This is very very wrong.
Some people work better in a team while others are good individual contributers. Some people are extroverts and feel energised when they are around people, while others feel drained. Some are excellent at communication (online or offline).
A firm is a collection of folks working together towards some value addition. People work hard at times, same people struggle and slack off at other times. This is akin to a batting line-up. You can't have all people performing their best simultaneously, neither can you have some outperformers performing best for years in continuation. They have lives outside work, get bogged down by family, health, skill, mood troubles, or just get demotivated.
A "good talent" tag doesn't stay eternal for most, everyone gets promoted to their incompetence level, but a "bad talent" can turn eternal. Bad talent has many reasons, sometimes it's just circumstances.
It is the management's JOB, and the only JOB that they identify the best in the employees under them and arrange their incentives and situations (WFH or WFO or anything else like leaves, allowances etc) in a way that the firm gets out the best COMBINED output.
Most new people who joined remote during past 3-4y suffered due to low context, no training, no motivation but complete loneliness and apathy. Not a lot of kids can climb out of that in the start of their career. To give your current best employees complete leeway on WFH might help them perform better but there wouldn't be a backup generation of performers to take their place or new generation of Team Leads.
Good employees working remotely are akin to contractors, like external dialysis machines. They will do their own job well. But they will not be a part of the whole. They can be plug and play type of people who will work well with every org, but equally replaceable when a new cheaper version comes along.
Doubt it. Very few employers care to provide remote