Remote vs. In-person: a Shifting Tide?

I read this article in the Wall Street Journal today and wanted to provide some thoughts.

I remember when we were raising Groundswell 's seed round that every VC asked the same question - are you going to build this company remote or in person? Now, bear in mind that this was 2021, the peak of "remote is the future of everything" fervor.

My answer was always consistent: "I believe that culture and speed of execution are best unlocked with a primarily in-person work arrangement. We're going to build Groundswell in LA."

Most of the investors looked at me like like I was a fool, but a handful nodded their head in agreement.

I knew that an in-person expectation would create near-term headwinds in recruiting, but ultimately believed that it would become a mid- and long-term strategic advantage.

It's important to note that I believe flexibility is key. I don't require employees to clear with me days they'll be out of the office. We have employees at Groundswell that work across a spectrum, with roughly a third in the office 5 days a week, another third around 2-3, and a final third that are in 1-2 days.

I believe every single one of our employees would tell you that we are better for it.

• Communication and collaboration are at their best when problems are solved in real time, without repeated "you're on mute!" moments
• Camaraderie and esprit de corps are quickly engrained in new hires, who immediately feel like they're a part of something special
• Each of the two previous bullets leads to improved performance management, as issues are more quickly uncovered and conversations result in earlier shared understanding
• The celebrations are more meaningful, and digital confetti will never replace a high five or compliment from a colleague stopping by your desk

I am certainly not saying that remote companies cannot or will not succeed. Many will, some will not. Will a remote company become the next Amazon, Netflix, or Facebook? 100% not. My feeling is that it will be a great option for entrepreneurs looking to build lifestyle businesses, and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.

So, what's the takeaway?

First, for most companies the pendulum is swinging back from "full remote is the future" to some version of "in-office first with flexibility."

Second, the reason for this is not because CEOs are power-obsessed egomaniacs. If the evidence supported improved outcomes (and don't conflate outcomes with productivity, they're different) resulted from remote-first policies, CEOs would gladly reduce or eliminate their real estate footprint and associated overhead.

Third, it's complicated! Some roles are better suited for remote than others. An individual contributor that's been at a company for five years is probably better positioned to move into a remote capacity, while a junior hire with no previous work experience might flounder. A company with its products and processes fully baked might be able to shift a majority of its workforce remote, while a startup building the airplane while it's flying might struggle.

Lastly, you do you. If you are an employee and want to work remotely, you'll continue to have options, but don't assume that issuing a demand to your current employer is going to result in the outcome you want. Finding an arrangement that accommodates what you want may require a move - there's nothing wrong with that. If you're a CEO or founder, same thing. What's the type of company you want to build and lead?

As for me, I believe leadership is a contact sport. I chose to build a primarily in-person company because I believed it played to my strengths and the needs of our mission and vision.