Why the Backlash Was So Intense

Grede’s remarks quickly went viral, drawing criticism from women who saw her comments as dismissive of real constraints such as childcare costs, elder care responsibilities, and accessibility barriers. According to McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org, women are significantly more likely than men to seek flexible work and more likely to leave roles that do not offer it. As workplace expert Tori Dunlap has noted, “Flexibility isn’t a perk for many women. It’s the infrastructure that allows them to stay in the workforce at all.”

For these women, the issue is not ambition. It is access. However, to her credit, Grede’s central claim, that in-office employees often have an advantage in advancement, is supported by a growing body of research. A two-year study conducted by Stanford University found that remote workers were 13% more productive than their in-office peers, yet they were less likely to be promoted.

Similarly, data from Harvard Business Review highlights what researchers call “proximity bias,” which refers to the tendency for managers to favor employees they physically see more often. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant explains, “When leaders equate visibility with commitment, they unintentionally disadvantage people whose work is less observable, even when their performance is strong.” This bias shapes who gets high-visibility projects, informal mentorship, and sponsorship into leadership roles. In other words, advancement is often driven less by output, and more by exposure.

The Structural Problem Grede Did Not Name

Grede’s comments describe a system, but they stop shy of questioning it. What she frames as a reality of career advancement is, in fact, what many argue is a structural flaw that highlights a workplace culture that still confuses presence with performance. As workplace researcher Joan C. Williams has long argued, “Ideal worker norms were built around a worker who has no caregiving responsibilities; historically, a man with a wife at home.”

Those norms have not disappeared. They have simply adapted, and in a post-pandemic world where flexibility is both possible and desired, those outdated expectations are becoming more visible and more contested. The consequences of proximity bias are not evenly distributed. According to McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace report, women are less likely to receive sponsorship than men, and women of color are even less likely to be promoted into leadership roles.

Black women, in particular, report higher rates of being overlooked despite strong performance. As diversity strategist Minda Harts notes, “If visibility is the currency of advancement, then the system already places women of color at a disadvantage before the conversation even begins.” When advancement depends on informal interactions like hallway conversations, impromptu meetings, and after-hours networking, those who are less present or less included are systematically excluded.

None of this suggests that remote workers cannot build successful, high-impact careers. In fact, research consistently shows that flexible work improves retention, reduces burnout, and expands access to opportunity. However, it does mean that the path to advancement may be less direct, and in some cases, less likely within traditional corporate structures. The issue is not capability. It is how opportunity is distributed.

Notably, some of the most significant gains in flexibility and leadership are happening outside traditional corporate pipelines. Women are increasingly building power in entrepreneurship and consulting, digital-first and remote-first companies, creator and platform economies, and portfolio careers and independent work. In these environments, outcomes (not optics) are more likely to drive advancement.

What Organizations Need To Rethink

If companies are serious about building equitable leadership pipelines, addressing proximity bias requires more than encouraging employees to return to the office. It requires structural change. That includes standardizing performance metrics based on outcomes -- not visibility, formalizing sponsorship programs to ensure access is not limited to those physically present, and training managers to recognize and correct proximity bias in evaluations.

As Adam Grant has noted, “The future of work depends not on where people sit, but on how we measure and reward what they contribute.” Without intentional intervention, the shift toward flexible work may expand access, but not advancement. Emma Greede did not create the system she described, but by presenting it as an inevitability rather than a flaw, her comments reinforce a version of success that no longer reflects how people live, or how they want to work. The real question is not whether remote work limits women’s careers. It is whether workplaces are willing to evolve beyond a model that was never designed with women in mind.