Ok, but how do you square this with the troves of research that shows multi-tasking is really just task switching and tends to erode performance across specific types of work? (I'm not talking about walking and chewing gum, but tasks that typically have a larger mental overhead).
At some point, I think you have to acknowledge that multitasking worsens performance. It's really up to the employer to determine if that is still a net benefit to keeping someone on.
Multitasking is not optimal is true. But If the quality and quantity of work is deemed acceptable to the company, why does the employee need to work at a higher level of performance than required?
I run a couple of marathons a year, but I sure wouldn't try to finish one every week.
This is what I'm getting at. It seems to indicate they aren't meeting a minimum standard and they think working in person will get them there. It's why performance standards exist. The difference is I'm acknowledging that the performance standards of the company matter too, not just the individual. So if the company thinks they need to raise their standard of work* (rightly or wrongly) by making people work in person, it's still a valid action (depending on the exact nature of the remote agreement).
It's like the comment above that equated familial interruptions to coworker interruptions. The former is generally a net negative to the company while the latter is not. The comment seems to view everything from the lens of the individual.
* there's probably a valid argument as to why they feel compelled to that matters and the article doesn't exactly put a fine point on it
At some point, I think you have to acknowledge that multitasking worsens performance. It's really up to the employer to determine if that is still a net benefit to keeping someone on.