Today, we’re discussing a concept that has been hotly debated over the past two years: remote work. This has also been one of the most talked-about topics in recent years. In earlier times, remote work wasn’t mainstream. For example, the founder of Bloomberg, Michael Bloomberg, often dubbed the “father of 996” in the U.S., famously said that work must be done in person, and that fair competition doesn’t really exist in this world. All victories are inherently unfair, and the unfair advantage lies in how much longer you’re physically present at work compared to others.
About 10 years ago, as the internet matured and speeds improved, remote work started to become more feasible. During the three years of the pandemic, remote work reached its peak in popularity. Some people even researched the topic and concluded that remote work is not merely a necessary compromise, but that it can actually be more efficient than working in person.
Now, as in-person activities resume, the debate over remote work has reignited. One day, someone advocates for remote work, and the next, someone else overturns it. The flip-flopping is rapid.
The latest to change its stance is Amazon, which once strongly supported remote work. In mid-September, Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy sent a company-wide email. I read the original text, and Jassy focused on two key points.
First, there may be layoffs, emphasis on may. Jassy said in the letter that Amazon has too many management layers and needs to streamline. By the end of March 2025, Amazon plans to reduce the number of managers and increase the proportion of frontline employees by 15%. In early October, Morgan Stanley released a report suggesting that Amazon currently has 105,000 managers, and may cut 14,000 of those positions next year. Some media outlets also reported that security measures have noticeably increased at Amazon’s Seattle headquarters, possibly in preparation for layoffs.
The second issue Jassy raised is directly related to remote work. He announced that all employees must return to a five-day in-office work schedule. This wasn’t the first time Jassy mentioned this. In February last year, he sent a company-wide email stating that they were researching how to get employees back to the office. Back then, Jassy cited four benefits of returning to the office: more efficient collaboration, easier learning, better colleague relationships, and easier adherence to corporate culture. This year, he made it official—by January next year, all employees must return to their desks, and anyone wanting to work remotely will need to get approval from their manager.
Yes, Amazon, once a champion of remote work, is now set to fully end remote work.
Actually, Amazon isn’t the only company rolling back remote work. Companies like UPS, Dell, Apple, Disney, Starbucks, and X (formerly Twitter) have all required employees to return to the office. Even Zoom, which makes remote work software, requires employees to be in the office at least two days a week. Reportedly, very few companies like Airbnb are still holding on to remote work, while others have either reversed course or are in the process of doing so.
KPMG conducted a survey last year with over 1,300 CEOs. More than two-thirds said they believed employees would need to fully return to the office within the next three years. Some CEOs still consider remote work a debatable issue, but only 7% fully support remote work.
Of course, we’re not here to decide who’s right or wrong, as Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom said. For every company loudly canceling remote work, there may be another quietly implementing it.
Today, we mainly want to present the arguments from both sides. You can evaluate the benefits of working in person versus the advantages of remote work. As F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
Alright, let’s officially begin. First, let’s look at the benefits of remote work.
One of the biggest advantages of remote work is how friendly it is to long-term employees. It enhances their happiness, and for jobs that don’t require frequent communication with others—like graphic designers, editors, and writers—remote work can actually increase their productivity.
Previously, PwC conducted a report in Australia surveying remote employees. The result? 51% of respondents said that remote work allowed them to better balance work and life. Some have even calculated that the happiness remote work brings to employees is roughly equivalent to an 8% salary increase. Additionally, nearly a third of respondents said that if their company forced them back to the office, they would quit.
At this point, you might be thinking, isn’t remote work great? Why cancel it?
Next, let’s look at the other side of the argument and explore the reasons in favor of in-office work.
First, in-person work fosters collective wisdom.
We’ve mostly discussed the benefits of remote work for long-term employees. But for new employees, starting remote work on their first day is likely to lead to issues. They may work for a year or two without meeting a good mentor or building any meaningful connections. Over time, as new employees enter and old ones leave, it becomes harder for new employees to grow, and the company’s overall collective wisdom could decline.
The famous computer scientist and social physicist, Alex Pentland, wrote a book called Social Physics, where he argued that interactions in the workplace are key to enhancing collective intelligence.
For example, encouraging bank customer service teams to chat more during breaks directly improved their efficiency in handling customer calls. Or, consider their analysis of an IT team’s communication patterns—those who interacted the most with colleagues were 10% more efficient than average employees. Pentland argued that the most creative people in a team are often those who can engage with everyone and integrate ideas from different roles. He called these people “star employees,” likening them to pollinating bees. The more of these “star employees” a team has, the better it performs—and they are usually born from in-person office environments.
Second, in-office work can prevent ideological polarization, especially in the U.S.
Recently, political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, was interviewed by TIME magazine, where he also touched on in-office work.
Putnam believes people need to return to the office. While remote work has its benefits, ultimately, you’re still in a virtual environment with limited personal interaction. Too much online engagement can exacerbate feelings of loneliness. To combat loneliness, people need to return to physical workplaces. Casual chats in the break room, while seemingly trivial, can help break down information silos. Company-wide events also foster connections between employees, serving as powerful motivators.
Putnam also noted that American society is facing a severe polarization crisis—people with differing views often find themselves in opposition. But this makes it all the more important for people to communicate with those who hold different opinions, both inside and outside the workplace. Even people with very different views can find common ground in things like sports or small hobbies. This type of connection helps you avoid becoming an extremist and, on a larger scale, strengthens social cohesion through individual interactions.
Marketing guru Keith Ferrazzi wrote a book called Never Eat Alone, which argues that many successes come from effective networking. Lunch or dinner provides an excellent opportunity to communicate and build relationships. Many times, simply sharing a meal can lead to deeper connections.
Ferrazzi practiced what he preached. In 1992, after graduating from Harvard Business School, both McKinsey and Deloitte, two top consulting firms, wanted to hire him. Ferrazzi didn’t immediately accept Deloitte’s offer, insisting instead on having dinner with the firm’s CEO. During that meal, he told the CEO he would join Deloitte on one condition: every year, they must have dinner together in that same restaurant. Through this approach, Ferrazzi ensured long-term contact with top company executives.
Thanks to this connection, Ferrazzi became the youngest Chief Marketing Officer in a Fortune 500 company at the age of 32. Later, he founded his own consulting firm, where he continued to study the impact of social relationships on companies.
In other words, for individuals, with equal abilities and performance, if you can engage more with colleagues face-to-face, it might provide a valuable leverage point in your career.
That’s the second benefit of in-office work. The third benefit is that for society as a whole, in-person work promotes human mobility. When people move around, surrounding businesses become more vibrant.
Simply put, whether you show up or not, many people are counting on you to come to work. Only when you commute to the office can they make money.
For example, a recent article on Huxiu cited The Guardian, noting that before remote work became popular, there were many mobile coffee stands and sandwich vendors around London’s central office buildings. But since remote work took off, the number of street vendors has noticeably declined as office occupancy dropped.
Similarly, industries like subways, buses, taxis, restaurants, and food delivery all depend on commuting to thrive.Only when you commute to and from work can these industries make money. In fact, there was a survey before that showed that due to the popularity of remote work in London, the sales of deodorant drastically declined. One of the places where deodorant is most in demand is densely populated office buildings.
In other words, onsite work doesn’t just benefit the company itself, but also drives the surrounding business ecosystem. This is the third benefit of onsite work: from a societal perspective, it stimulates nearby economic activities.
Hearing this, you might think, “Since both remote and onsite work have their advantages, why not just go with hybrid work?” That’s right, and many companies are indeed experimenting with this approach.
In June of this year, Stanford University, along with a team led by Liang Jianzhang from Ctrip, published a study in Nature about the benefits of hybrid work. According to the data in the paper, if an employee works three days in the office and two days at home each week, their turnover rate decreases, while their productivity and job satisfaction increase. On July 9th, Qunar also announced in an internal letter that all employees who have been with the company for more than six months are allowed to work flexibly on Wednesdays and Fridays.
Finally, let me emphasize this again: today, we’re not trying to judge whether remote or onsite work is better. Instead, we aim to present different perspectives and explore the potential impacts of both work models. As sociologist Christakis said, modern society is embedded in a vast network. The key to understanding a phenomenon is to see the larger network behind it. Whether you’re in management or assessing your own career options, I hope this perspective provides you with some insights.
That’s all we have on this topic for now.
