Remote vs. in-office work is inherently different (is a myth)

Narratives are powerful. When they go unchecked they can do immense damage, so it’s critical to learn how to notice/correct narratives, both polarized "this or that" as well as more subtle layers...

There’s a big one on display right now as some CEOs and executives push for return to office (RTO) while advancing the idea that remote and in-person work are somehow fundamentally different (they’re not).

In this narrative, founders/executives say things like "creativity, brainstorming, and meaningful engagement happen outside formal meetings."

This is cherry-picking "common sense" and "ways of working" data and experiences...because many people find it easy to nod their heads and say, "Hmm, that does sound familiar."

Those same executives aren't saying "bias, isolation, and disconnecting employees from each other happen outside of formal meetings," but the statement is just as accurate.

Here’s an additional narrative: remote and in-office are closely connected because people, technology, and business models are involved, but the expression of those things varies by mode, and companies/orgs have to listen and share power with workers to figure out what works best.

That narrative may be less popular with executives and business news publications that look to their perspective on “what works in the workplace,” but it’s much more realistic. Remote work is incredibly useful and, when done well, can create tremendous value for companies and employees, but it won't happen if we don't talk about how technology and business models have to change in order to foster it.