Do you remember 2020-2021? Full remote was the promise of the future of work. Companies suddenly discovered their employees could be productive from home. Commutes disappeared. Real estate costs plummeted. Talent could come from anywhere in the world. It was a revolution.

Today, in 2026, the pendulum has swung completely. Job postings scream “hybrid 3 days in office” or flatly “on-site only.” Recruiters ask you: “You can come to the office, right?” as if you’d asked something strange. Full remote? It’s become almost toxic to request.

What happened?

The advantages of full remote that nobody denies (but everyone forgets)

Let’s start with the obvious: full remote offered real things:

Actual productivity: Studies show it: without constant interruptions, without deafening open spaces, without meetings “just to chat,” productivity increases. Especially for work requiring concentration: development, design, writing, analysis.

Well-being: No traffic jams, no open space filled with germs, no office politics. You start fresher, less stressed, more in control of your environment. And sleep? Better. Time with family? More.

Talent diversity: A brilliant developer in a small town? A graphic designer on an island? A product manager in rural areas? Suddenly, all the world’s talent could apply. Companies gained diversity, perspectives, creativity.

Cost reduction: Offices are expensive. Prestigious real estate in major cities costs millions annually. In full remote, these costs evaporated and could go toward salaries, equipment, growth.

Flexibility and personal life: Working from home means adapting work to your life, not the other way around. Parents of young children? It becomes possible. Chronic illness? Easier to manage. Passion for another activity? You can cultivate it.

All of this proved true. Data confirms it for 5 years. And yet…

The real disadvantages (but overvalued)

Of course, full remote has legitimate limits:

Creative collaboration: Yes, some types of work - brainstorming, workshops, prototyping - benefit from physical proximity. That’s true. But what’s that? 10-20% of actual activities? Not 100%.

Onboarding: Welcoming someone remotely is harder. But that’s a first week/month problem, not a permanent one. And even then, with modern tools, it’s very surmountable.

Company culture: The classic argument: “Without the office, we lose culture!” Really? Or is it just that we were too lazy to build real culture elsewhere? The strongest company cultures don’t depend on people sitting together.

Isolation: Yes, it’s a risk for some people. But it’s a problem to solve with intentionality, not a reason to force everyone to the office.

None of these disadvantages invalidates the advantages. And yet, companies reversed course. Massively.

The real reasons for the office return

Here’s what nobody says openly:

1. Control, not productivity

The cruel irony: companies that adopted full remote realized they couldn’t see their employees. And seeing is what creates the illusion of control.

In the office, even if someone isn’t productive, at least you see them sitting at their desk. It’s reassuring. You see them “working.” Remotely, you don’t know. And this uncertainty terrifies managers.

So the office return isn’t about productivity (data shows remote is productive). It’s about surveillance. Making sure someone is “really working.”

It’s, essentially, massive lack of trust.

2. The manager who needs to be useful

Managers are panicked. If everyone works remotely, what’s their purpose? Their role disappears. They can’t do “drive-bys” to check if someone “looks” productive. They can’t call a one-hour meeting for a problem that should take 5 minutes written.

The office is the manager’s territory. Where they can exercise power. Remote is less clear. So, by instinct of self-preservation, managers push for office returns.

3. CEO nostalgia for the past

Many CEOs felt uncomfortable in this blur. They discovered you could lead without being physically present. It destabilized them. They prefer returning to what they know: clearly visible hierarchy, people at desks, visible structure.

It’s an emotional reaction, not rational.

4. Real estate and commercial leases

Companies signed 10-15 year office leases. Losing 30-40% of that space means accepting massive loss. Easier to force people back than admit the real estate strategy was wrong.

5. Social pressure and norms

“If we don’t return to office, we’ll look weak. Other startups will steal our talent.” It’s an irrational arms race where everyone wants office returns to not be the only one changing rules. Nobody really wants to, but nobody dares be first to take a stand for full remote.

The real problem: trust (again)

But there’s something deeper. It’s the same issue from the previous post on the recruitment paradox. French companies - and more broadly, startups - don’t trust their employees.

They don’t trust what they do when nobody’s looking. They don’t trust their autonomy. They don’t trust their responsibility.

That’s why:

  • They demand visible results (on-site presence)
  • They demand 4 interviews + test + references before hiring
  • They impose office to “verify”
  • They implement productivity surveillance tools that humiliate

See the pattern? It’s systemic. It’s a complete absence of trust in people.

And here’s the paradox: the best tech companies in the world - those truly innovating - have discovered that trust creates better results. Not surveillance. Not control. Trust.

Companies that maintained full remote (or flexible hybrid) don’t collapse. They attract the best talent. They retain people longer. They solve problems faster.

But it requires something that traditional companies - and even many startups - won’t give: the courage to trust.

Advantages and disadvantages: the real scorecard

Full remote advantages (confirmed by data):

  • Maintained or increased productivity
  • Better employee well-being
  • Access to global talent
  • Less burnout and sick leave
  • Lower real estate costs
  • Flexibility for personal life
  • Reduced commute anxiety

Full remote disadvantages (but surmountable):

  • In-person collaboration needed occasionally (but not daily)
  • More intentional onboarding but possible
  • Isolation for some personalities (solution: intentional community)
  • Work-life fusion difficult for some (solution: clear boundaries)
  • Less “spontaneous” culture (but can be more inclusive)

The scorecard? Overwhelmingly positive. The advantages far outweigh. And disadvantages don’t justify mandatory office return.

Slow tech restores trust

This is where approaches like Sinra offer an alternative. In a slow tech vision centered on sustainability, humanity, and trust, full remote isn’t a question: it’s the default.

Because if you build a company around trust, autonomy, and responsibility - not surveillance - full remote becomes obvious. You hire people you trust. You give them autonomy. You measure results, not presence hours.

And suddenly, you don’t need to force people to office. They return when it’s useful. Not because it’s mandatory, but because it makes sense.

The real choice isn’t “office or remote.” It’s “control or trust.” And history shows trust always wins, long term.

What’s your full remote experience? Have you seen a real productivity drop, or is it mostly managers not trusting people? Share in the comments.