In recent months, the debate about the future of work has been dominated by a seemingly simple question: Should we go to the workshop or not? Due to the intensity of opinions, this discussion is always on the surface. The real issue is not where one works, but the leadership model that the organization supports.
Remote work not as an ideological experience, but as a necessity. So it ended up functioning as an unexpected grief test for organizations. Not for technological reasons – those have long been relied upon – but because remote work is more inconvenient: the difference between leading by trust and leading by control.
With no physical presence, no visible hours, and no formal oversight, the remote model requires a clear choice. You either rely on micromanagement, try to remotely restore past controls, or trust. And trust in this context is not an abstract or emotional concept. It is deeply concrete: it means giving autonomy, delegating decisions and accepting that responsibility and freedom go hand in hand.
This is where many organizations feel uncomfortable. In many cases, the call to return to the factory is not born out of a genuine concern for culture or collaboration, but rather a need to maintain control mechanisms. Conversely, organizations that are part of their teams operate remotely or hybridly because they operate under a stricter model where the focus is on generated impact rather than physical presence.
This debate seeks a new dimension with accelerated entry of artificial intelligence into the world of business. Every time you say more “super agency”: the idea that artificial intelligence creates more value when it augments human capacity rather than replacing it. But this amplification only occurs in contexts where people have room to decide, interpret and act. AI does not solve leadership problems; just make them visible.
The same logic appears in the analysis that describes AI as a work reorganization factor, creating opportunities for greater flexibility, creativity and collaboration. None of this works in cultures that are extremely hierarchical or surveillance-based. Technology can automate tasks, but it doesn’t compensate for a lack of trust.
The history of labor is actually a history of adaptation. Every time a new technology comes along, no one who tries to slow down the change will benefit until someone learns to work with it better. Learning requires autonomy. Just enough time to experiment, misunderstand, adapt and decide.
I think for the most part it’s not in AI. It is in the form in which organizations choose to use it. Crazy leaders use AI to grow, make better decisions, and increase collective impact. Defensive Leaders should use it for tracking, meditating on obsessive forms, and strengthen control models that you long for before technology delivers.
The real debate is not remote versus present, not human versus technology. It’s a tough leader versus a defensive leader. Trust is not the absence of control. It is a conscious transfer of decision-making power. Delegation does not lose authority: it multiplies capacity.
The future of work is less clear to us decisions about where people should feel and even more to answer a simple and challenging question: in what sense do we trust that we think, decide and create values? In a world increasingly mediated by artificial intelligence, this choice must be a purely cultural one. It changed strategically.
*** Joan Carraville e.g Partner and Managing Director of Elife and Buzzmonitor for Iberia and LATAM.
Leave a Reply