We cannot reliably measure medium to long-term productivity with or without WFH.
I find it a little galling though that the "Pro WFH" side needs to prove it, but the "Nay WFH" side doesn't simply because we've arbitrarily pinned that as normalcy. I've read studies that support both modalities, and based on comparing their methodology it seems very easy to construct them to show any conclusion you set out to show.
I'd argue given the benefits I set out above (and others), a higher burden of proof should be asked for in-office, rather than just accept it as the De facto standard and setting the bar high to challenge it. If they both started on even footing WFH would win because the benefits are quantifiable, whereas in-office are anecdotal.
PS - In the above I even forgot all the family benefits of WFH.
I find it a little galling though that the "Pro WFH" side needs to prove it, but the "Nay WFH" side doesn't simply because we've arbitrarily pinned that as normalcy. I've read studies that support both modalities, and based on comparing their methodology it seems very easy to construct them to show any conclusion you set out to show.
I'd argue given the benefits I set out above (and others), a higher burden of proof should be asked for in-office, rather than just accept it as the De facto standard and setting the bar high to challenge it. If they both started on even footing WFH would win because the benefits are quantifiable, whereas in-office are anecdotal.
PS - In the above I even forgot all the family benefits of WFH.