The debate about the future of work has been going on for years. Some companies are pulling people back into the office while others are proudly remote-first, and many have chosen the apparent compromise of hybrid. On the surface, hybrid looks like balance: flexibility plus collaboration. In practice, it is the model most likely to fail. The organisations that thrive will be those that commit fully to one way of working, either entirely in-office or entirely remote.
Hybrid companies rarely capture the best of either world. Instead, they inherit the downsides of both: fractured culture, lumpy collaboration, and tension between those in the room and those on the screen.
The Case for In-Office
Being co-located has real advantages. There is a reason companies like Apple and Disney have made strong pushes back to the office. When everyone is in the same space, collaboration is faster, decisions can be made informally, and junior employees learn more easily by osmosis. There is also an opportunity to create a space which is optimised to power up specifically your employees and business.
I have seen this first-hand. When cross-functional teams need to move quickly on complex projects, being in one place can create alignment and energy that are difficult to replicate online. The obvious cost is geographical restriction. Your hiring pool shrinks, your overheads rise, and you lose flexibility, which is increasingly what top talent expects.
The Case for Remote-First
Remote-first, when done properly, opens doors that in-office models cannot. Access to global talent, lower costs, asynchronous work patterns, and greater inclusion for people who cannot (or will not) commute daily. It is not simply working from home. It is a completely different operating model, one that prioritises outcomes over hours and documentation over meetings.
Companies like Buffer have shown what is possible when you commit. Buffer has been fully remote for over a decade, operating across dozens of countries without a central office. Its culture is built around transparency, asynchronous workflows, and trust. GitLab is another standout example. One of the largest all-remote companies in the world, with thousands of employees working seamlessly across time zones. Both organisations have demonstrated that it is possible not only to function but to thrive without physical offices, as long as you build the right practices from the ground up.
At Loqbox, I saw this on a smaller scale. I led engineering teams spread across three countries. We scaled delivery, reduced incidents, and improved predictability, not despite being distributed but because we designed ourselves to be. We invested in lean processes, built for asynchronous communication, and measured value through delivery rather than presence.
Why Hybrid Fails
Hybrid is the tempting middle ground: a few days in the office, a few days at home. It sounds like a good idea, but it is compromise in the worst sense.
- You never have everyone in one place. Some employees are in the office, others are remote. Those in the office gain more access to informal conversations and decision-making, while remote workers need to be consciously, explicitly included.
- You never fully commit to asynchronous work. True remote-first teams document, design workflows around time zones, and reduce reliance on meetings. Hybrid organisations often cling to office-style habits, which means remote employees are always playing catch-up.
- You fail to optimise either environment. The office feels half-empty, so you lose the buzz of co-location. And because of that tether, employees may not create a good space for working at home. Why would they, when the kitchen table is perfectly fine for 2-3 days a week?
Hybrid might muddle along for a while, but the cracks always show. Promotion pathways skew toward those visible in the office. Remote workers disengage. Collaboration becomes messy. Over time, the organisation struggles to retain talent because its culture is inconsistent.
Winners Will Commit
The companies that succeed in the future of work will be the ones that pick a side and design for it.
- Office-first can work. Disney has made it clear that its culture and business model depend on people being together. If that is your model, embrace it, invest in it, and accept the costs as part of your strategy.
- Remote-first can work. Buffer and GitLab have proven that a company can scale globally without offices if it invests in asynchronous processes, transparency, and trust.
Either model has merit. What does not work is sitting in the middle, never realising the full benefits of either approach.
What Leaders Should Do Now
If you are a leader today, you need to choose. Hybrid might feel like the safe bet, but it erodes culture and impact over time.
- Be explicit. Pick your model and design your organisation around it.
- Go all in. If you are office-first, build spaces that make people want to be there. If you are remote-first, invest in tools, documentation, and onboarding that support asynchronous work.
- Measure outcomes, not hours. Celebrate the success that comes from results, not presenteeism.
Conclusion
The future of work is not hybrid. It is binary. In-office and remote-first both have clear strengths. The organisations that sit on the fence will fail to capture either. In 2025, "How many office days shall we ask for?" is a perfectly innocent question with dangerous ramifications. The winners will be those who have the courage to choose, commit, and design their culture accordingly.