Details: — In the earliest days of a startup, it’s possible for a small team to remain continuously connected electronically. This create false confidence in remote. It doesn’t scale. By the time the startup has hundreds of employees, full remote completely breaks down. — There are a few counter-examples that are always cited; the fact that it’s always the same one (eg GitLab) should tell you something. This is not a mass-market solution for effective company-building. — Maybe 10% of the roles in a company can naturally be remote. These are (1) 10x engineers whose code check-ins are obvious and (2) field sales reps who live in their territories and close large enterprise deals (the $ value of which are also obvious). In these cases, the onus is still on the employee to spend enough time at HQ (at least once/quarter) to stay acculturated. — What makes these remote cases justified is that achievement is largely individual and fairly obvious. By contrast, the contribution of most employees is often subtle to measure and depends on a team dynamic. Hence the importance of being together in an actively managed environment. — Full remote companies are dominated by a feeling of atomization. Their founders will often complain that it’s hard to get the company culture to gell, or to get all the employees aligned around the new strategy, or to adequately share information even though it’s already been shared many times before. These problems largely go away when you’re collocated — or at least require much less energy to solve. — The value of “managing by walking around” cannot be underestimated for a founder. Founders solve problems, make course corrections, and save the team a lot of work going down a wrong path. Founders also have a different level of energy, enthusiasm and work ethic. As the company scales, the number of employees who can be touched by founder enthusiasm has a direct impact on performance. — Most startups seeking to correct from a Remote strategy will want to move to Hubs. Hubs concede that it’s not possible for everyone to be in one location but try to limit the number of locations. An effective Hub will at least collocate everyone on the same team or function. Eg, a call center in Salt Lake. An engineering team in Eastern Europe. A sales office in London. These are all viable strategies. — A Hub is only as good as its leadership. A headless Hub will not work. Moreover, mid-level managers need to sit with their teams. A manager who is remote while their team is at a Hub is worthless. Ambitious executives will prioritize moving over WFH. — Headcount reductions provide an opportunity for startups to reorganize around Hubs. Take this opportunity to create a strong HQ with a very limited number of Hubs. Ideally all of the most strategic functions in the company are still at a central HQ, with Hubs used for supporting functions. — Now that you know the truth, act on it. Founders have far more agency to change any aspect of their company than they often believe. Current macroeconomic conditions mean that there will never be a better time to make these changes for the future of your company. If you act, the benefits will compound over time.