> It's not just about the heavy hitters, it's about the team as a whole. In person work, though a logistical headache and social annoyance, drives team cohesion

> It's not just about the heavy hitters, it's about the team as a whole. In person work, though a logistical headache and social annoyance, drives team cohesion. I've seen it as bit more circular: in person work required team cohesion and strong social acceptation. In return the best teams were often better than remote teams. I remember the pre-WFH hiring criteria including a lot more of "will you be happy sitting next to this person for the next 5 years of your life" wording for the 'cultural fit' part. The whole team being bounded had a lot of weight in the balance, and we'd go for a few lunches and dinners with potential candidates to get a better feel of the "human" part. The highs were definitely high, in exchange, the lows were way way lower, and interpersonal disputes, people leaving for social (often pretty ugly) reasons were a common thing. We also passed on candidates that had pretty low oral communication skills, and looking around I see the same kind of profile happily employed and fitting right in WFH settings. They still have issues in fast paced discussions, but most of the communication happens in written form so it's way less of an issue. Overall I think WFH has better flexibility and could help the industry with a lot of the social issues it was struggling with if the managements do it right.