As an employee or an investor I would not want any of my CXOs to make major decisions based on hearsay and feelings, but it's guess it's different for WFH.
There are scenarios where WFH is an excellent away around socially awkward scenarios. If the guy in the next cubicle makes things subtly uncomfortable-- maybe you don't like his cologne, maybe he's just a little too friendly-- being able to just bail and limit your exposure to scheduled meetings in a videochat box can be a huge win. Or conversely, I'd expect WFH to appeal to many people with social anxiety issues and autism-spectrum conditions, as again, you can just exit an environment that makes you uncomfortable on a daily basis.
I'd also be interested to see how many on-premise perks they rolled back when nobody was in-office to claim them. That's a completely quantifiable number-- for the sake of "bringing people back to the office", you have to pay for a lot more catered lunches, probably way more claims for child care subsidies and transport reimbursements.
I believe there have also been real estate crashes predicted for large office buildings which could lead investors to hold on for dear life and double-down on utilizing the buildings for a few years. Otherwise people could just try to get out of contracts, write-down losses and sell their buildings fully embracing WFH.