Remote: terms of distributed collaboration

Defining new arrangements for distributed work

Remote work emerged as both companies and talent attempted to redesign how work happens. Talent wanted to orchestrate their own productivity - focus time when deep work matters, social connection when collaboration helps, autonomy over when and how they work. Companies wanted access to skilled people beyond their geographic constraints, flexibility in how they structure roles, new ways to manage distributed teams.

This renegotiation happened rapidly. The pandemic accelerated adoption before either side had developed clear language for what they were actually offering or seeking. “Remote” became the catch-all term, used to describe everything from genuine location independence to working from home two days a week.

The complexity reflects genuinely different needs. A fintech company with regulatory requirements has different constraints than a product startup. A contractor in Buenos Aires has different priorities than an employee in Munich. Both might search for “remote work” but they’re looking for fundamentally different arrangements.

The challenge

“Remote” now communicates almost nothing specific. One role might offer genuine location independence with full employee benefits and compliance support. Another might require contractors to manage their own tax whilst maintaining strict time zone availability within a single country. Both get labelled “remote” and the distinction only emerges deep in the job description, if at all.

This wastes everyone’s time. Talent applies for unsuitable roles. Companies struggle to articulate their actual arrangements. Platforms can’t offer meaningful filters. The ambiguity serves no one.

The classification system

Most remote work arrangements fall into recognisable patterns. Here are four primary classifications that make the actual arrangement immediately visible:

1. Fully Remote

True location independence with employee status. The company provides proper infrastructure, handles compliance through employer of record services or local entities, provides equipment and supports occasional meetups. This is what people hoped “remote” meant.

Typical for: Technology companies with mature distributed practices, global product companies, organisations with established remote-first cultures.

2. Remote Restricted

Remote work with boundaries. You might be an employee but restricted to specific regions for legal reasons, or have time zone requirements for operational needs. The structure provides support but within defined constraints.

Typical for: Companies with entity presence in select markets, roles requiring synchronous collaboration, organisations with regulatory or data sovereignty requirements.

3. Hybrid

A defined mix of remote and office-based work. Usually requires employee status and geographic proximity to a physical location. Office attendance is structured and expected, typically two to three days per week.

Typical for: Established corporations adapting to distributed work, roles with physical requirements, organisations with significant office investment.

4. Flexible/Nomadic

Contractor-based arrangements offering maximum location flexibility with minimum structural support. You manage your own tax, provide your own equipment and work asynchronously. Genuine freedom with genuine responsibility.

Typical for: Agencies working with distributed talent, project-based engagements, roles where output matters more than process.

How it works

The classification operates on two levels. The primary label provides immediate clarity. The detailed specification enables precise filtering and matching.

Primary classification

Choose the pattern that best describes the arrangement. This becomes the leading descriptor for the role.

Detailed specification

A structured notation captures specific parameters using standardised abbreviations that can be parsed programmatically or read by humans who need the detail.

Employment structure (E)

• EE: Employee (employer handles tax and National Insurance)
• EC: Contractor (individual handles tax)
• FR: Freelancer (project-based)

Geographic scope (G)

• GA: Anywhere (genuine location independence)
• GC(XX): Specific country (UK, US, etc.)
• GR(XX): Regional (EU, APAC, Americas)

Legal entity (L)

• LY: Company has entity in worker’s jurisdiction
• EOR: Uses employer of record service
• LC: Contractor arrangement (no entity needed)

Physical presence (P)

• PH(n): Hybrid with n days per week in office
• PO: Office optional
• PR: Regular retreats (annual, quarterly)
• PN: Never (fully asynchronous)

Equipment (E)

• PR: Provided by employer
• IS: Self-provided
• ST: Stipend or allowance

Time zone (T)

• TZ(±n): Required overlap in UTC±n hours
• AS: Fully asynchronous

Examples in practice

Example 1: Silicon Valley startup

Fully Remote EE-GA-EOR-PO-PR-AS
Employee anywhere globally. Employer of record handles compliance. Office optional. Equipment provided. Fully asynchronous.

Example 2: European fintech

Remote Restricted EE-GR(EU)-LY-PN-IS-TZ(±2)
Employee within EU countries. Company has local entities. No office. Self-provided equipment. Requires UTC±2 overlap.

Example 3: UK consultancy

Hybrid EE-GC(UK)-LY-PH(2)-ST
Employee UK only. Local entity. Two days per week in office. Equipment stipend provided.

Example 4: Design agency

Flexible/Nomadic EC-GA-LC-PN-IS-AS
Contractor anywhere. Contractor arrangement. No office or meetups. Self-provided equipment. Asynchronous.

Employment structure (E)

The legal and tax relationship between company and worker.

• EE: Employee with full benefits, employer handles PAYE/tax
• EC: Contractor, individual manages tax and compliance
• FR: Freelancer, typically project-based
• EB: Both models available (role can be filled either way)

Geographic scope (G)

Where the worker can be located.

• GA: Global anywhere, no restrictions
• GC(XX): Specific country, specify ISO code
• GR(XX): Regional, specify region (EU, EEA, APAC, Americas)

Legal entity presence (L)

How the company handles payroll and compliance.

• LY: Company has legal entity in worker’s location
• EOR: Uses employer of record service
• LC: Contractor model (no entity required)
• UM: Uses umbrella company

Physical presence requirements (P)

Expectations around office attendance and in-person time.

• PH(n): Hybrid, n days per week in office
• PO: Office optional, available but not required
• PR: Regular retreats or meetups (specify frequency)
• PN: Never, fully distributed with no in-person requirement

Equipment and infrastructure (I)

Who provides the tools for work.

• PR: Provided, employer supplies equipment
• IS: Self-provided, worker supplies own equipment
• ST: Stipend, allowance for equipment purchase
• CO: Co-working allowance provided

Time zone and synchronicity (T)

Requirements for overlapping hours or synchronous collaboration.

• TZ(±n): Time zone overlap required, specify UTC offset range
• AS: Fully asynchronous, no overlap requirement
• CO(n): Core hours, n hours of required overlap

Benefits and support (B)

Additional support structures relevant to remote work.

• VI: Visa sponsorship available
• RE: Relocation support provided
• HC: Healthcare coverage included
• PE: Pension or retirement contribution

Scenario 1: Truly global product company

A SaaS platform wants to hire engineering talent worldwide. They have mature remote practices and use an employer of record for global payroll.
Classification: Fully Remote
Specification: EE-GA-EOR-PR-PR-AS-HC
Translation: Employee anywhere. EOR handles compliance. Equipment and healthcare provided. Annual retreats. Async-first culture.

Scenario 2: European startup with funding constraints

A Series A company in Berlin wants to expand their team but only has entities in Germany and can afford quarterly meetups.
Classification: Remote Restricted
Specification: EE-GC(DE)-LY-PN-PR-TZ(±2)-PE
Translation: Employee in Germany only. Local entity. No office. Equipment provided. UTC±2 overlap for standups. Pension included.

Scenario 3: UK creative agency

A London-based agency wants hybrid arrangements with flexibility for senior staff and uses contractors for project work.
Classification: Hybrid
Specification: EB-GC(UK)-LY-PH(2)-ST-CO(4)
Translation: Employee or contractor in UK. Local entity. Two days office. Equipment stipend. Four core hours overlap required.

Scenario 4: Offshore development shop

An agency model connecting global developers with Western clients, fully async with minimal structure.
Classification: Flexible/Nomadic
Specification: EC-GA-LC-PN-IS-AS
Translation: Contractors anywhere. No entity needed. No meetups. Self-provided kit. Fully async.

Scenario 5: Fintech with compliance needs

A financial services firm that can only operate in jurisdictions where they're regulated but wants to be as flexible as possible.
Classification: Remote Restricted
Specification: EE-GR(EU+UK)-LY-PO-PR-TZ(±1)-HC-PE
Translation: Employee in EU or UK. Multiple entities. Optional office. Equipment provided. UTC±1 for regulatory requirements. Full benefits.

For companies: Select the primary classification that describes your actual arrangement. Use the detailed specification to encode exact requirements. Include both in job postings to provide clarity from the start.

For talent: Use the primary classification to filter opportunities. Check the detailed specification to verify they match your needs before investing time in applications.

For platforms: Implement the classification as structured data. Allow filtering by primary category and detailed parameters.

Implementation

Job listings would show the primary classification prominently with the detailed specification available for precision:

Senior Backend Engineer - Fully Remote 
 EE-GA-EOR-PR-PR-AS

With an expandable section explaining:

Employee anywhere globally. We handle all payroll and 
 compliance through our employer of record. Equipment 
 provided. Annual company retreat. Async-first culture. 

Search interfaces could filter on primary classification first, with advanced options drilling into specific parameters for users who need them.

Status and considerations

This is an initial model exploring whether structured classification can resolve the clarity problem in remote work descriptions. It attempts to balance simplicity with precision, making actual arrangements immediately visible.

Known limitations

The four primary classifications may not capture every arrangement. The notation requires learning, even if optional. Geographic restrictions introduce complexity around regions, time zones and legal jurisdictions that don’t map neatly.

The model prioritises employment structure, geography and physical presence because these dimensions reveal the most significant differences between arrangements. Other factors are included but treated as secondary.

Areas requiring refinement

The distinction between “Fully Remote” and “Remote Restricted” may be too subtle. The notation might be too technical for general adoption or not technical enough for programmatic use. Time zones and geographic regions need clearer definition.

Testing with real users will reveal whether this strikes the right balance.

Future possibilities

If this model proves useful, it could power automated tools. A company could describe their arrangements and receive their “remote DNA” ready for job postings. Platforms could implement sophisticated matching between company offerings and talent requirements.

The model could evolve as remote work practices mature. Support for digital nomad visas, international healthcare coordination, multi-country employment - emerging needs that might deserve explicit classification.

Standardisation could reduce friction throughout hiring. Both sides would share a common language, negotiations would be clearer, mismatched expectations would decrease.

The system could enable discovery that doesn’t currently exist. Someone in São Paulo looking for European clients offering employee status could find matches immediately. A company wanting to hire in Southeast Asia but needing morning overlap with their London team could encode that precisely.

This system will only work if it solves real problems for actual users. The classification needs to be intuitive enough for quick adoption whilst precise enough to resolve the ambiguity that currently exists.

Your perspective matters. Whether you’re hiring remote talent, seeking distributed opportunities, or building platforms that connect the two, your feedback will shape how this evolves.

About this project

This classification system emerged from observing the growing gap between what “remote” promises and what different arrangements actually deliver. It draws inspiration from Creative Commons licensing, which succeeded by providing clear, standardised ways to communicate complex arrangements.

The goal is to create an open standard that anyone can implement. If it proves valuable, it should be freely available for job boards, company career pages and talent platforms to adopt.

Version 0.1 – December 2025