Why companies resist remote work: An interpretation rooted in human nature

With remote work, companies discovered they could save money and help employees find better work-life balance.

However, we’re seeing increased return-to-office demands—even threats. The reasons? Distrust in productivity, fear of eroding company culture, and a general sense of unease about the whole setup. But what else is at play here?

Before COVID-19, working remotely was mostly the domain of freelancers and digital nomads. As the IT industry boomed and demand for technical talent skyrocketed, many tech companies started offering unique benefits.

This is when work-from-home options began creeping in—not as a norm, but as a rare treat. It was a perk that meant, for a few glorious days per month, you could skip the commute, spend a bit more time with your family, and still get your work done on time.

Then the pandemic hit. Suddenly, remote work went from perk to necessity. Surprise, surprise, nothing collapsed. Business continued as usual, and for some, it even thrived.

Despite work-from-home successes, why are some companies uncomfortable with this trend? It isn’t just about losing control or a lack of trust. There’s something more fundamental at play here. After all, why does remote work feel like a golden opportunity to some and a looming disaster to others? It’s time for a philosophical exploration into what drives these beliefs, and reassess our own views to better address these fears with stakeholders.

What shapes our view of the world and human nature?

How we see the world, and by extension, how we make decisions (like whether to embrace or resist remote work) doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere. It’s shaped by layers of influence:

1. our physiology and the environments we grew up in
2. deep-seated beliefs we hold about human nature
3. cognitive biases that keep those beliefs in check

Let’s take a closer look at these.

Physiology, environment, and our interpretation of reality

The way companies and their leaders view remote work is like a cocktail of natural tendencies and the environments they’ve navigated throughout their entire lives—not just their careers.

Some leaders are wired to crave structure and control. They’re the ones who feel most at ease when everything is organized, predictable, and within arm’s reach. For them, remote work is unsettling at best, terrifying at worst. They might worry that without the physical presence of an office, productivity will nosedive or important details will slip through the cracks.

But it’s not just about who they are deep down; it’s about where they’ve been, from childhood to their professional lives. Those who grew up in an environment where rules were strict and every detail was closely monitored might carry that mindset into adulthood, valuing order and supervision in every aspect of their personal and professional life.

If certain leaders spend years in industries where in-person collaboration and strict oversight are the norm, the idea of shifting to remote work can feel like a risky leap into the unknown. They’ve seen success with the old ways, so why mess with what works?

On the other side of the spectrum, some leaders have personalities and life experiences that make them more comfortable with change. Maybe they grew up in flexible environments or learned to see change as an opportunity rather than a threat.

These leaders might view remote work as a chance to innovate, attract top talent, cut down on overhead costs, and offer their employees the kind of work-life balance that makes everyone happier and more productive.

Beliefs about human nature: The philosophical divide

The way we see the world—shaped by our natural tendencies and the environments we grew up in—forms the foundation of our beliefs about human nature. These beliefs aren’t abstract ideas. They’ve been debated for centuries and play a crucial role in how we structure our societies, relationships, and even our companies.

Those who grew up in environments that value trust, cooperation, and mutual support, have a natural inclination to believe that people are inherently good and can be trusted to do the right thing. From this perspective, communities are formed not out of a need for control, but because working together voluntarily is seen as beneficial for everyone.

On the other hand, if someone’s life experiences have reinforced the importance of rules, authority, and oversight (perhaps because they’ve seen the consequences when these are lacking), they might develop a more cautious view. This perspective suggests that humans are inherently self-interested and need strong leadership to prevent chaos. People agree to be governed not out of mutual goodwill, but because they need structure and order to maintain a functioning society.

These fundamental beliefs about human nature don’t just shape how societies are formed, they also continue to influence how we think about things today.

For instance, if a leader believes that people are naturally motivated and ethical, they might be more open to remote work, confident that employees will stay productive without constant oversight. Conversely, if they lean toward the belief that strict control is necessary to keep people on track, remote work might seem risky since it challenges their need for direct supervision.

Cognitive biases: The mechanisms for maintaining beliefs

The next layer is understanding why our beliefs are so hard to change, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

Cognitive biases are like mental shortcuts that help us make sense of the world. But they can also keep us locked into our existing beliefs, even when new information suggests we should reconsider. These biases reinforce and maintain the views we’ve developed over time.

Here are a few that might be particularly relevant when it comes to remote work:

• Confirmation bias: If a manager already believes that remote workers are less productive, they’re likely to focus on any slight dip in performance as proof, while conveniently ignoring evidence that remote teams are actually meeting or exceeding goals.
• Dunning-Kruger effect: People who occasionally work from home might think they fully understand remote work. But this is based on limited experience. This overconfidence can lead them to underestimate the broader benefits—improved productivity, better work-life balance, reduction of commuter stress, lower costs—that everyday remote workers experience. As a result, they may miss out on opportunities to effectively leverage remote work.
• Commitment bias and sunk cost fallacy: Companies that have invested heavily in office spaces or in-person culture might resist remote work because to admit that a shift is needed would mean acknowledging that the old way isn’t ideal. This is a tough pill to swallow, leading them to stick with the status quo despite evidence to the contrary.
• Illusory truth effect: If leaders keep hearing that "remote workers are less engaged", this message can start to feel true, even if the data doesn’t support it. Over time, this belief becomes ingrained, making them skeptical about remote work.
• Ostrich effect: Stakeholders who are uncomfortable with technology might avoid discussions about remote work altogether, preferring to stick with the familiar office setup. By doing so, they miss out on opportunities to adapt and evolve with changing work environments.
• Reactive devaluation and rosy retrospection: New ideas about remote work from other companies—especially if they’re competitors—might be dismissed by leadership as being out of touch with their own company’s culture. These ideas might be devalued simply because they come from an external source that’s perceived as antagonistic or irrelevant. Additionally, there might be a nostalgic longing for the "good old days" of office work, overlooking the frustrations and inefficiencies that existed then.

Final thoughts

The next time you’re debating remote work with someone, remember that you’re not just discussing policies and practical concerns—you’re engaging with a lifetime of experiences, predispositions, and deeply held beliefs. By being aware of these underlying factors, you can have more meaningful conversations, make well-informed decisions, and navigate the challenges of introducing new ways to work in an increasingly remote-friendly world.

Remote work isn’t for everyone, and that’s okay. Some people thrive in a social, in-person work environment, while others prefer the independence and focus that remote work can offer. The key is to give people the choice to make decisions based on what’s best for them and the company as a whole. After all, it’s not just about where we work, but how we work together.