There are few workplace arguments that get people worked up faster than this one:
Should people be working in the office?
Remote?
Hybrid?
Five days in?
Three days in?
Two days?
Apparently, we have managed to turn the location of someone’s laptop into a referendum on their work ethic.
I’ve heard all the arguments.
People are more productive at home.
People are more productive in the office.
People need the flexibility of remote work.
People need the accountability of being around other people.
Remote employees are more engaged.
Remote employees are secretly watching Netflix.
Managers can’t manage people they can’t see.
And, of course, the old favorite:
“If I can’t see them, how do I know they’re working?”
That one has always bothered me.
Because if physically seeing someone is your primary method of determining whether they’re doing a good job, I’m not sure your problem is remote work.
But we’ll get to that.
Maybe the question we should be asking isn’t:
“Where should people work?”
Maybe it’s:
“Where does this work work best?”
That sounds like a small distinction.
I don’t think it is.
Looking Busy Is Easier Than Ever
One of the biggest mistakes we make when talking about work is confusing being busy with being productive.
We also confuse being online with working.
Those are not the same thing.
I can sit in an office from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and accomplish remarkably little.
I can also sit at home with my laptop open, Teams running, my camera on and my little green status light glowing proudly all day—and accomplish remarkably little.
Technology has actually made it easier than ever to look busy.
You’re online.
You’re responding to messages.
You’re in meetings.
You’re answering email.
You’re on camera.
You’re available.
Congratulations.
You may have just spent eight hours working very hard at not getting your actual work done.
And apparently, we’re getting pretty good at it.
Microsoft’s 2025 workplace research found that employees were interrupted by a meeting, email or notification, on average, every two minutes during core work hours.
Every.
Two.
Minutes.
Try writing something complicated that way.
Or analyzing a financial model.
Or solving a difficult customer problem.
Or doing just about anything that requires holding more than one thought in your head at a time.
That’s not a remote-work problem.
That’s a work problem.
So What Does the Research Actually Say?
Here’s where things get inconvenient.
There isn’t a simple winner.
One of the more interesting studies I found involved 1,612 employees at Trip.com. Researchers randomly assigned some employees to continue working in the office five days a week while others were allowed to work from home two days a week.
You would think this would settle the argument.
It didn’t.
The hybrid employees didn’t suddenly become productivity superheroes.
But they didn’t become pajama-wearing freeloaders either.
Researchers found no meaningful damage to performance reviews or promotions. Among software engineers, they also found no measurable effect on lines of code produced.
But something else happened.
The hybrid employees were less likely to quit.
A lot less likely.
Working from home two days a week reduced attrition by roughly one-third while also improving job satisfaction.
Think about that for a minute.
The company got essentially the same performance.
The employees got more flexibility.
And fewer good people left.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty decent trade.
Especially if you’ve ever had to replace a really good employee.
So maybe the question isn’t:
Which work model produces the most productivity?
Maybe it’s:
Which model allows this particular person, doing this particular job, to produce their best work while still giving the organization what it needs?
That question is harder.
Which is probably why we keep avoiding it.
Remote Work Has Some Real Advantages
Let’s give remote work its due.
Some work is simply easier to do when there aren’t a bunch of people around you.
Writing.
Analysis.
Accounting.
Programming.
Research.
Planning.
Building a presentation.
Working through a complicated spreadsheet.
Anything that requires long stretches of concentration.
For that kind of work, the office can sometimes feel like trying to read a book in the middle of an airport.
There’s nothing wrong with the airport.
It’s just not where I’d choose to read War and Peace.
Remote work also eliminates a commute.
It can reduce interruptions.
It gives people more control over their environment.
And it gives companies access to talented people who don't happen to live within 30 minutes of the building where somebody signed a lease.
Those are real advantages.
But there is a catch.
Remote work requires discipline.
And that discipline doesn’t just belong to the employee.
It belongs to the manager, too.
Working From Home Doesn’t Mean Working While Raising Your Kids
This one probably deserves a little honesty.
Working from home can be a tremendous benefit for parents.
But working from home is not the same thing as providing childcare while working.
Those are two different jobs.
Both are important.
Both require attention.
And doing both simultaneously can get interesting.
Someone needs a snack.
Someone can’t find their shoes.
Someone has homework.
Someone is crying.
Someone else has somehow started bleeding.
And children possess an extraordinary ability to recognize the exact moment you join the most important meeting of your week as the ideal time to need your immediate and undivided attention.
That’s not a criticism of parents.
That’s Tuesday.
If you worked in an office, you probably wouldn’t bring your children into the conference room every day and expect to give them your full attention while simultaneously running the quarterly planning meeting.
Working remotely doesn’t change the fundamental requirement that you need an environment where you can actually work.
For some families, that means school.
Daycare.
A sitter.
A spouse or partner sharing responsibilities.
A designated workspace with boundaries.
Whatever works for that family.
There isn't one answer.
But there does need to be an answer.
If you want the benefits of remote work, you still need to create an environment where you can do the work.
The office isn’t productive because of the walls.
But those walls do create a boundary.
Remote workers have to create that boundary themselves.
The Office Still Has a Job
Now let’s give the office its due.
There are things that can happen better when people are together.
Training.
Mentoring.
Brainstorming.
Building relationships.
Solving complicated problems.
Having difficult conversations.
Onboarding new employees.
Developing younger employees.
And sometimes...
Just talking.
Remember talking?
You know that conversation that happens five minutes before the meeting starts?
Or the question someone asks while you’re getting coffee?
Or the person who walks past your office, sticks their head in and says, “Do you have a minute?”
Admittedly, “Do you have a minute?” has probably destroyed more productive afternoons than anyone can calculate.
But sometimes that minute matters.
Those conversations don't show up on a productivity report.
Neither do relationships.
But organizations run on them.
There’s research behind this, too.
A study of more than 61,000 Microsoft employees found that when the company moved broadly to remote work, collaboration networks became more static and siloed. There were fewer connections bridging different parts of the organization, and communication shifted toward more asynchronous forms.
That doesn’t mean remote work doesn’t work.
It means remote work has tradeoffs.
Everything does.
Organizations aren't just collections of individual employees completing individual tasks.
They’re networks of people.
And sometimes it helps if those people occasionally occupy the same room.
Technology Is the Bridge
This is where the conversation has changed dramatically.
Technology has made all of this possible.
Teams.
Zoom.
Slack.
Email.
Shared documents.
Project management systems.
Cloud storage.
AI.
Video conferencing.
Digital whiteboards.
Recorded meetings.
Transcripts.
AI-generated summaries.
Twenty years ago, much of this would have sounded like science fiction.
Today, we become personally offended when Teams takes seven seconds to connect.
Technology has made remote and hybrid work infinitely more practical.
But we have to remember something.
Technology is a bridge. It isn’t the destination.
We shouldn't use technology to recreate every bad part of the office online.
Which brings me to something I really don’t understand.
Please Stop Making Everyone Turn Their Camera On All Day
I’m going to say something that may get me in trouble.
Having everyone’s camera on all day is not proof that people are working.
It’s also not necessarily management.
If I spend six hours in Teams meetings staring at 12 little boxes containing people who are staring back at 12 little boxes, I’m not convinced we've created the workplace of the future.
I think we’ve just recreated a conference room.
Except now nobody gets donuts.
Technology should help us collaborate when collaboration is useful.
It should also help us not collaborate when collaboration isn't useful.
Sometimes the best use of technology is not another meeting.
It’s a message.
A shared document.
A quick video.
An AI-generated meeting summary.
A project update.
Or—and stay with me here—nothing.
Sometimes I just need 90 minutes to think.
I don't need a meeting.
I don't need a status update.
I don't need a notification.
And I definitely don't need my boss watching me think.
Managing People You Can’t See
Here’s another phrase I hear:
“I can’t manage people if I can’t see them.”
Yes, you can.
But you have to actually manage them.
Good managers have always done more than monitor attendance.
They set expectations.
They establish priorities.
They make sure people have what they need.
They coach.
They remove obstacles.
They give feedback.
They hold people accountable.
They recognize good work.
They address poor performance.
Most importantly, they know what success looks like.
None of those things require an employee to sit 20 feet away.
Gallup has been studying this for years, and its research consistently points back to management quality, clear expectations and intentional team design.
Gallup reports that managers account for 70% of the variance in team-level engagement.
Seventy percent.
That’s a pretty big number.
And it makes sense.
If the only way I know whether an employee is doing a good job is by occasionally looking across the office to make sure they're still sitting there, I may not have an employee problem.
I may have a management problem.
Manage the Output, Not the Green Dot
This may be the most important point in this entire discussion.
Manage the output.
Not the green dot.
Not the hours online.
Not whether somebody responded to Teams in 90 seconds.
Not whether they walked through the door at 8:03.
Not whether their camera was on.
What did they accomplish?
Did the project move forward?
Did the customer get taken care of?
Was the report accurate?
Did the proposal go out?
Did the problem get solved?
Did the employee do what they committed to doing?
Did the team accomplish what it needed to accomplish?
Those are productivity measures.
Now, before someone sends me an angry email, I'm not suggesting hours don't matter.
They do.
Some jobs require specific hours.
Customers need support.
Operations need coverage.
Teams need overlap.
Deadlines still exist.
The emergency room probably shouldn't move to an “asynchronous work model.”
But for a lot of knowledge work, the important question isn't:
“Were you online from 8:00 to 5:00?”
It’s:
“Did you accomplish what we agreed you would accomplish?”
Those are two very different management philosophies.
I know which one I’d rather work under.
I also know which one I’d rather manage.
Hybrid Might Be the Practical Answer
So where does that leave us?
For a lot of knowledge work, hybrid may be the most practical answer.
Apparently, quite a few workplaces have reached the same conclusion.
Gallup's 2026 data show that among U.S. employees with remote-capable jobs, 52% are working hybrid, compared with 26% exclusively remote and 22% fully on-site.
But before someone turns that into a corporate policy...
There is nothing magical about three days in the office.
Tuesday and Thursday do not possess mysterious productivity powers.
Hybrid only works when the reason for being together is clear.
Maybe Monday is when the team plans.
Maybe Wednesday is when everyone collaborates.
Maybe Friday is a terrible day for meetings because people need uninterrupted time to finish what they started during the other four days.
Maybe your team needs two days together.
Maybe four.
Maybe one.
Maybe none.
It depends on the work.
Which is why I've never loved blanket policies.
Instead of:
“Everyone has to be in the office Tuesday through Thursday.”
I'd rather hear:
“These are the things we believe are better when we're together, and these are the things we believe are better when you're working independently.”
Now we're getting somewhere.
Three Questions
If I were designing a work policy today, I'd start with three questions.
1. What work is better together?
Mentoring?
Brainstorming?
Planning?
Relationship building?
Training?
Complicated collaboration?
Great.
Get together.
2. What work is better alone?
Writing?
Analysis?
Research?
Development?
Anything requiring a couple of uninterrupted hours and a functioning human brain?
Great.
Give people room.
3. How will we know if it's working?
This is the one we tend to skip.
Define the outputs.
Define the goals.
Define the expectations.
Measure the results.
Then adjust.
You don't need a complicated consulting engagement for that.
That's management.
Who Benefits From What?
If we're going to make this practical, here's roughly how I see it.
Remote tends to work well for:
- People doing focused, individual work.
- Experienced employees who need less hands-on support.
- Employees with long commutes.
- Companies trying to access a broader talent pool.
- Work that can be measured by output.
- People disciplined enough to create a productive environment at home.
The office tends to work well for:
- New employees.
- People who need significant training or mentoring.
- Teams doing highly collaborative work.
- Relationship-heavy roles.
- Organizations trying to build or rebuild culture.
- Situations where face-to-face interaction actually improves the work.
Hybrid tends to work well for:
- Organizations that need both focus and collaboration.
- Experienced knowledge workers.
- Teams that can intentionally coordinate their schedules.
- Companies willing to manage outcomes instead of presence.
- Employees who value flexibility but still benefit from occasionally being around other humans.
Notice something?
None of those lists say “everyone.”
That's the point.
Maybe Location Isn't the Problem
I think we've spent an enormous amount of time arguing about the location of work.
Meanwhile, the bigger problem may be how we've designed work.
Too many meetings.
Too many notifications.
Too much email.
Too much status checking.
Too much time spent proving we're working.
Not enough uninterrupted focus.
Not enough clarity.
Not enough accountability.
And sometimes, not enough actual management.
Put the research together and it gets interesting.
Microsoft tells us the modern workday has become incredibly fragmented.
Gallup keeps pointing us toward management quality and clear expectations.
Research on remote work shows us that working apart can affect the relationships connecting an organization.
And the Trip.com experiment tells us that giving people some flexibility can improve retention without sacrificing performance.
Which makes me wonder:
Are we trying to solve a management problem with a location policy?
Here’s My Practical Operator Answer
I don't think remote work is the answer.
I don't think the office is the answer.
I don't even think hybrid is the answer.
I think the work should determine the answer.
If I need to think, let me think.
If we need to collaborate, let's collaborate.
If I need to learn, teach me.
If we need to build a relationship, let's sit down together.
If I need to write for three hours, please don't schedule three meetings.
If I'm managing someone, I should tell them what success looks like, give them what they need to achieve it, and then hold them accountable for the result.
And if we're working remotely, let's use technology to make collaboration easier—not to monitor whether someone's face is still visible in a little square on my screen.
Most importantly:
Let's measure what people accomplish, not how often their little green dot says “Available.”
The office isn't automatically productive.
Remote work isn't automatically productive.
Hybrid isn't automatically productive.
Good work is productive.
And good work usually happens when you put the right people, the right tools, the right expectations and the right environment together.
Sometimes that's an office.
Sometimes it's a home office.
Sometimes it's a conference room.
Sometimes it's a coffee shop.
And sometimes it's a quiet room with the door closed and absolutely nobody asking you for “just five minutes.”
Maybe the future of work isn't about deciding where everyone should work.
Maybe it's about getting better at deciding what kind of work we're asking people to do—and what environment gives them the best chance to do it well.
That's a much more practical question.
And, frankly, I'd rather manage that than spend another meeting arguing about where somebody's laptop is sitting.
Sources & Further Reading
- Nicholas Bloom, Ruobing Han and James Liang, “Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance,” Nature, 2024.
- Longqi Yang et al., “The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers,” Nature Human Behaviour, 2021.
- Microsoft, 2025 Annual Work Trend Index.
- Gallup, research on managing hybrid and remote teams and the 2026 Hybrid Work Indicator.