A Commentary on Schertler et al. (2026): The Ambivalent Visibility of Remote Inclusion

Schertler et al. find that remote work intensity predicts lower belongingness, buffered by leaders' virtual collaboration behaviors, but find no comparable effects for authenticity. This commentary argues that this divergence reflects distinct mechanisms: belongingness depends on interactional density, while authenticity depends on identity discretion. Drawing on hybrid surveillance theory, it contends that virtual collaboration is ambivalent, capable of fostering recognition while also intensifying visibility and control. Remote inclusion should therefore be theorized as the governance of visibility, autonomy, and recognition, not simply the transmission of inclusionary cues.