Opinion: Emma Grede is not entirely wrong, but she’s not entirely right either.

The debate on proximity, power, and workplace dynamics isn’t as black and white as it seems - it calls for nuance, not outrage or blind agreement. Franka Chiedu writes.

Emma Grede’s comments have struck a nerve, particularly with women and especially women of colour, because they touch on a truth many people experience but rarely say out loud:

Workplaces still reward visibility, proximity, and informal influence.

Being physically present often means you are in the room when decisions are shaped - not just when they are communicated. It allows relationships to build more naturally, creates access to informal conversations, and increases the likelihood of being considered for opportunities before they are even formalised.

That’s not theory. That’s how many organisations still operate. But this is also where her argument begins to unravel.

The system she is describing was never built with women in mind. The idea that “being seen equals being promoted” assumes uninterrupted career paths, minimal caregiving responsibilities, and a level of time flexibility that many women simply do not have.

So when the message becomes “just come into the office,” it ignores a critical reality:

Remote work didn’t emerge as a luxury - it became a necessity for many women to participate and remain competitive in the workforce.

The real issue isn’t remote work. It’s how organisations have failed to evolve alongside it.

Too many companies still reward presenteeism over output.

They lack structured visibility - clear performance metrics, documented impact, and intentional pathways to exposure.

They rely on outdated systems that privilege proximity over performance.

In that kind of environment, remote workers - often women - are inevitably sidelined.

But there is also a deeper, more uncomfortable truth beneath all of this:

Careers do require visibility.

The question is not whether visibility matters, but how it is defined.Visibility should not be confined to physical presence. It should be about:

*Owning high-impact work

*Contributing in key forums, whether virtual or physical

*Being deliberately positioned in decision-making spaces

*Having sponsors, not just managers

The frustration many women feel is valid, because statements like Emma’s can sound like a call to adapt to a flawed system rather than a push to change it. And increasingly, women are saying: we’ve adapted enough.

The real shift now needs to come from organisations - to build systems where performance is measurable, visibility is intentional, and opportunity is not dictated by who happens to be in the room. Because the future of work cannot be built on access alone.

It has to be built on equity.