The Real Problem with Remote Work: It’s Not the Employees, It’s the Managers

Remote work has proven to be just as effective, if not more so, than traditional in-office work. However, the success of remote work heavily depends on management’s approach. Getting paid to sit at home or getting paid to sit in a cubicle is what it boils down to. Employees are clamoring for ‘the remote’ experience and the issue isn’t with the employees, it’s with distrusting organizations. Let me be the first to say if your surveys say remote workers aren’t providing as much benefit as in-person then it’s not likely the fault of the employee. If an employee knows exactly what is expected of him each hour, of each day, of each week, then they will work to meet those metrics in order to retain employment. It’s that simple. The unfortunate reality is that many managers aren’t adequately trained to run teams, whether remote or not, and this lack of training directly impacts their teams' effectiveness. A weak manager who lacks the tools and skills to track the contributions of their employees will likely have a weak team, regardless of the work environment.

This isn’t just about software development or other digital tasks. Remote work can be extended to any occupation where people spend the majority of their time at a workstation or in a cubicle. Not every job can be or should be remote and I, myself, prefer going to an office, but have done years of remote work including months of international work without a name on a cubicle, and made a desk where I could find someplace to plug in. As a manager, I seriously do not care where you want to work, but I do expect the work completed. Here is the amazing and annoying thing about in office workers. When they have a car appointment or have to take care of a sick kid, or be there when the plumber comes to fix something- their day is shot and the team lost 8 hours off the schedule. I have sent folks home from the office because they were too distracted and running behind on the work they committed too. I have had several teams, some were responsible for designing and producing complex, tangible products working in a variety of remote, hybrid, contract, onsite, didn't matter work situations. In one assignment with a fantastic team we had a PM, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, software engineers, test technicians, technical writers, drafters, and others—many but not all, working remotely either part time or permanently. This setup involved everything from solder stations to oscilloscopes and test stands being arranged in people’s homes to ensure that work continued uninterrupted.

Yet, our success wasn’t determined by where we worked; it was determined by how we were managed and we were self-actualized with a clear understanding of the goal. A well-structured Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were crucial in keeping everyone on task, regardless of whether they were co-located or working remotely. Unfortunately, many managers lack the discipline, trust, and organizational skills to implement these essential tools, resulting in teams that suffer due to their managers' inability to set up proper metrics and accountability.

I once encountered a manager who would see his employees spending time chatting in the cafeteria or hanging out in cubicles, clearly not working. At the same time, he insisted he couldn’t trust remote employees to complete their tasks. The irony was hard to miss. I pointed out that with a well-structured WBS and schedule, employees could stay on task no matter where they were. His response? "See? I don’t need any of that if I can see my employees."

This same manager regularly missed his commitments during quarterly business reviews (QBRs), despite claiming to have a hard-working team. Excuses were always ready. In contrast, my team always knew our status, and so did the entire organization. Our progress was meticulously tracked on a scrum board, and stakeholders were immediately informed of any issues. Again, this was not a software only product although we used the same tools for managing our work. Whether we were on schedule or facing roadblocks, everyone was aware and involved in clearing the way forward. It wasn’t about whether people were at home or in the office—it was about getting the work done.

Weak managers often rely on physical presence to assume productivity, believing that if they can see their employees, they must be working. This mindset stems from a lack of trust, discipline, and an understanding of how to effectively manage teams, whether they are remote or in-person. Trust issues from management towards employees results in bad outcomes regardless and is where the toxic workplace inevitably gets its start in most instances rolling down hill like snowballing pile of manure. Instead of implementing the necessary tools and processes to track real progress, they fall into the trap of equating busy work with meaningful work.

I once observed a manager who exemplified this issue. He had a team of employees who were expected to be working diligently at their desks. However, in reality, they were far from productive. These employees had devised a system where they would take turns covering for each other while the others stepped away to perform side gigs, such as making TaskRabbit runs or Uber Eats deliveries. The office became a revolving door of employees pretending to work while they pursued other activities, all within sight of their manager.

What was astonishing was that this behavior went completely unnoticed by the manager. He was so convinced that physical presence equated to productivity that he never questioned why tasks were taking longer to complete or why the quality of work was slipping. Part of that was due to no baseline being established of what to expect from the team in the first place. To him, as long as his team was at their desks, they were doing their jobs. This fa?ade of productivity was easy to maintain because the manager lacked the fundamental tools and processes to track actual progress. Not only had he no formal business training, neither had the people he reported too. There were no work instructions, no KPIs, no established policies or procedures. The team merely had to appear busy to convince him—and by extension, upper management—that they were working. Upper management would scratch their heads look at reports that clearly had no connection to the goals of the organization and refused to do the work of setting work instructions, policies/procedures, and what was most laughable, they actually incentivized activities that had nothing to do with their bottom line. Efforts to correct the situation with business fundamentals that clearly worked in other organizations were roundly rejected by the staff running the organization that had no real formal business training. Planning was a foreign concept, work, rework and then complain about the outcome by blaming employees for not being mind readers or being able to predict the future was how they did business.

When this issue of employees leaving for tasks was finally brought to the manager’s attention, his reaction was one of disbelief. He couldn’t fathom that his team, who he saw every day at their desks, could be slacking off. It was a classic case of "people are easier to fool than to convince they've been fooled." This manager had been so blinded by the illusion of productivity that he couldn’t see the truth even when it was laid out before him. The lack of a structured approach to managing his team, coupled with his overreliance on physical presence, had created an environment where mediocrity thrived. His entire team would have been better managed working remotely with clear performance metrics tracked and updated daily by his team. It was literally a waste of resources to lease the space and provide snacks to the team versus having them work from their homes with concrete expectations established.

The consequences of such poor management were far-reaching. Deadlines were missed, the quality of work suffered, and the overall morale of the team deteriorated. The manager’s inability to set up effective metrics and accountability not only allowed this behavior to persist but also signaled to the team that this was acceptable. It was a toxic cycle—employees knew they could get away with doing the bare minimum as long as they showed up, and the manager remained oblivious because he had no real means of assessing their contributions. It led to him shutting his door and further withdrawing from his team Of course, the manager was let go with little impact on the performance of his team.

This situation highlights a broader issue in management, especially when it comes to remote or flexible work environments. Effective management isn’t about watching people; it’s about enabling them. It requires a shift in mindset—from focusing on where people are to focusing on what they are accomplishing. This means implementing tools like Atlassian, Jira, Trello, and Asana to track projects and maintain KPIs. It also means fostering a culture of continuous improvement and accountability, where employees are encouraged to take ownership of their work and are held to measurable standards.

A weak manager will always have a weak team, regardless of whether they are in the office or working remotely. Without the proper training, tools, and mindset, managers are setting their teams, and themselves up for failure. It’s not enough to simply see your employees; you need to understand and measure what they are doing, provide clear direction, and hold them accountable for their outcomes. Believe it or not, the majority of people like to work and are not looking for a way to screw off, they are proud of the work they do and want to make a difference with their effort. Managers have the responsibility to step up and provide guidance for what success looks like for the team.

Stay tuned for Part 2, where I’ll dive into how my technical team, including engineers and technicians across various disciplines, not only stayed on schedule but also managed to launch new products during COVID by home-sourcing lab setups—a strategy that allowed us to keep moving forward when the rest of the world was at a standstill.