To the Editor:
Re “We Liked Remote Work Until We Looked at the Data,” by Emma Harrington and Natalia Emanuel (Opinion guest essay, June 21):
Ms. Harrington and Ms. Emanuel argue that remote work may be weakening one of the last places adults regularly form friendships and meaningful social connections.
As a college student, I wonder whether the problem begins before people enter the work force. Many students like me already move through our days in ways that mirror remote work: watching lecture recordings instead of attending class, coordinating friendships through group chats and spending hours alone with laptops in bedrooms, libraries and coffee shops. We are more connected than ever, but it’s surprisingly easy to go an entire day without meaningful conversation.
The appeal is understandable. Convenience seems like the best option when everyone is busy. But some of the most important parts of life happen when efficiency is cast aside to make room for spontaneity, like saying hello to a stranger or joining a conversation you never planned to have.
If employees are now discovering the costs of isolation, colleges should pay attention. By the time many students enter the work force, we have already spent years practicing a version of the same habit.
Maria Balhara
Philadelphia
To the Editor:
The research by Emma Harrington and Natalia Emanuel raises important questions, but the conclusions rest on a flawed premise: that what happened after March 2020 represents remote work as it should function.
It doesn’t. Organizations didn’t choose a new work model in 2020. They survived a crisis. What followed was never an intentional rethinking of how, when and where work gets done. It’s been reaction, not redesign.
The relevant comparison isn’t remote workers versus in-person workers. It’s organizations that have deliberately defined and optimized their flexible work models against those that haven’t. Gallup data shows only 11 percent of employees report participating in any such process.
That’s the real finding. It’s not that remote work underperforms, but that almost no one has done the hard work required to make a new way of working truly effective.
Cali Williams Yost
Madison, N.J.
The writer is the founder and chief executive of Flex + Strategy Group and the author of “Work + Life: Finding the Fit That’s Right for You.”
To the Editor:
When the pandemic started, remote work felt like a revelation — I’d roll out of my pajamas and onto a Zoom call in my bedroom and feel like I’d hacked the system. As an employee, I took full advantage: I lived abroad, surfed when the swell was good, saw the sunset every day.
Then I became the chief executive of a 40-person company, with a staff around the country, during a stretch of organizational turbulence. Running a remote team turns out to be entirely different — the system that I hacked now feels like it’s hacking me.
Thirty-minute Zoom “coffee chats” eat time on the calendar without building deep relationships. No matter how many I schedule, my staff members still say they don’t know me after a year. Aligning a team behind a new strategy is even harder. I suspect that showing up every morning, bringing doughnuts on Fridays, being the last to leave, would do more to build trust in new leadership than any amount of Slack posting to prove I’m working.
The authors are right that remote work’s costs are slow and subtle. I’d add that remote work takes a toll not only on individual physical and mental health, but on organizational health, too. A shared sense of mission, the kind that carries an organization through hard or uncertain times, may be one casualty that no amount of intentional Zoom scheduling can fix.
Hana Kajimura
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
Emma Harrington and Natalia Emanuel raise real concerns in their guest essay about isolation among remote workers, but they leave out a population for whom remote work isn’t a lifestyle preference: disabled workers.
I am one of them. I had brain surgery last year, and I am able to continue working only because remote and hybrid arrangements exist. Disabled people make up a significant portion of the population, and most nondisabled people will become disabled at some point in their lives. Caregivers — disproportionately women — also rely on remote work to manage responsibilities that don’t pause for a commute. None of this appears to have factored into the data the authors examined.
Isolation is a legitimate concern. So is exclusion. Any conversation about the costs of remote work needs to weigh both.
Elizabeth Kleinfeld
Denver
To the Editor:
The authors of this essay insightfully explore the impact of remote work on mental health. However, they overlook a critical reality: For many, the choice is not between working remotely and working on-site; it is between working from home and not working at all.
Research shows that, especially for mothers of young children and disabled workers, the opportunity to work remotely significantly increases labor force participation. Working, in turn, increases economic security, with implications lasting well into retirement. There are other benefits as well. Evidence suggests that men who work remotely take on a larger share of housework and child care, further supporting women’s career advancement.
Remote work is not a silver bullet. Yet for millions of workers who have long been marginalized by an economic system that fails to meet their needs, remote options remain an essential path to employment.
Katherine Gallagher Robbins
Washington
The writer is a senior fellow at the National Partnership for Women and Families.
To the Editor:
This essay trivializes the negative effects that stressful commutes, “snippy co-workers” and “micromanaging bosses” can have on the those of us who cannot function in this type of work environment.
The roads are more menacing than ever, and commutes consume hours of our lives each week that could be spent socializing other ways. More time at the gym? A walk with a neighbor? Removing commutes is also better for the environment and traffic patterns overall.
Difficult co-workers affect productivity when they harass others or distract them from their tasks. Of course, they can disrupt their colleagues remotely, but the office is where they can do the most damage.
A boss who understands these nuances and allows employees to thrive the way we work best is a boss who can retain talent. A worker is under no obligation to gain social skills at work. I’d argue that being home more to connect with immediate neighbors, family and pets is more important, especially to those of us juggling families and jobs.
Meghan Raboin
Ithaca, N.Y.
Don’t Blame ‘Us’
To the Editor:
“If You Love America, Cringe for It,” by Bret Stephens (column, June 24), claims that the malfeasances, misfeasances, nonfeasances and embarrassing and cringe-worthy stupidities of our president and his administration can be laid at the feet of a group called “us.”
I am not sure whom Mr. Stephens has in mind for membership in this group. If he means the Republican Party, which brought us this disaster, he is correct. If he means the spineless Republican congressional delegation, which enabled and largely continues to enable this disaster, he is correct.
But he is not correct if he includes the millions who knew better than to re-elect Donald Trump. Neither is he correct when he says the Democrats and the progressives are “complicit.” He is free to criticize the mistakes and excesses of both, but misguided as he thinks they were, their goal was to improve, not destroy, our country. Please do not include me in this group.
John T. Dillon
West Caldwell, N.J.
