I have my reservations. I see it's problematic the views of modern anthropology espoused in the essay seem relegated to social interactions relegated to a modern conceptual framework which defines "work" and "the workplace", while disregarding how that framework is rooted in a far larger historical context.
If anything, the modern notion of "work" as an employee-employer relationship with the primary goal of securing and sustaining a livelihood on the part of the employee, is barely 250 years old. And it's steeped in ideas and social dynamics which first emerged in the late 18th century which would spark the Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution, above all, was a fundamental reorganization of society where economies shifted from localized labor found in tight-knit agrarian communities, towards concentrating labor in centralized industrial centers. This evolution was just as much driven by advances in technology as it was by shifts in modes of mobility, housing, urbanization, finance & banking, supply chains and so on. It also sparked massive migration of people moving from local communities towards these industrial centers. It's also important to note that this first happened in North America and Western Europe during the 19th and 20th century.
This was by far an evolution which happened on equal footing. The centralization of work in factories, workshops, offices,... was mainly driven by capital, and therefore happened at the behest of industrial elites who, during these times, also secured power as financial and political elites.
The notion that in order to secure a livelihood, one has to work in a centralized workplace, could easily be justified since the marketplace - labor, goods, services,... - was by and large based on manual labor, whether it was working textile, coal and iron mining, or other primary industries.
Throughout the 20th century, that changed as work in erstwhile industrialized countries shifted through secondary towards tertiary industries where labor has become predominantly office based. So long as efficient communication between workers was impeded by the lack of technology, the obligation of "coming to the office" could be easily justified.
In that regard, working in a centralized workplace has evolved into a widely accepted and deeply ingrained cultural norm, even though the digital revolution of the late 20th and early 21st century has deprecated any and all economic arguments to physically centralize labor in tertiary industries.
And so, the article, to me at least, seems more or less reaffirming a cultural norm which emerged during the 19th and early 20th century which was established and pushed by industrial elites back in the day, and is still upheld by their present day successors: the centralized workplace is an absolute necessity for organization of society.
The Marxist thinker Anthonio Gramsci coined the term "cultural hegemony" to describe such normative thinking:
> In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class which manipulates the culture of that society—the beliefs and explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that the imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for every social class, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class. This Marxist analysis of how the ruling capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) establishes and maintains its control was originally developed by the Italian philosopher and politician Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937).
(Personally, I have equal reservations in outright applying this term to this discussion, since Marxist thinking is equally shaped by the same changing affordances provided by society over the past 200 years. But I feel it's important to mention it here as this has been recognized and labeled by others as well.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
Barring precarious living conditions of pre-industrial life compared to the modern comforts enjoyed by the last 3 generations in the industrialized world, it's important to note that Humanity by and large lived - and in many parts of the world still lives - in tight-knit communities throughout the vast majority of (pre)history. Strong importance has always been given to familial, tribal or clan like relationships as those defined one's identity throughout life.
In contrast, the Industrial Revolution and the drive to centralize the workforce has driven urbanization from which present day metropoles have emerged. But at the same time, it has also profoundly disrupted how humans interact with each other. Looking at Western European and American culture in the most broadest sense over the past 200 years, you can see a clear shift and how it became permeated by themes of alienation, loss, saudade, discomfort, deep struggle with identity,... as an answer to these profound, disruptive social changes.
And so, the social and economic disruptions of the 19th and 20th century have left a deep legacy. And the specter of that legacy looms large over our present day lives in profound ways we likely haven't yet come to fully comprehend.
Tangentially, I was left thinking about a concrete example: the HR industry and the approach of hiring individuals. The process, at the end of the day, is about figuring out one main question: is the candidate a "good fit" for the organization? What it really implies is this: "Can we put this random person in a group of 5 picked individuals who, in truth, have little in common and let them act together in a manner that creates a benefit for the employer for 8-10 hours a day in a physically limited space?" From my outline, it should be pretty clear that the HR industry is a cottage industry which tries to solve a problem which was artificially created by centralizing labor.
As far as most employees are concerned, their co-workers aren't part of the original social tribe in which they first formed deep social connections: family, friends, clan, peers,... The main thing employees have in common, which drives them to work together, at the end of the day is a labor contract which they signed in order to secure their livelihood.
For sure, I have to add nuance to those statements. Humans are flexible in forming social ties and cooperating in a central physical location isn't in and of itself problematic. In fact, there are as many different, complex contexts as their are humans out there, each living their own life. And plenty of people derive fulfillment, identity and satisfaction from banding and cooperating together. Many people forge profound friendships and relationships in the workplace as well. My expose above doesn't invalidate the psychology at an individual level.
However, it would be rather disingenuous on the part of employers to expect that any and all individuals, without discerning their backgrounds, would willingly, and unquestioning, from the outset attach deep importance to social ties forged in a centralized workplace. Even the veil of anthropology doesn't take away the reductionism behind that view.