-
Human beings are wired with a natural inclination toward the present moment. Psychologists refer to this as present bias—the tendency to prioritize immediate, short-term rewards while underestimating the long-term consequences of our choices. This cognitive shortcut influences countless everyday decisions. We might skip a neighborhood barbecue that could lead to meaningful new friendships because staying home feels more comfortable in the moment. We decline social invitations because the effort of getting ready outweighs the anticipated payoff of connection. In these small trade-offs, convenience consistently wins over community.
This same psychological dynamic appears to be shaping the ongoing work-from-home debate. For many employees, the immediate advantages of remote work are tangible and deeply appealing. The morning commute disappears, freeing up valuable time. The dress code becomes a non-issue. The obligation to engage in casual office small talk vanishes entirely. These short-term benefits create a powerful sense of relief and autonomy that is difficult to overstate.
However, the long-term drawbacks of a fully virtual work environment are far less visible in the moment. They accumulate gradually, making them easy to overlook. Employees may genuinely prefer remote work in the short run while simultaneously underestimating the long-term value of collaborating in shared physical spaces. The spontaneous conversations that happen near the coffee machine, the informal mentoring that occurs during lunch breaks, and the subtle social cues that build trust and camaraderie are all difficult to replicate through video calls and chat messages.
The challenge lies in the fact that these benefits are not immediate. They build slowly over months and years, compounding into stronger teams, deeper professional relationships, and a more cohesive organizational culture. But because they are not felt as an immediate reward, they are easy to discount.
Some researchers suggest that narcissistic leaders prefer having employees in the office because they crave visibility and crave control. Being surrounded by staff can feed a need for status and reinforce a sense of authority. However, this explanation does not capture the full picture. The preference for in-person work is not limited to leaders with narcissistic tendencies.
Empathetic leaders may also advocate for a return to the office—but for fundamentally different reasons. Their motivation is not rooted in a desire for control or ego gratification. Instead, their concern centers on what employees and organizations stand to lose when work becomes entirely virtual. They worry about the erosion of interpersonal connections, the loss of spontaneous collaboration, and the difficulty of fostering a sense of belonging among team members who never meet face to face. These leaders recognize that the office is not just a place to complete tasks; it is a space where relationships are built, culture is formed, and professional growth is nurtured.
Understanding the psychological forces at play in this debate is essential. Both employees and employers are making decisions based on a mix of immediate gratification and long-term vision. Recognizing the presence of present bias in this context can help both sides make more informed, balanced choices about the future of work. The goal is not to dismiss the very real benefits of remote work, but to weigh them honestly against the less visible, yet equally significant, advantages of shared physical space.
During the pandemic, my company, like countless others worldwide, shifted to remote work. As a leader, I sensed that my colleagues—and honestly, myself included—were grappling with new difficulties tied to working in isolation. However, so many variables were in flux at the time that it was difficult to isolate the precise cause of our collective unease.
Recent findings published in Science now offer clarity. The research indicates that remote work has been a major factor in the decline of mental health observed between 2011 and 2024. This validates a suspicion many leaders have harbored as remote arrangements became standard: working from home is not inherently beneficial for overall wellbeing.
Put simply, working alone is lonely. The era of casual office drop-ins, spontaneous group lunches, and quick hallway brainstorming sessions has faded. Working from home also eliminates the brief yet meaningful interactions that punctuate a typical day outside the house—exchanging a nod with a neighbor on the train, chatting with a familiar barista, or sharing a smile with a passerby. These small moments of human contact, often taken for granted, play a significant role in lifting our spirits.
Consider this: one study discovered that commuters who were instructed to strike up a conversation with a stranger on their ride reported feeling happier than those who continued their journey in silence as usual. It is a simple demonstration of our innate need for connection.
While commuting to the office may be inconvenient, it inherently creates opportunities for the socializing that humans require. It reinforces a sense of connection with colleagues and builds a shared culture. In my professional experience, this routine interaction boosts the general well-being of employees—provided they also have sufficient time to genuinely disconnect from work at the end of the day. I am a firm advocate for the quiet power of doing nothing at all.
Employees may not whistle while they work every single day, but when they feel generally content and connected, they become more creative, more innovative, and more dedicated to their organization’s mission. A sense of belonging, it turns out, is a powerful driver of professional engagement and personal satisfaction.
I’m fairly certain I don’t match the typical image of an authoritarian leader. I’m an introvert and a coder at heart. When I started Jotform, figuring out leadership was a gradual process. Even now, two decades later, I’m still learning, especially in a work environment that never stops evolving.
Our decision to bring employees back to the office wasn’t about asserting control. We noticed that engagement and relationships were taking a hit. But the most significant issue was the negative effect of full-time remote work on learning. Without in-person guidance and the kind of mentorship that grows from face-to-face interaction, new hires struggled. We saw higher turnover rates than ever before, and professional development seemed to grind to a halt across the company.
Our experience is supported by research. A Microsoft study found that remote work creates more siloed and less dynamic teams. Employees interacted less with colleagues outside their immediate circle and formed fewer new connections. They missed out on the informal conversations where people typically receive feedback, mentoring, and fresh ideas.
At Jotform, we witnessed a significant recovery once we returned to the office. We still face challenges, such as keeping everyone trained on the latest AI and technology advancements. However, being in the office has made that process much smoother.
At the risk of sounding presumptuous, we brought employees back because we truly believed it would support their well-being and long-term career growth. And when employees succeed, their companies do too.
Every organization needs to find the right policy for its own team. Whether you choose a fully in-office model or a hybrid setup, it’s important to think about how to make the time together meaningful and create the right conditions for real connection. Design your office with shared workspaces but also provide quiet areas for focused, solo work. Establish rituals like weekly team lunches or group coffee runs. Even better, ask your employees what activities they would genuinely enjoy—and keep participation optional for those with other commitments.
If you can turn the office into a place where people want to be, filled with experiences they look forward to, the benefits of returning will naturally follow.
Comment