Beyond remote vs office: why the real future of work is about collaboration, not location

For years now, one question has seemed to dominate every conversation about the future of work: should we return to the office or embrace remote working? It's a debate that can get surprisingly passionate, sometimes even polarizing. But the more we've worked with organizations navigating change, the more we've realized this conversation, while important, might be distracting us from something bigger.

The future of work isn't really about location—it's about collaboration. And our newest colleague is artificial intelligence.

Instead of asking "where should we work?" perhaps we should be asking "how do we work together, humans and AI, in ways that bring out the best in both?"

‍

Three paths organizations are taking

As this quiet revolution unfolds, we're seeing organizations choose one of three approaches, often without fully realizing they're making this choice:

The resisters

Some organizations, out of caution or simple inertia, are sticking with manual processes that have worked in the past. The reluctance is understandable, change can feel overwhelming, especially when it's happening so quickly.

But we're seeing a pattern: teams become frustrated when they know there are better ways to work but can't access them. Talented people start looking elsewhere. The organization slowly falls behind competitors, often without understanding why.

The replacers

At the other extreme, some organizations view AI primarily as a way to optimize costs and reduce headcount. The focus is on automation and short-term efficiency gains.

While this approach can deliver quick wins, it often comes at a cost. When organizations remove human judgment, relationships, and institutional knowledge, they can become surprisingly fragile. Teams become disengaged. The organization loses its ability to adapt when unexpected challenges arise.

A lawyer friend shared an interesting perspective on this recently. In legal work, where information is highly structured and sources are carefully controlled, AI has become remarkably effective. "I could probably handle most tasks without junior staff now," he told us. "But what I absolutely can't do without are the senior people who know when to trust the AI's analysis and when to question it, who understand the context the machine might miss."

What struck us most: he's still hiring junior lawyers. Not because he needs them for immediate tasks, but because he knows that someday, those junior colleagues will become the senior professionals who can work alongside AI with wisdom and discernment.

The orchestrators

The third group sees AI neither as a threat nor as a silver bullet, but as a collaborative partner. They're building what we think of as hybrid teams, humans and AI working together, each contributing their unique strengths.

In these environments, AI handles pattern recognition, data analysis, and routine tasks that don't require human judgment. People focus on strategy, creativity, relationship-building, and the kind of contextual decision-making that requires lived experience.

The result is something greater than either could achieve alone, shared intelligence that's both human and artificial.

‍

What research tells us about collaboration

Stanford University recently conducted fascinating research on this topic, surveying thousands of professionals about their experiences working with AI. The findings might surprise you: most people don't reject automation at all. But they want it to be balanced.

The researchers created what they call the Human Agency Scale, ranging from H1 (AI works completely independently) to H5 (humans maintain total control). The sweet spot? H3: true partnership where humans and AI collaborate fluidly, each contributing what they do best.

This isn't just about personal preference. When people feel like genuine partners in the process rather than bystanders, they're more likely to contribute insights that make the AI more effective. They catch errors the system might miss. They provide context that improves decision-making.

‍

Building trust in the partnership

But creating this kind of collaboration requires more than just good technology. Research from MIT points to trust as the crucial factor, and trust is built through transparency and clear communication.

People need to understand how AI systems work, what they're designed to do, and where their limitations lie. They need clear guidelines about roles and responsibilities. Most importantly, they need to feel that their expertise and judgment are valued, not replaced.

We've found that successful AI integration often starts with education, not just technical training, but honest conversations about what's changing, why, and how everyone can contribute to making it work well.

The goal isn't to eliminate human judgment but to create frameworks where both human insight and artificial intelligence can contribute effectively.

‍

Reframing the conversation

At Spentia, we've come to believe that the role of organizations isn't to choose between human and artificial intelligence, but to thoughtfully orchestrate both.

This means creating environments where people can thrive, where AI amplifies their capabilities rather than diminishing them, and where the impact is both more effective and more sustainable.

The future of work isn't human or artificial—it's collaborative. It's not about pajamas or business suits—it's about partnership.

So the next time someone brings up the remote versus office debate, what if we asked a different question: "How can we create better ways of working together—both with each other and with AI—that make everyone more effective and fulfilled?"

That's where we think the real transformation lies. Not in where we sit, but in how we collaborate.

Research sources: Stanford Future of Work Lab, MIT Technology Review AI Strategy Playbook