How to Write Op-Eds That Get Published in Major Publications

Most op-ed pitches get rejected in 30 seconds. Editors read the first paragraph, see generic arguments or missing news hooks, and move on. "Here are my thoughts on leadership" doesn't get published. "Why the return-to-office mandates sweeping Fortune 500s will backfire—and data from 50,000 remote workers proves it" might.

Getting published in major outlets—WSJ, NYT, Forbes, HBR—requires more than good writing. It requires a sharp argument that challenges conventional wisdom, a news hook that explains why this matters NOW, evidence that backs your claims, and author credibility that establishes why editors should listen to YOU specifically. Most importantly, it requires a clear point of view delivered with conviction.

Op-eds aren't blog posts. They're not thought pieces or essays. They're opinion journalism: taking a position on a timely issue, backing it with evidence, and persuading readers to see things differently. The structure matters. The news hook matters. The tightness of argument matters. And understanding what different publications want matters.

This guide walks through how to write op-eds that actually get published—from developing news hooks to structuring arguments to pitching editors to understanding what makes opinion pieces publishable.

What Makes an Op-Ed Publishable

Editors look for seven elements. Miss any and your chances drop significantly:

1. Clear, Specific Argument

Not "remote work is complex" but "remote work mandates will lose companies their best talent."

Your thesis should be one sentence. If you can't state it clearly, you don't have a publishable argument yet.

2. News Hook (Why Now?)

What makes this timely? What current event, recent data, or ongoing debate does this connect to?

Evergreen advice ("here's how to be a better leader") doesn't get published as op-eds. Timely takes on current issues do.

Strong hooks: Major companies mandating return-to-office, new research just published, significant policy change, industry crisis, high-profile failure/success.

3. Contrarian or Surprising POV

If everyone already agrees with you, it's not newsworthy. Op-eds challenge conventional wisdom.

Not: "AI will change business" (everyone knows)
But: "Why AI adoption will fail at most companies—and it's not a technology problem"

4. Evidence (Data, Examples, Research)

Your opinion matters only if backed by evidence. Cite specific studies, data points, examples, or experiences.

Not: "I think remote work is better"
But: "Stanford study of 16,000 workers found 13% productivity increase remote, and Microsoft's internal data shows similar results"

5. Author Credibility

Why should anyone listen to YOU on this topic? CEO with relevant experience? Researcher with data? Operator with unique insights?

Your bio matters. "John Smith is passionate about leadership" won't cut it. "John Smith is CEO of a 200-person fully-remote company and previously led distributed teams at Google and Facebook" establishes authority.

6. Clear Stakes (Why This Matters)

What happens if people accept your argument? What changes? Why should readers care?

7. Actionable Conclusion

What should readers—especially decision-makers—do? Don't just critique; provide direction.

The Op-Ed Structure

Op-eds follow a proven structure. Deviate and editors notice:

The Lede (First 1-3 Paragraphs)

Hook readers immediately. Establish the issue, hint at your contrarian take.

Four strong lede options:

1. Start with news hook:

"Amazon just mandated employees return to office five days a week. Disney followed. JPMorgan's CEO says remote work 'doesn't work.' Meanwhile, GitLab, Automattic, and Zapier—fully remote companies with thousands of employees—are scaling successfully. The return-to-office mandates aren't about productivity. They're about control."

2. Personal anecdote that reveals larger truth:

"Last month, a Fortune 500 CEO told me his company was 'struggling with remote work productivity.' When I asked for specifics, the truth emerged: productivity was fine. What was down was his ability to 'see people working.' His discomfort had nothing to do with output and everything to do with visibility. This is the real remote work problem—and it's not the one we're solving."

3. Surprising data:

"Companies that went fully remote saw productivity increase 13% on average, according to Stanford. Yet 60% of CEOs plan to mandate return-to-office by 2026. If remote work makes people more productive, why are leaders rejecting it? The answer reveals a crisis of management capability, not remote work failure."

4. Provocative statement:

"The remote work debate is fake. It's a distraction from the real question companies should ask: Do we manage by presence or outcomes? You can have dysfunctional in-office teams and high-performing remote teams. Location isn't the variable that matters."

The Nut Graph (Paragraph 3-4)

State your core argument clearly and directly. No ambiguity.

Formula: [What everyone thinks] + [What's actually true] + [Why it matters]

Example:

"Conventional wisdom says remote work requires MORE communication. So companies added standups, syncs, status meetings—and wondered why productivity declined. But the problem isn't remote work. It's that managers brought synchronous, office-based processes to distributed environments where they don't work. Companies succeeding with remote work aren't communicating more—they're communicating differently, with async-first defaults and documentation. The difference is transformational."

The Argument (Body: 3-4 Points)

Make 3-4 supporting points, each with evidence.

Structure for each point:

• State the point clearly (one sentence)
• Provide evidence (data, research, examples)
• Add specific anecdote or example
• Address counterargument
• Transition to next point

Example:

"First, the data on remote productivity directly contradicts the narrative. Stanford research tracking 16,000 workers found productivity increased 13% for remote employees. Microsoft's internal analysis showed remote workers completed more tasks. GitHub saw contribution rates rise. The data is clear: remote work doesn't reduce productivity—bad management does.

I've seen this firsthand. At my company, we went fully remote in 2020. Productivity metrics—shipping velocity, customer satisfaction, revenue per employee—all improved 30-40%. Not because remote is magic, but because we eliminated commutes, reduced meetings 60%, and let people work during peak hours.

Critics argue collaboration suffers remotely. What they mean is spontaneous hallway conversations disappear. True. But what replaces them—intentional, documented, asynchronous discussion—is superior for complex decisions because it forces clarity and creates records. We confuse synchronous interaction with quality collaboration."

Address Strongest Counterargument (1-2 Paragraphs)

Don't ignore obvious objections. Tackle them directly.

"To be clear, remote work isn't right for every role. Manufacturing can't be done from home. Some creative work benefits from in-person brainstorming. Onboarding remotely requires intentional design. But these edge cases don't justify blanket mandates for knowledge workers. The question isn't whether SOME jobs require presence—it's whether we're making thoughtful, role-specific decisions or wielding blunt instruments because leaders are uncomfortable with what they can't see."

The Close (Final 2-3 Paragraphs)

Restate argument with fresh framing, explain implications, issue call to action.

Structure:

Paragraph 1: Synthesize your argument in a new way

Paragraph 2: What this means (implications, stakes)

Paragraph 3: Call to action + memorable final line

Example:

"The remote work debate has become a proxy for whether we can manage by outcomes instead of activity. Companies mandating return-to-office are answering 'no'—retreating to presence-based management because they don't know how to lead distributed teams. Meanwhile, remote-first companies are building competitive advantages in talent, productivity, and cost.

This matters because the talent war is intensifying. The best knowledge workers now expect flexibility. Companies that don't offer it are fishing in a shrinking pond. More critically, they're selecting against self-directed, outcome-focused employees who drive innovation. Return-to-office mandates filter out future leaders.

CEOs considering office mandates should ask different questions. Not 'how do I get people back?' but 'how do I build systems that enable high performance regardless of location?' Not 'how do I see people working?' but 'how do I measure outcomes?' The future of work isn't remote or in-office. It's outcome-based. And companies that figure that out first will dominate the next decade."

Finding Your News Hook

Every op-ed needs a reason it's timely. "Why now?" must be answered.

Strong News Hooks:

Recent major event: "Amazon/Disney/JPMorgan just mandated return-to-office"

New research or data: "New Stanford study shows..."

Policy change: "SEC just announced new AI disclosure rules"

Industry crisis: "Tech layoffs reached 200K this year"

High-profile failure/success: "Company X's spectacular IPO/collapse"

Milestone or anniversary: "Five years since [significant event]"

Ongoing debate: "As Congress debates AI regulation..."

Weak Hooks (Don't Use):

❌ "In recent years..." (too vague)
❌ "The pandemic changed everything..." (stale by 2026)
❌ "Many people are talking about..." (who? when?)
❌ No hook at all (evergreen advice)

Check news before pitching. Your hook needs to be current (within 1-2 weeks ideally).

Making Your Argument Contrarian

If you're agreeing with everyone, you're not newsworthy.

Contrarian Angles:

Challenge conventional wisdom:
Everyone says: "AI will transform everything"
You say: "Why AI adoption will fail at most companies"

Flip the narrative:
Everyone says: "Remote work hurt productivity"
You say: "Remote work exposed bad management"

Challenge solutions:
Everyone says: "We need more diversity training"
You say: "Diversity training doesn't work—here's what does"

Argue for less, not more:
Everyone says: "Startups need to grow fast"
You say: "Why slow growth builds better companies"

Challenge underlying assumptions:
Everyone says: "Find product-market fit before scaling"
You say: "The myth of product-market fit"

Pitching to Editors

Even great op-eds need good pitches.

Pitch Email Template:

Subject: Op-Ed Pitch: [Your Headline]

Dear [Editor Name],

I'd like to propose an op-ed for [Publication] on [topic]: "[Your Headline]"

The argument: [2-3 sentences summarizing thesis]

Why now: [1-2 sentences on news hook]

Why I'm qualified: [2-3 sentences on credentials]

Word count: [X words]

I've attached the full draft for your review and can deliver edits within 24 hours.

Thank you for considering.

Best,
[Name]
[Title]

Pitching Tips:

• Research editor's name (check op-ed section masthead)
• Lead with argument, not credentials
• Include full draft as attachment
• Be ready to make edits FAST (editors work on tight timelines)
• Follow up once after 3-5 days if no response
• Have 2-3 backup publications in mind

Where to Pitch:

Tier 1 (Hardest, highest impact): WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, FT

Tier 2 (Still prestigious): HBR, Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg Opinion

Tier 3 (Industry-specific, most accessible): TechCrunch, Built In, Inc., Fast Company, trade publications

Start with Tier 3 to build clips, work toward Tier 1.

Common Op-Ed Mistakes

Mistake 1: No clear argument
Meandering thoughts instead of one sharp thesis. If you can't state your argument in one sentence, you're not ready.

Mistake 2: No news hook
Evergreen advice that could be published anytime. Op-eds are timely by definition.

Mistake 3: Agreeing with conventional wisdom
If everyone already thinks this, it's not newsworthy. Challenge assumptions.

Mistake 4: All opinion, no evidence
"I think" without data, research, or examples. Your opinion only matters if backed by proof.

Mistake 5: Weak lede
Starting with "In recent years" or long setup. Hook readers in paragraph one or lose them.

Mistake 6: Not addressing counterarguments
Ignoring obvious objections makes argument weak. Address them head-on.

Mistake 7: No clear call to action
Ending with "these are complex issues" instead of "here's what should happen."

Key Takeaways

Every publishable op-ed needs a news hook explaining why this matters NOW. Tie your argument to current events, recent research, policy changes, or ongoing debates. Evergreen advice doesn't get published as op-eds—timely takes on current issues do. Check news before pitching.

Challenge conventional wisdom with a clear, contrarian thesis. If everyone already agrees with you, you're not newsworthy. Find the assumption everyone accepts and argue against it, flip the narrative, or challenge the proposed solution. Editors want pieces that make readers think differently.

State your core argument by paragraph 3-4 (the nut graph). Don't bury your thesis. Use formula: [What everyone thinks] + [What's actually true] + [Why it matters]. Readers should know exactly what you're arguing before they're five paragraphs in.

Back every claim with evidence—data, research, specific examples, or personal experience. "I think" without proof is just blogging. Cite specific studies, include real numbers, share concrete examples. Your opinion matters only when supported by evidence.

End with specific, actionable conclusions that tell decision-makers what to do. Not "these are complex issues to consider" but "CEOs should stop asking 'how do I get people back?' and start asking 'how do I measure outcomes regardless of location?'" Clarity and conviction close strong op-eds.