>but I absolutely 100% think a lot of people are bullshitting how effective they are at home, because none of the workers want to lose the time- and location-fl

>but I absolutely 100% think a lot of people are bullshitting how effective they are at home, because none of the workers want to lose the time- and location-flexibility of WFH. If there are performance losses, why are they not being addressed? Why is there a blind assumption A or B is better? How are people able to BS their way through in a way they wouldn't in the office? This is an incredibly negative take when the opposite may just as well be true. If people don't want to lose this flexibility, that's an incentive to not drop their performance in a way that is measurable, making them at risk of losing that privilege. >Maybe not, but it takes more and better management, not less. Better, yes. More? Why would the assumption immediately be that we need more management, given that WFH resonates primarily with people who tend to be far more autonomous and communication-independent than those who want to work in office? If anything, this shows just how much management has been pushing a one-size-fits-all solution for decades to make it easier on them, at the cost of ICs. WFH is the tip of the iceberg in this regard.