This is a weird article. It uses the expressions like "iron fist" and "mandated", but when you follow the links provided as sources all you get is "the bank wanted 60% of its people back in the office, but was only achieving attendance of 37%.". I know someone who works at CS (in Poland) and he commutes once a week. He never mentioned any problems with this arrangement. Maybe it is different in other places.

Even as someone who refuses to do hybrid, much less 100% in-office, this article is quite a reach. At most, it can be said that the culture that led CS to push Back-to-the-Office is the same culture that contributed to its demise, but it really doesn't follow that the policy itself is what caused the demise.

Begging the question much?