WORKPLACE • TRUST & PERFORMANCE
A REASONING REFEREE ORIGINAL · 2026
Both sides say “performance.” They disagree about what a productive organization must produce—and where that work happens best.
This is an illustrative exchange, not a report about a particular city, company, park, resident, employee, customer, driver, regulator, recipient, advocate, or business.
“A company cannot build a strong culture through scheduled video calls. Individual tasks may be getting done, but we also need mentoring, trust, spontaneous problem-solving, and teams that operate as one organization. If we want to perform together, we need substantial time together in person.”
“If our work is being completed successfully, requiring us to sit in a particular building is about control—not performance. Remote work gives us focus, eliminates hours of commuting, and lets us manage responsibilities without reducing our results. Judge the work, not the chair.”
THE REASONING REFEREE
A growing software company allowed employees to work remotely for several years. Leadership now wants employees in the office at least four days per week, arguing that in-person work improves collaboration, mentoring, creativity, accountability, and culture. Employees say they have continued meeting their goals from home, avoid costly commutes, and have reorganized family, health, and housing decisions around remote work. Some were hired as remote employees. The company must decide whether to require four office days, preserve remote work, or adopt another arrangement.
Who decides, and who pays?
Leadership decides where work occurs, while employees absorb much of the commute and disruption. Employees receive flexibility, while the company may bear coordination, supervision, and training costs.
Learn about Principal–Agent Analysis→Cost may be transferredThe decision-maker may receive the benefit while another person absorbs part of the burden or risk.Compared with what?
Office days may improve collaboration while sacrificing focused work and commuting hours. Remote days may improve autonomy and concentration while reducing some informal learning and spontaneous exchange.
Learn about Opportunity Cost→A real tradeoffTwo valuable uses of the same limited resource are competing. Choosing one means giving up some of the other.Can they actually deliver?
Remote work depends on clear goals, documentation, capable managers, deliberate mentoring, and effective communication. Office work also fails when people commute merely to spend the day on video calls.
Learn about State Capacity→Needs verificationThis claim may be true, but the available exchange does not establish it. Check facts, capacity, or records.Use two coordinated office days for collaboration, protect remote days for focused work, identify which activities genuinely benefit from physical presence, and test the arrangement against defined outcomes before making it permanent.
Employees could retain meaningful flexibility while the company gains predictable time for mentoring and cross-team work. It is not a true win-win if the schedule adds commuting costs without measurable organizational benefit—or if remote days leave important development and coordination needs unmet.
A DEEPER LOOK
THE QUESTION BEING TESTEDShould the company require employees to work in the office at least four days per week?
Completed individual work does not prove that mentoring, cross-team coordination, innovation, and institutional knowledge are equally healthy.
Physical proximity does not automatically create culture or collaboration. Mandatory attendance can produce commutes followed by headphones, individual work, and video meetings.
MOTIVATIONS & INCENTIVES
Consider good-faith reasons and possible competing interests side by side.
Our starting assumption is that people and institutions generally believe they are doing the right thing. Most advocates sincerely believe their position will lead to a better outcome.
At the same time, people can be influenced by incentives, responsibilities, experiences, and competing interests—sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously. The possibilities below are not accusations or conclusions. They are questions worth considering and testing against evidence.
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
POSSIBILITIES, NOT CLAIMS
THE REFEREE’S OBSERVATION
Someone can sincerely believe they are doing the right thing while also benefiting personally or institutionally if their preferred outcome succeeds. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Look for evidence before assigning a motive.
Reasoning Referee is not here to influence how you think. It is here to improve the quality of your thinking.
Rather than advocating for one viewpoint, it encourages intellectual curiosity, fairness, and critical evaluation—so the conclusion you reach is genuinely your own.
Good reasoning doesn’t guarantee the right answer—but it dramatically improves your chances of finding one.
REFEREE’S RULING
Employees are right that physical visibility is not proof of productivity and that commuting transfers substantial time and expense to them. Leadership is right that completed individual assignments do not capture every outcome an organization needs, including mentoring, coordination, knowledge-sharing, and long-term capability. A four-day mandate is justified only if leadership can identify the outcomes remote work is harming and show that substantial office attendance is a proportionate, effective remedy. The strongest next step is a measurable, role-aware hybrid trial—not an assumption that either location automatically produces better work.