In many flexible work environments, a weak culture can look successful for a surprisingly long time. People log in from different cities. Meetings happen on video with cameras off. Slack channels are polite. Everyone repeats that they value autonomy and trust. On the surface, it resembles the modern workplace that founders say they want. The problems only become visible much later, when delayed launches, passive resistance, quietly burned out managers, and vague “not a good fit” resignations start to pile up. At that point, it is tempting to blame remote work or hybrid arrangements. In reality, the deeper issue is that the culture was never designed to function without the founder’s presence.
Founders often assume that culture will somehow settle once the team stabilizes or external pressure eases. In a flexible setting, the opposite happens. The more freedom people have over where and when they work, the more pressure lands on the underlying system to be clear, consistent, and enforceable across distance. When that system is not carefully designed, what emerges is not healthy autonomy but fragmented expectations and unspoken friction. The team appears calm on the surface, but underneath, people are making very different assumptions about what good looks like, how fast to move, and how to balance flexibility with accountability.
A common root cause is that culture is treated as a mood instead of a system. Early on, many teams equate culture with the founder’s personality plus a set of progressive perks. If leaders are supportive and the benefits feel generous, they assume the culture is strong. This can work when everyone sits in one room, overhears the same conversations, and absorbs norms through proximity. Once the team becomes distributed, that form of unspoken transmission disappears. What remains is whatever has been clearly defined, written down, repeated, and enforced. If that layer is thin, the culture that emerges is friendly but fragile. People do what seems reasonable from their own vantage point, which may differ sharply from the founder’s original intent.
Flexible work then becomes a multiplier for inconsistency. The company announces remote or hybrid options to compete for talent or adapt to circumstance. The founders trust their early hires, so they default to high autonomy and minimal structure. Some practices are borrowed from larger tech firms: async standups, shared documents, a few goal frameworks. Tools appear faster than norms. Managers are left to interpret flexibility on their own. One leader insists on strict daily check ins. Another prefers long written updates and assumes everyone will self manage. A third quietly expects the team to work the same hours they do, without saying it aloud. None of these styles is inherently wrong, but without a shared design, they clash.
Over time, distinct micro cultures take shape. A product squad in one region runs like a fast moving agency. A remote engineering pod elsewhere behaves like a measured consultancy. A sales team in another city lives in constant calendar chaos and last minute demands. Each group believes it is doing its best. Each group holds a different standard for urgency, quality, and acceptable tradeoffs. For a while, the company absorbs this fragmentation through individual effort. People work late to smooth over miscommunications. Informal relationships compensate for unclear ownership. Founders see the visible effort and assume the system is functioning.
The long term costs are slower and more structural. Delivery begins to slip in ways that are hard to track. Handovers between locations become drag points. No one is entirely sure who owns a decision once it crosses a team boundary or a timezone. Projects lengthen because every group is operating on slightly different assumptions about priority and quality. Leaders spend more time chasing clarity, mediating misunderstandings, and resolving duplicated work than shaping strategy. The company is still moving, but at a growing discount to its true potential.
Meanwhile, trust erodes quietly. When managers make very different choices about flexibility, performance, and consequences, people do not experience this as freedom. They experience it as unfairness. A high performer in a remote location watches colleagues in the main office get promoted for visibility rather than impact. A parent who embraces the flexibility policy discovers that key projects are still distributed through late night side conversations they cannot attend. These stories travel faster than any carefully written value statement. People stop believing what the company says about inclusion and start believing what they see in promotion and resourcing decisions.
Retention becomes the next casualty. The colleagues who leave first are often the most thoughtful and self directed. They are the ones who notice the structural problems early and choose not to fight them for years. When they resign, their feedback sounds generic. They mention growth, clarity, or better alignment elsewhere. On the surface, it does not sound like a culture problem. Underneath, what they are really saying is that the values discussed in town halls never translated into their day to day reality. The organization loses exactly the kind of talent it needs most for a flexible model to work.
The cost of weak culture does not stop at the team level. It also exhausts leadership, particularly founders. When roles, rituals, and decision paths are unclear, people naturally fall back on the safest option, which is to escalate upwards. Every exception, every dispute over prioritization, every grey area eventually lands on the same small group of leaders. Founders become both the cultural engine and the emergency switch. They are pulled into situations that should have been resolved through clear principles and processes. Their time and attention are spent arbitrating one off cases instead of designing better systems.
This cycle creates a subtle but powerful dependency. The team learns that the real answer lives in the founder’s head, not in the shared operating model. Culture becomes proximity based again, only this time across screens instead of desks. Those who are closest to leadership receive faster decisions and more context; those further away learn to wait or improvise. The very promise of flexible work, which is to reduce dependence on physical and hierarchical proximity, is quietly undermined. A simple thought experiment exposes the fragility of this setup. If the founder were to step away from recurring meetings for two weeks and only handle true crises, would the way people work remain largely the same, or would key decisions stall until that person returns.
Moving out of this pattern requires a different view of culture. Instead of being a slogan or a feeling, it has to be treated as a system that can travel across locations and schedules. One way to think about this is to see culture in layered terms: purpose, principles, practices, and protections. Purpose is the answer to why the company exists beyond hitting its next revenue target. In a flexible environment, purpose becomes the anchor for everyday tradeoffs. When a designer working alone at home has to choose between shipping a rough feature today or holding it for quality, a clear sense of purpose helps them make the same call that the founder would.
Principles then translate that purpose into a small set of reliable rules. These are not abstract words for posters but practical filters for decision making. A company might decide that clarity outranks speed, or that deep work blocks are protected by default. When two teams disagree on an approach, leaders can refer back to these principles rather than relying on personal preference. The next layer is made up of practices: the concrete ways principles show up in calendars, documents, meetings, and tools. This includes how projects are briefed, how ownership is assigned, how frequently updates happen, and how decisions are recorded. In a flexible setting, this is where culture is actually experienced.
Finally, protections are the boundaries that keep the system honest. They define what happens when someone underperforms, when a manager quietly undermines flexibility norms, or when employees feel penalized for using the freedoms they were promised. Protections include clear processes for surfacing concerns, consistent responses to breaches, and visible examples of leaders being held to the same standards as everyone else. Without real protections, people treat culture as surface performance. They repeat the right phrases in all hands meetings but optimize their actual behavior for safety and survival.
For founders, a practical way to expose cultural gaps is to map how core activities really work. Take areas like product decisions, hiring, performance reviews, and incident response. For each, write down who owns the process, what the default steps are, and where the shared record lives. Then ask managers and a sample of contributors to describe the same things from their perspective. Wherever the answers diverge, there is a gap between the intended culture and the lived reality. These gaps are not closed by reminding people of the company values. They are closed by rewriting role definitions, clarifying how work flows, and making shared records easy to find and use.
There is no universal template for a healthy culture in flexible work, but certain questions keep leaders honest. Do people in different locations describe the company in similar language, or does it sound like several disconnected workplaces stitched together by branding. When flexibility collides with delivery pressure, do managers resolve it in similar ways, or do their personal attitudes determine who is rewarded and who is sidelined. If someone uses every bit of flexibility the policy allows, are they still viewed as a serious candidate for advancement, or do they become invisible. The answers to these questions reveal the culture that actually exists, not the one in the onboarding deck.
This pattern appears so often in early stage companies because speed is mistaken for strength. A small group of people with shared history and high trust can move quickly with very little structure. It feels powerful, and founders understandably want to preserve that feeling. However, once the team grows and spreads out, the stories and norms from that early period no longer reach everyone. New joiners enter a workplace that looks progressive from the outside but feels ambiguous on the inside. They import habits from previous employers and local cultures. In the absence of a designed system, those habits take over by default.
The encouraging part is that this situation is not fixed. Culture is not a fragile spirit that can only survive in its original form. It is something that can be redesigned through structure. If founders treat flexible work not as a test of their people’s loyalty but as a test of their operating model, they spot issues earlier and fix them at the right level. Over time, a strong culture in flexible work should make the founder less central, not more. If everything slows down when one person steps away, it is not a sign of personal importance. It is evidence of accumulated system debt. The real win is a culture where people in different places, on different schedules, can make aligned decisions without waiting for the founder to appear on screen.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
