I'm at a Fortune 500 that cut back nearly all of its remote work. I prefer remote work, and I thrive at it. However, it can't be denied that there are some drawbacks. A few: A) Training new hires, B) bonding (while those in-office chats often detract from raw work-time, they also contribute to relationships. Positive relationships are a worthwhile lubricant when make requests of others), C) increased friction for chatting, which is often a net positive, but does have the potential to block progress that is born from impromptu chats.
Yes, you can try to work around these and other challenges, but working around long-evolved brain firmware that, for many cases of interaction, favors in-person communication, is tough. Of course many people prefer to stay at home, as do I, but there is a huge increase in the level of connection I feel when I go back to the HQ and hang out with everyone (a handful of times each year).
This is word play. It can't be denied that there are some drawbacks to everything. It absolutely can be denied that the drawbacks of remote or individual choice are larger than the drawbacks of forced office work.
I disagree as strongly as possible with the implication that it makes sense to force everybody to communicate in-person because "the brain was designed for it". I communicate much more efficiently - and am even better at connecting socially - through text first, conference (audio or video) second, and in-person a distant third. Yet I speak well and am friendly and sociable in person. I.e. it has nothing to do with being anti-social or something. Most people I know personally are the same way. I don't think people like me are strictly the majority, but they are very common, and may even be the majority in tech contexts. I.e. it's irrational (or simply hostile) to ignore us.
The common implication that allowing each person to work in-person or remote at will is somehow a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario is a fallacy.
It certainly can be denied--or at least argued. Are there actually studies that show these things are significant drawbacks which are worse in the balance after also accounting for the benefits of remote work?
Proponents of both in-office and remote work are just spouting feelings and vibes rather than actual evidence that it really makes a difference.
There is research supporting the benefits of remote work (less distraction, increased productivity, etc.), and there is research appearing to confirm the negatives. One excerpt from a study at MS[0] "Our results show that firm-wide remote work caused the collaboration network of workers to become more static and siloed, with fewer bridges between disparate parts."
Gallup [1] found that far fewer workers felt respected while remote during the pandemic. I thought it was wild to see the huge uptick (31%) year-over-year in SEC whistle-blowers. [2]
Research of this type is challenging, especially because it's difficult to source the volume and quality of data needed from businesses. I'm sure we could find weaknesses in any study for or against.
Hybrid might be the best of both worlds per HBR, see [3]
Honestly I'd love to see a solid refutation of the benefits of in-person work, so that I could use it for leverage the next time my remote job is at risk of being converted back to in-person.
Yes, you can try to work around these and other challenges, but working around long-evolved brain firmware that, for many cases of interaction, favors in-person communication, is tough. Of course many people prefer to stay at home, as do I, but there is a huge increase in the level of connection I feel when I go back to the HQ and hang out with everyone (a handful of times each year).