Late last week, there was an audio leak from JPMorgan Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jamie Dimon in which he came out strongly against remote work and working from home, defending his decision to have all JPMorgan employees return to the office (RTO) for work beginning in March. He indicated that in remote meetings, people are checking their email, sending texts, etc., instead of paying attention and reading what they are supposed to read. The negative impact, he says in the audio addressing JPMorgan employees in Ohio, is on creativity, efficiency, and decision-making. He believes remote work is most negatively affecting the younger generation, who are being left behind socially, in ideas, and meeting people. It appears that many companies agree with Mr. Dimon.
From 2023 to 2024, the percentage of workers in the US who are working mostly in person (4 days a week) has doubled from 34% to 68%. In that same period, those working mostly remotely (4 days a week) decreased from 44% to 17%, and those working hybrid (2-3 days a week in person) decreased from 22% to 14%. Even the federal government has gotten into the act with President Trump’s January 20, 2025, memorandum in which he directs department and agency heads to “terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis.”
The key question business leaders should ask is whether Mr. Dimon is right or not, whether what he believes is universally true, or whether it may vary from company to company and/or position to position. I tend to believe it is the latter, and I will try to first demonstrate that anecdotally and then confirm it based on analysis performed by the consulting firm, McKinsey & Company.
My anecdote compares the current work experiences of my younger daughter and her fiancé. They both work in technology sales. Her fiancé works for a Fortune 50 company that requires five days a week in the office, while she works for publicly-traded, but considerably smaller (less than $400 million in revenues) firm that allows her to work completely remotely. Despite having similar jobs, but very different work location requirements, they are both thriving. While her fiancé has his own “book of business” (i.e., client businesses), he is part of a team that is co-located and shares much information, both directly and indirectly. My daughter has an analogous book of business, but her “team” does not really work together regularly, and they are geographically dispersed. While their work environments are very different (particularly in-person vs. remote), both have been very successful, regularly beating their quotas and recently promoted. Let’s take a quick look at some of their reasons for success.
Much of my daughter’s success comes from very good mentoring from her supervisor, regular interaction with others on her team, and having a quantifiable sales goal. Her supervisor meets with her regularly to both “coach her up” and to “be there for her,” and in addition to scheduled team interactions, my daughter reaches out to team members regularly for advice and consultation. So, despite being remote, my daughter not only feels like part of a team from a social standpoint, but she is also getting the mentoring and collaboration necessary to succeed.
On the other hand, her fiancé’s support appears to be much more direct and available. Since he is in an office environment every day, his supervisor is easily accessible and available. Fellow team members are all around him, so he learns passively as well as learning actively. In addition, there is time for more informal knowledge transfer among the group during lunch and other breaks. So, much of what he needs to support his success is right in front of him. However, unlike my daughter, he does not have the work-life balance that remote work affords her.
A recent article from the McKinsey Quarterly seems to confirm what the above anecdote indicates. That is, where your people work is less important than what the company does to support key work practices. McKinsey identifies those key work practices as collaboration, connectivity, innovation, mentorship, and skill development. Therefore, whether the employees are mostly in the office, mostly remote, or some hybrid combination of the two, the firm must provide the ability for them to work in teams, have a feeling of community, be more creative, be coached, and have their individual capability developed through professional development.
So, my conclusion, from the anecdote above and the McKinsey article, is that employees can be successful in any environment (i.e., remote, in-person, or hybrid) if the practices are in place for employees to regularly connect, collaborate, and be mentored. However, in remote environments, this takes much more conscious effort. In-person environments, by their nature, make it easier to achieve those practices that are likely to make employees more successful and efficient. Therefore, I think what Mr. Dimon is getting at is that in-person work environments are more likely to lead to more successful employees. So, I recommend you examine your business’ work environment to determine whether remote or hybrid work is a good fit for you and your employees.
