It was shocking, to say the least, what executive Tallis Gomes said about remote work some time ago: ‘(…) it’s impossible to build anything in this model. Don’t be held hostage by slackers who want to mess around at home.’ Unfortunately, thoughts like these reflect a significant prejudice that part of the market still carries. For those who perform their activities this way, it’s common to hear jokes insinuating that we do nothing or that we’re professional procrastinators. Those who think this way are mistaken, and I’ll prove why.
The first point to consider is how beneficial remote work is for people. A study conducted by the University of São Paulo and FIA Business School shows that 94% of professionals who work this way say their quality of life has improved. This happens because certain obstacles are eliminated, such as the long hours spent commuting from home to the office—a harsh reality, especially for companies located in major cities like São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Balance and quality of life don’t mean ‘slacking off’ but rather motivation.
Moreover, working directly from home also allows for more time with family, promoting greater autonomy to balance professional and personal lives. For this reason, working without physical exhaustion and with more time to dedicate to personal projects, employees end up more motivated and willing to give their best at the company. As concluded by a survey by the consultancy Right Management, after consulting 30,000 people across 15 countries, motivated people produce 50% more.
This is also corroborated by companies, as a study conducted by EY, showed that 74% of employers also noticed greater efficiency in recent years. Going further, Brazil is one of the leaders in the global turnover index, with data from the General Register of Employed and Unemployed (CAGED) indicating that the national rate reaches 56%. With the adoption of remote work, this number tends to plummet, since a Robert Half survey shows that 80% of Brazilians precisely desire a better work-life balance to feel happier in their careers.
DData from the Latin American digital transformation report indicate that companies embracing remote work see a 41% greater productivity increase compared to those that barely allow work from home. This happens because, at home, people tend to work more, which benefits companies. This is what a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the U.S. shows, confirming that employees working from home end up working, on average, 48 minutes more.
Another point worth discussing is the issue of diversity and increased job opportunities for people living far from major urban centers. When in-person work was still the norm, a company in São Paulo, for example, could only count on employees residing in the same city due to logistics. With remote work, people from distant regions have equal opportunities to work for large companies without needing to face an unplanned relocation.
This increases the exchange of ideas among people from different regions of Brazil, enabling access to diverse cultures that, in turn, contribute to a more inclusive corporate environment. According to a McKinsey survey , teams that are ethnically, regionally, and culturally diverse are 33% more likely to achieve better results precisely because they enhance creativity and problem-solving capabilities. Especially in technology, diverse teams bring more innovation and disruption.
Regarding organizational culture, which many claim is impossible to build in remote work, I also disagree. Impulso is the greatest example of this. We were born 14 years ago and have always been 100% remote. We have an extremely strong culture based on freedom with responsibility. Yes, it is possible to build culture remotely—as long as remote is the culture.
Opposing remote work is a step backward. Leaders like Tallis Gomes apply the model they believe is best for their businesses, but this doesn’t mean remote work doesn’t work. It’s been proven time and again that it does. Just look at nearly two years of a pandemic. Often, we tend to blame the ‘what’ rather than the ‘how.’ Productivity dropping while a company operated remotely doesn’t mean the model is bad. Meta itself shows us this.
Mark Zuckerberg, in September 2023, announced that Meta employees would have to say goodbye to remote work and return to the office. What did he cite? Productivity issues, declaring that 2024 would be the ‘Year of Efficiency.’ Now, in January of this year, the executive goes public again, this time to announce that the tech giant will likely undergo the largest wave of mass layoffs in its history. Nearly 4,000 employees will be cut—almost 5% of its global workforce. And what’s the justification given? ‘Poor performance.’ In other words, the problem wasn’t remote work.
The problem usually lies in management. It’s essential to understand that different models require different management formats. The biggest mistake is trying to apply the same management style used for in-person teams to remote work. Routines, processes, workflows, communication, and even tools must be different. Impulso didn’t grow from zero to over R$50 million in revenue despite remote work—but because of strong management and culture enabled precisely by remote work.
