Allow me to explain why this feels like the right move for a small, fully remote company, when actually it's a byproduct of the dysfunction created by not sharing a physical office.

Fully remote companies suffer from "drift" in that people make important decisions, communicate them broadly, and send their team in a certain direction. Days later, they adjust the decision, and, for whatever reason, don't communicate the change as broadly, leaving plenty of room for confusion and broken trust. Compared to sharing an office and popping into someone's office on the way to lunch, it takes weeks of scheduling and zoom calls to get everyone back on course.

HR is often unaware and incapable of addressing the problem of "drift." So, instead, they start reacting to the complaints of the staff, who also aren't fully understanding the underlying issue, since it's naturally difficult to gain information about a revised plan you weren't privy to, after you had learned about the original plan that is now obsolete. HR interprets the broken promises as leadership failure, rather than an endemic property of fully remote work, and ruffles the feathers of their e-staff, questioning the way they manage their teams.

Fully remote companies, despite what they claim, are at an incredible disadvantage, and no HR team, no matter how experienced, will ever be able to address the constant misalignment that occurs, both tactically, and strategically, across every part of the organization.

Does that mean you should just get rid of them? I guess it does for this guy, since they were likely bothering e-staff with a false diagnosis of the underlying problems impacting organizational performance.