There’s plenty to like about working from home. No commute. More flexibility. More control over the day. For a while, I was completely seduced by it. And, if I’m honest, I got lazy.

I was still working. Still attending meetings. Still producing outcomes. On paper, very little had changed. But I was slowly losing influence in the places that mattered most.

That exposed an uncomfortable distinction: what makes us individually productive does not necessarily make us effective leaders.

The Hidden Cost of Remote Leadership

I realised, after some time, that my attempts to lead from home weren’t working. I was still present in meetings, still getting tasks done, but the deeper influence I once had with my team wasn’t there anymore. I wasn’t as connected. The small, everyday conversations, the ones that build relationships and foster trust were missing.

Leadership isn’t just about completing tasks or hitting deadlines. It’s about shaping culture, guiding your team through challenges, and building trust. And frankly, I was losing that. I’d become the leader who was always on a Zoom call but never in the room. It became easy to retreat behind the screen, thinking I could manage everything from afar.

But here’s the thing: leadership doesn’t work like that. Presence gives leaders access to information that rarely appears in a meeting agenda.

The hesitation before someone answers. The conversation after the meeting. The change in energy across a team. The issue that isn't significant enough to schedule a call about but becomes obvious when you're standing beside someone.

Individually, these moments can seem insignificant. Collectively, they help leaders understand what is actually happening.

Having Your Cake and Eating It Too

There’s an unspoken desire many of us have to have our cake and eat it too when it comes to remote work. We want the autonomy, the flexibility, the comfort of being at home, but we also expect to have the same level of influence, authority, and connection we had when we were physically present. The reality, though, is that influence requires proximity. You can’t build strong leadership relationships solely through virtual platforms.

I’ve seen this play out with executives I coach. The leaders who complain about their diminishing influence are often the same ones who rarely step foot in the office. 

I’ve seen the same tension with executives I coach. Some become frustrated that their influence is diminishing while simultaneously spending less time around the people they are trying to influence. That doesn't prove the office is always better. It does raise a question worth asking.

If leadership depends partly on relationships, context and trust, what happens when we systematically reduce the opportunities through which those things are built?

Some Influence Requires Proximity

Leadership is about influence, and influence is built through presence. Think about the interactions that happen in person. The subtle cues, the body language, the small conversations before and after meetings. Those moments are where relationships are strengthened, and where trust is built.

Technology can replicate the meeting. It struggles to replicate everything that happens around it. Being present sends a message to your team. It says, “I’m invested in this.” When you’re physically there, you see things others might miss. The subtle shifts in morale, the tension between team members, the opportunities to step in and make a difference. These are the intangibles that influence a team’s culture and cohesion. You can’t lead effectively if you’re always watching from a distance.

Presence Isn't the Same as Attendance

A leader can attend every scheduled meeting and still be largely absent from the life of the team. Equally, sitting in an office five days a week doesn't automatically make someone an influential leader.

Proximity creates opportunity. Leadership determines what we do with it.

The argument isn't that remote leadership cannot work. It clearly can. The argument is that leaders should be conscious of what becomes harder when physical presence disappears and deliberate about compensating for it.

The Trade-Off

The question isn't whether remote work is good or bad. That's too simplistic. The better question for leaders is what the arrangement enables, and what it costs.

Working from home may improve focus, flexibility and individual productivity. It may also remove some of the incidental interactions through which leaders gather information, build trust and maintain influence.

Neither observation makes the other untrue. That's the trade-off.

Leadership requires us to understand it rather than pretend it doesn't exist. Work from home when it makes sense. Use technology well. Protect flexibility where it creates value. But if influence matters, occasionally being in the room probably does too.

The most convenient place to work isn't automatically the most effective place to lead.

Remember, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.