What Separates Remote Work Winners from Remote Work Losers?
New research surveyed 801 UK firms about remote work. The #1 predictor of success was internal management capability. Here's what that means for CEOs, especially as we move deeper into the era of AI.
The London School of Economics has published a new study on remote work. There’s a lot of interesting data in it about how a sample of 801 UK firms adapted (or failed to adapt) to the post-2020 landscape.
But the part of the report that really caught my eye was the list of three factors that determined whether a company experienced negative effects of the switch to remote work or not.
What helped companies succeed with remote work?
The LSE study found three distinct enablers of successful transition to remote/hybrid work:
Early adoption of remote work. Companies that had introduced remote work before 2020 reported positive productivity impacts at 42%, compared to 7% for firms that adopted in 2022 or later. Jumping in early apparently really helped.
Training investment. Companies that trained staff systematically reported almost double the positive productivity outcomes from remote work compared to those with no training.
Formal management practices, things like structured check-ins, adjusted KPIs, and performance dashboards. Companies that had adopted at least one of these reported more productivity gains after implementing remote work.
To me, there’s a finding here that goes far beyond just remote work. My takeaway is that managerial foresight and capability is the key variable in just about any change a company attempts.
Changing employee behavior without losing productivity is hard. But if you do it early and with structure, you’ll be a lot better off.
My takeaway is that companywide managerial capability is the key variable in just about any change a business attempts.
I have often said that for any organization at scale, the quality of managers is the quality of the company. This is because past 50 or so employees, success is attained primarily through systematic alignment around a shared strategy — not through the individual heroics that often bring startups to the point of scaling.
In this LSE study, the firms that let people figure stuff out on their own, with no training or oversight, and who only saw the future once it had already arrived — those were the ones who suffered.
Which brings me to AI.
What will help companies succeed with AI?
Every company is currently somewhere on the AI adoption curve. I’d predict that the same three factors will determine which companies come out ahead in the new world we’re entering:
Is your company adopting AI quickly? Or are you waiting until you absolutely MUST?
Are you training people on how to use AI? Or are you letting people do whatever, and accepting surface-level use cases as evidence that your company is on top of things?
Do your managers have a system? Through all the change, do they understand the few KPIs that matter most? Are they looking at them weekly?
It starts at the top, with a good CEO system
These three factors don’t emerge on their own. Left to their own devices, most organizations will:
adopt late
train minimally
manage loosely
The CEOs who navigate change well (whether it’s remote work, AI, or simple strategic changes internal to the company) tend to have built an operating model that treats foresight, training, and structured management as standard practice rather than as responses to crisis.
That’s what the LSE data is really describing when it talks about organizational enablers. Companies that had already built good habits going into the change came out ahead.
If you’re thinking about where your company stands on any of these fronts, I’d love to talk. Reach me at joel@ceosys.co.