The evidence already existed that WFH is, generally, better. See Stanford's Bloom 2013.
But executives are afraid to take big risks like that. They doubt studies. They overindex on personal experience. Which this gave them.
Now that they see what WFH actually produces, their worldview shifts to what was already true. You get talent that's more productive. Lower costs so you can afford more talent, or, alternatively, more expensive talent. Fewer geographic restrictions so you can recruit a bigger pool of talent.
Once you're convinced WFH works, these advantages can give competition an edge. An executive doesn't want to be on the wrong side of that edge.
But they have to see it first.
There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is, and currently no evidence suggests that is true.
possibly shouldn't have used the word 'counterpoint'.
c19 has given people an experience of "almost everyone WFH and the company didn't end".
"There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is". It IS better for some people individually - we see it here on HN in comments from people who prefer to be able to go to an office. There isn't a "one size fits all" approach.
To the extent that we see more WFH across the board, I think it'll be driven far more by "get rid of the office expense" - hard $ savings - vs "everyone's more productive!". They'll be "productive enough", relative to the cost savings of less (or no) office space.
The evidence already existed that WFH is, generally, better. See Stanford's Bloom 2013.
But executives are afraid to take big risks like that. They doubt studies. They overindex on personal experience. Which this gave them.
Now that they see what WFH actually produces, their worldview shifts to what was already true. You get talent that's more productive. Lower costs so you can afford more talent, or, alternatively, more expensive talent. Fewer geographic restrictions so you can recruit a bigger pool of talent.
Once you're convinced WFH works, these advantages can give competition an edge. An executive doesn't want to be on the wrong side of that edge.
But they have to see it first.
There's no reason they go back to thinking F2F is better, unless it actually is, and currently no evidence suggests that is true.