> This is a variation on the classic mismatch between introverts and extroverts The issue isn't the "mismatch", because everyone is different. The issue arises

> This is a variation on the classic mismatch between introverts and extroverts The issue isn't the "mismatch", because everyone is different. The issue arises when people who match 1 pattern force others who don't to follow the pattern anyways, particularly when the reasoning is selfish (I like it [because of X], so we're doing it, even if you don't like it). > The issue with the true optionality is that remote workers may get passed up for promotion or other opportunities because they're less physically present. A few points to touch upon here: - While that is indeed sometimes true, it's a problem of that specific company's culture, not of remote work (my current company promotes equally, for example). - It is indeed extra work to be "noticed" when you're remote, as it requires more than just sitting there and having a face that people can see. For me, this has meant developing myself in terms of delivering results and letting folks know how they're good for the company. IMHO these are pretty universally useful skills in business. - Not everyone is forever looking for another promotion, so that's another argument for letting them choose. > I guess one solution would be to have managers, paradoxically, never in the office more than 1-2 days a week to force more explicit interaction via remote conferencing, but that's a weird forcing function We hold our meetings with a video option, even when a couple people are in the office, and it doesn't feel weird. We are also effective at "huddling" around a screen shared digitally, to quickly swarm a problem. I have alternatively heard of companies incentivizing optionally hybrid workers to come in 2-3 specific days per week by providing perks like free meals on those days.