I’ve been WFH 100% (aside from the occasional 1-week remote offsite) for over 10 years. I will always want to work somewhere that is at the very least supportive of distributed teams, if not remote-first. I also chime in on HN articles like this with an endorsement for remote work.

And I also agree that execs are biased, and either ignore or are blatantly against any supporting evidence for remote work.

Having said all that, I’m not 100% sure that we have enough data to prove remote work is a benefit or detriment to long term success.

I think, without a doubt, there are a number of benefits to employees. And, if for no other reason, happy employees definitely help a company be successful.

But I can’t say with 100% certainty that that’s enough to offset the benefits of being together — for the company.

I’ve worked with people that I’m convinced don’t put in near 8-hour days (or even the equivalent in productivity), but it’s very hard to prove, and not enough evidence to support taking action (e.g. PIP/firing).

I also personally, without a doubt, feel disconnected in ways I didn’t when I used to work at the office.

I think the whole “work remotely” debate and trying to come up with evidence of how it impacts the success of a company is about like trying to determine whether eggs are good for you, or whether the occasional drink of alcohol/coffee is beneficial vs. abstaining — there will always be conflicting data, and we may not know for decades. There are just too many variables.

And we probably know way less about how remote work affects success vs. how eggs/coffee/alcohol affects our health.

But since I know the impacts of remote work are more beneficial to me, that’s more important to me than the impacts it has on the success of the company.

And execs know that (most) employees feel the same way, and they feel the need to fight it, especially if they sense that some (many?) take advantage of WFH, but can’t do anything about it.