I still accomplish the same work. It's just that a ton of bloat has been cut.

In a previous role (full remote), I remember having an informal conversation with the CFO. He stated something to the effect of "even if we lose 10-15% productivity in *actual revenue*, being full remote means that we are easily saving that much in office space rental fees." This was a discussion on actual revenue, dollars in the bank. He also stated that we had not seen even a 5% drop in revenue, so the company was saving money by being remote. He said he was much more concerned with profitability and not productivity. Profitability is measurable. More money is good, less money is bad. A corporation's job is to make money. If that is being achieved, then the goal is met. How does one appropriately measure productivity without referencing something like money? All these "productivity" studies are very reliant on metrics like employee reported work data. No employee in their right mind is going to report that they only work 6 hours a day. That number will always be inflated when reported.

Consider this study that claims the 20% loss of productivity figure:



This claim is heavily based on employees stating that they are working occasionally during nights and weekends. But it fails to account for the substantive fact that "there was no significant change in measured output." The authors thus conclude that because people were working nights and weekends, their productivity must have gone down because the output was the same. (20% more work, but 0% increase in output). What is more likely is that employees are working about the same (or less) than they were when full time in office, but that their hours are not 9-5.

Ultimately, if "there was no significant change in measured output", why should we care how an employee manages their time? Again, profitability over "productivity."