Why is remote work still a hot topic?
The debate on remote work has heated up again. Recently, we’ve seen a major push from tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Tesla to mandate office returns—whether fully on-site or hybrid. However, some leaders challenge this narrative. Among them is Diego Barreto, CEO of iFood, who recently stated in an interview that there is no clear evidence remote work is harmful, pointing out how successful his company has been since adopting the model.
As someone who has been working remotely for years, I want to analyze Diego’s statements, bring in research data, and share both my personal experience and a counterexample where remote work didn’t work.
Check it out the interview below:
iFood's CEO talking about remote work.
What iFood’s CEO said
Diego’s position is clear: iFood is remote by default, and the office is optional.
“The company is remote… people only come if they want to.”
His critique of office policies is straightforward: there’s no evidence of productivity gains.
“Where’s the number? Show me productivity is better on-site. The company has never grown so much, never innovated so much, as in the last 3 years… of remote work.”
For him, the key isn’t rules, but a culture based on trust:
“If you build a culture based on rules, in practice you don’t have culture—you have a set of rules.”
He also explains how iFood reduces politics and proximity bias: async communication and video messages, documented decisions, and less dependency on meetings.
“The level of async work we have is huge… most communication is by video. That kind of ‘political’ relationship happens much less.”
From a talent and retention perspective, he highlights the benefits of geographic flexibility. About 40% of employees live more than 100 km away from São Paulo; there are people not only across Brazil but also abroad (Norway, Portugal, France). Salaries are standardized per role, which combined with lower living costs outside big cities, boosts satisfaction and reduces attrition.
“What’s the chance this person won’t fight to stay in the company? Zero.… It’s much easier to attract talent when you’re not regionally limited.”
He acknowledges that offices exist (there’s a campus and expansion), but emphasizes there’s no “mandatory office day” or “hybrid schedule model.” Management mechanics are different: evaluations are based on tangible results (delivery, merit, promotions fairly distributed), not physical presence.
“When you look at promotion, merit, and development numbers, they’re well distributed between those who come to the office more or less.”
In one sentence: for iFood, remote work succeeds because the system was designed specifically for it — trust > rules, async > meetings, impact > presence.
What the research says
Recent research, such as the Stanford study by Nicholas Bloom (2024), using a controlled trial in call centers, showed that hybrid models (two office days a week) maintained productivity and promotion rates while reducing turnover.
Looking at worker preferences, the 31st edition of the “Robert Half Confidence Index” (ICRH) published in April revealed that while fully on-site work rose to 35% of companies, about 77% of employees prefer hybrid work and are more willing to switch jobs to secure at least some remote flexibility.
A Boston Consulting Group study further highlights that “fully flexible” companies (remote or hybrid) grew sales by 21%, nearly four times faster than companies with stricter on-site or hybrid regimes, which grew only 5%.
As iFood’s CEO points out, there’s a lack of numbers proving the inefficiency of well-structured remote work. Market pessimism may have other explanations, but one thing is clear: talent attraction, productivity, and employee satisfaction are consistently higher in companies that embrace flexibility, fair pay, and structured processes.
My journey: remote as a game changer
Back in 2017, during the peak of the on-site model, many tech companies began offering remote work as a competitive benefit. Typically, one or two remote days per week were offered to attract and retain developers amid fierce talent competition. In other words, the benefits of flexibility for productivity, employee quality of life, and retention were already known.
By 2018, I already longed for full remote work. I dreamed of improving my quality of life, avoiding wasted hours in traffic, crowded buses, and trains. Offices were always far from home, usually in expensive business districts, making relocation unfeasible.
I even considered a fully remote contractor role, got accepted, but declined for other reasons. Shortly after, the pandemic forced everyone into remote work, which then stopped being an exception.
Since then, I’ve worked remotely for companies in different countries. I moved to Europe, worked for a German company remotely, and visited the office only when I wanted. Two years ago, I returned to Brazil and today I work remotely for a U.S. company. I no longer see on-site work as an option.
The impact has been profound. Before, my eldest daughter barely saw me: I left early, came home late, and she was already asleep. Today, I’m present in her daily life. My health also changed: I go to the gym regularly, cook at home, and maintain a more balanced routine. On top of that, my career gained a global dimension, as remote work opened doors in markets beyond Brazil.
For me, 100% remote isn’t just a choice — it’s part of who I am as a professional and a father.
When remote work doesn’t work
At the same time, I’ve witnessed a different scenario. In a small company I worked for, there was a major push to hire remotely across several countries. The idea seemed great: widen reach and diversify the team.
In practice, most of those hires didn’t last. Alignment issues, productivity gaps, and lack of integration were frequent. As a result, the company changed course: it created on-site hubs in strategic countries, shifting back to an office-first model with only limited flexibility.
This experience taught me something key: hiring remotely isn’t enough. You need processes, rituals, and culture designed specifically for remote work. Applying traditional office logic and expecting it to work remotely is a recipe for failure.
Company size also matters significantly. Smaller, less mature organizations often struggle with remote work because they lack solid processes, integration rituals, or proper tools. On-site, those gaps are patched by physical proximity; remotely, they become much more apparent.
How to make remote work succeed
From what I’ve lived and studied, some factors are essential:
- Results over presence: clear OKRs, flow metrics, and regular feedback.
- Async by default: accessible records, documented decisions, and less dependency on real-time sync.
- Connection rituals: 1:1s, demos, tech talks, and overlap windows across time zones.
- Transparent promotions: clear criteria and evaluation committees.
- Structured onboarding: buddy system, 30-60-90 day plan, and stakeholder map.
- Health and ergonomics: breaks, boundaries, and proper equipment.
Remote work: trust over rules
I agree with iFood’s CEO on key points: culture > rules, impact > presence, async > endless meetings. My stance is clear: I’m an advocate of 100% remote. Not in theory, but because I’ve lived the real benefits in both life and career.
Remote is neither a cure-all nor a villain. It’s a socio-technical system that requires trust, metrics, and adapted processes to succeed. Improvised, it can fail. Well-designed, it changes lives.
And you? In your team, does remote work well? If not, what’s blocking it — processes, time zones, or management?