[Opinion] The WFH debate isn’t about location, it’s about leadership

A few weeks ago, I posted something simple that clearly hit a nerve.

“We’re removing WFH.”

That single phrase sparked over 250,000 views, 600+ likes, 275 comments, and 20 reposts in just 24 hours. It was one of those moments where you realise the future of work is not just being discussed, it is being lived in real time.

The responses came from every corner of the professional world: tech leaders, recruiters, parents, engineers, business owners, and people simply trying to do great work while living balanced lives. What emerged was not just noise, it was insight.

1. The Real Divide: Trust vs Control

The loudest theme was not really about WFH itself, it was about trust. One commenter summed it up perfectly: “If you can’t trust your team to work from home, why did you hire them?”

Many people saw removing WFH as a reaction to a lack of trust, rather than a strategic business decision. When leaders justify return to office mandates with lines like “staff are taking the pi$$”, what they are really admitting is a hiring or management problem, not a location problem.

Companies that measure outcomes instead of presence, and that lead through clarity instead of control, are the ones retaining their top performers.

2. Flexibility Is the New Currency

SEEK’s data backs it up:

• 61% of senior tech professionals value WFH over compensation
• 53% of mid level tech talent feel the same

That is not a small shift, it is a new workforce contract. People are choosing flexibility over money because time, autonomy, and mental space have become the true markers of value.

The comments reflected this loud and clear. One common sentiment was essentially: “Cutting two hours off a commute is not a perk, it is giving people their lives back.”

3. The Middle Ground Is Where the Magic Happens

Many business owners who commented were not anti WFH. They were pro balance. One person said, “Deep work happens at home. Collaboration happens in the office.”

That is the hybrid model at its best: purpose driven, not policy driven.

Others reminded us that juniors and grads need in person mentoring, while experienced professionals often thrive with autonomy. The lesson is simple. Stop looking for a one size fits all answer. Tailor flexibility to the role and to the person, not to the past.

4. The Cost of Getting It Wrong

A few contributors pointed out something that rarely gets discussed. The sunk cost problem of office real estate.

Businesses that have invested heavily in buildings and long leases are now struggling to justify those expenses. Forcing staff back just to fill seats may end up costing more in lost talent and morale than the office space ever did.

WFH is not a rebellion. It is an evolution. Just like every major shift in how we work, from industrialisation to digitisation, the people and organisations that adapt early are the ones that thrive.

My Take

(Opinion, of course)

Employers of choice do not just talk about culture, they show it through trust. Flexibility is no longer a perk. It is a signal that leadership gets it.

When I see companies say, “We are going back to the office because we used to”, I cannot help but think that this is not strategy, it is nostalgia.

The workforce has spoken, and the data is very clear. WFH, hybrid, or whatever label you use, is here to stay for organisations that value people as much as performance.

Dean Ellis is the founder and director of technology recruitment for Rec4Tech, a recruitment company in the technology space.

This article was previously published on LinkedIn by Dean Ellis. It is re-published here with his permission.

techpartner.news provides a platform for guest opinion articles such as this one to foster debate within the IT industry. The views expressed in these guest opinion articles are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of techpartner.news or its publishers.