It does seem that that there is a pretty strong push for return to on site in a lot of organizations. However it is interesting the premise is often not well articulated beyond diffuse sentiments such as improving "team work" etc etc. Few seem to be arguing that productivity is the issue. By and large, everyone is acknowledging that the work gets done either way.

Which leaves the question of what is motivating it? I feel like this is more managers struggling to recapture their previous sense of identity which was founded in some way on there being a physical place full of warm bodies with a specific culture shaped by management through various decisions. Without that managers are left with a much more intangible sense of what their role and value is. Everything seems a lot more hollow if your only reason to exist is to deliver on bare bones work requirements. Then, managers also feel they have a lot of influence over employees by controlling their physical environment which they don't have with WFH.

The problem the managers have is, the factors in favor of WFH are pretty clear and objective. Just eliminating commute saves most employees a couple of hours a day which is already probably more productivity gain than you could achieve through any other kind of workplace measure. The benefits for the environment, reduction in burden on infrastructure, etc etc are all pretty easy to add up.

So we are left with management weirdly struggling to assert a rationale made up entirely of intangibles against pretty obvious hard objective facts. It's going to be pretty interesting to see who wins this one.