This tension brings into conversation the class concept of occupational stress, which explains how employee well-being depends on the balance between workplace stressors and the strategies available to manage them. Workplace stressors include a variety of aspects within work overload, time pressure, and organizational constraints, while resources include flexibility, autonomy, and in-office support. Hybrid work can function as an extremely valuable resource when implemented intentionally, but without clear structure and realistic expectations, it can become another source of stress, especially when employees feel pressured to be constantly available simply because they’re working from home.

Hybrid environments can also increase the emotional labor experienced by employees if they feel pressure to be overly responsive, engaged, and productive to make up for the lack of visibility typically present in traditional office settings. While with in-person work, leaving the office signals the end of the workday, hybrid work can make it harder to establish this ending due to the lack of physical separation. On top of this, these negative emotions may be more difficult to communicate as there is less face-to-face interaction, leading to emotional dissonance. This constant mental and emotional effort paired with the inability to adequately disconnect can contribute to reduced job satisfaction, employee disengagement, or burnout.

To combat this, organizations working under a hybrid structure must make sure they are establishing clear boundaries for their employees so that flexibility doesn’t turn into ambiguity. Communicating expectations around availability can help reduce guilt employees working from home may feel for taking breaks or logging off at the end of the day. It can also ease concerns about reduced physical visibility affecting advancement opportunities, allowing employees more time to focus on completing work in a way that best suits them rather than solely prioritizing constant availability.

I personally remember feeling this stress and uncertainty throughout my time with online school during Covid. While learning from home offered more flexibility and convenience, it also made it harder to separate my personal and academic life, especially because there was little communication in what was expected of us. Assignments, emails, and notifications were accessible from home, and teachers would often reach out with information outside of the traditional school day, making it difficult to completely remove myself from “school-mode”. Additionally, the lack of change in my work environment created the feeling that I could always be doing more. This mirrors the challenge employees face in hybrid systems where autonomy exists but expectations aren’t clearly defined.

Ultimately, hybrid work has lots of potential to improve work-life balance, increase productivity, and maintain job satisfaction, but only when its structure is intentional and clear, specifically meaning that flexibility shouldn’t add extra pressure for demand and availability. Organizations that prioritize effective communication, realistic expectations, and respected boundaries are much more likely to support employee well-being and success, while reducing burnout and work-related stress.

In a recent article from The Guardian, author Joanna Partridge speaks on the opinions within the UK working environment surrounding hybrid work, and how it can benefit both employers and employees, if structured and led properly. Specifically, it mentions the benefits for those that are disabled or chronically ill, stating that the work-from-home framework allows for greater productivity and even leads to otherwise-unavailable work opportunities. The downsides of hybrid, though, can be detrimental if the systems are poorly designed or inconsistent, leading to the conclusion that flexible work is beneficial and essential when implemented correctly.

As discussed in the article, disabled employees not only prefer hybrid or remote models (as eliminating the need to commute makes their day-to-day much easier), but they actually rely on them as necessary accommodations to successfully perform their jobs. Because many companies are still figuring out how to successfully navigate hybrid systems, the article points out that there’s an extreme lack of investments in training leaders to become adequately equipped for supporting hybrid or remote employees, and incentivizes them to put more money toward management training. Having a successful, consistent hybrid structure–and the leaders to guide it–is imperative to eliminating stress, reduced productivity, and employee turnover within a company.

This article brings into conversation the ideas of equity theory, which emphasizes the fairness among employees gauged by their inputs (effort, hours, skills, etc. that they provide) and the consequential outcomes (pay, recognition, learning, etc. that they receive in return). When hybrid systems are inconsistent or poorly designed, the balance between employees and their input/outcome ratio is disrupted, which results in lower motivation, higher stress, and reduced commitment within the company. In a successful hybrid working environment, the inputs required of disabled employees would be reduced, making them more equal to those of non-disabled employees. As a result, this balance would create a much more equitable work environment, boosting motivation, productivity, and commitment.

A second concept that connects to this article is effective leadership and the attributes that allow leaders to support diverse employee needs. These leaders must be able to communicate clearly, understand the needs of their employees, and provide a personalized structure necessary for business success; in this specific case, that would mean having leaders that can create a hybrid work environment catering to all employees’ strengths and needs. The Guardian highlights that many UK organizations are lacking investments that lead to this kind of leadership, meaning that workplaces and their employees (especially disabled workers) are not being adequately supported or guided. As we’ve discussed in class, when offices lack leaders with the skills needed to coordinate and enforce hybrid schedules, clarify expectations within the model, or understand accommodation needs, employees face uncertainty with their work and leadership capabilities; therefore, strengthening leadership training for hybrid systems is essential not only for the productivity within the company, but also for ensuring that disabled workers feel supported and are able to succeed within their roles.

Ultimately, this article reinforces the notion that hybrid work is only as effective as the leadership and structure behind it. Disabled employees benefit greatly when the flexibility is implemented with genuine understanding and consistency, but without adequately trained leaders and a clearly defined system, hybrid policies can create more stress and uncertainty. As organizations continue adapting to the future of work, prioritizing employee fairness, enforced structure, and trained, knowledgeable leadership will be key to ensuring that every employee has the opportunity to thrive.

Microsoft was one of the first big tech companies to formally commit to hybrid work. Instead of forcing everyone back into the office, they created a system where many employees can work from home up to 50 percent of the time, with some roles being fully remote depending on the nature of the job. To me, this is very Kantian. They aren’t saying ‘You must be in the office because that’s what benefits us’. They’re saying, ‘Different roles require different environments, and employees should have autonomy to work in the way that works best for them.’ That’s essentially treating people as ends in themselves by acknowledging their rationality and independence.

Another part that fits with Kant’s idea of acting on universal principles is how Microsoft decides who gets flexibility. It isn’t based on favoritism or who your manager happens to be. It’s tied to the work itself. The rule is that if your responsibilities don’t require you to be physically present, hybrid work is on the table. That feels like a rule Microsoft would be comfortable universalizing because it is one that applies consistently and logically across the organization. From a Kantian perspective, that matters, because ethics isn’t about what benefits a few people; it’s about what makes sense as a fair, universal guideline for all.

I also think Microsoft’s investment into hybrid work — redesigning offices for collaboration, giving people equipment stipends, training managers on hybrid leadership — reflects Kant’s idea of duty. If a company is going to claim that flexibility is part of its culture, then it has a responsibility to actually support employees so they can succeed in that system. Microsoft didn’t just tell everyone to go hybrid and leave it at that– they backed it up with resources. That is duty based and not just profit driven.

However, I must acknowledge where Kant might raise an eyebrow. Microsoft recently introduced a more structured expectation that employees come into the office around three days a week. Depending on why they made that decision, it could drift into treating employees more as a means to an end, specifically, boosting innovation or culture, rather than respecting their autonomy. If the policy ends up disadvantaging certain groups more than others, or contradicting their earlier message of flexibility, then there would be less alignment with Kant.

Personally, Microsoft’s approach shows what a values-based hybrid model can look like. It proves that flexibility doesn’t have to be chaotic or unstructured. It can be grounded in principles that respect people, treat them fairly, and still support the company’s goals. And honestly, if more companies approached hybrid work with this kind of ethical clarity, a lot of workplace tension between people and towards the systems set in place would probably disappear.

Research sources:

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/09/09/flexible-work-update/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.geekwire.com/2025/microsoft-sets-new-rto-policy-requiring-employees-in-the-office-3-days-per-week/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

This tactic allows people to maintain the flexibility to work from home while maintaining productivity in companies. Companies can get a clearer picture of how to allocate their resources most effectively and stay on track with their goals. In defense of the software, organizations claim they do not track personal browsing for privacy reasons and use it only to monitor work-related sites. The use of Bossware is skyrocketing, with 39% of managers in the United Kingdom now claiming to monitor their employees’ log-on/off times, 36% tracking their browser history, and 35% monitoring their emails. The United States’ use is even higher, with 74% of managers admitting they use online tracking tools. The global market for bossware is expected to grow to $1.4 billion in the next 7 years, revealing the normalization of online surveillance in hybrid and remote work environments.

Despite these benefits and the increasing use of this software, there are many moral and ethical concerns. Constant monitoring can create even more pressure for employees and question their trust in managers. Privacy concerns are also raised, as people worry about where their data will go and how it will be used. Mentally, 45% of workers reported that this new software negatively impacted their mental health due to the added anxiety and unease caused by Bossware. However, many employees do understand and tolerate it in moderation - only when it is truly necessary.

In the context of organizational behavior, Bossware raises questions about trust, motivation, and stress. The software can erode trust between employees and their supervisors, fostering a culture that is more control-based than trust-based. The surveillance may also reduce intrinsic motivation, as employees may focus more on being on their computers and how they may be tracked rather than on the work they are actually doing.

The use of this software raises common ethical questions about many solutions to hybrid and remote work. For example, how much surveillance is too much? Does something like Bossware actually increase productivity, or does it just seem to? Do software programs like this provide more benefits than drawbacks?

These questions are being raised across companies as more solutions are implemented to address the challenges of remote and hybrid work. It shows that the rise in hybrid work has the potential to be highly beneficial to company productivity and employee well-being, while also capable of doing the opposite. Overall, the balance between surveillance and trust will be crucial to shaping the future of hybrid and remote work, empowering or restricting the productivity of companies and the welfare of their employees.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/23/bossware_monitor_remote_employees

In a recent Time Charter article titled “New Findings About Getting Hybrid Right”, author Kevin J. Delaney speaks with Stanford University economics professor Nicholas Bloom to discuss the latest findings on how work is best organized, especially as we near the six-year mark since the start of the pandemic.

In their conversation, Bloom points out that remote versus in person productivity depends on the type of work activity; while call centers may perform best at home due to a quieter environment, marketing campaigns or investment banking require more in-person collaboration. He also emphasizes the importance of organized systems within companies, noting that hybrid models are most effective when built on clear structure and communication rather than left entirely to employees. This can include mandatory in-office days or performance management systems such as semi-annual reviews or benchmarked targets. Bloom concludes that without these qualities in their hybrid systems, companies may be better off requiring more in-person work.

This brings into conversation the concepts of effective communication and the power of visibility.

Communication effectiveness depends on the medium used and how much information, emotion, and clarity it can convey. In-person conversations are much richer as they include tone, facial expressions, and other nonverbal cues that strengthen understanding, while online communication tends to be more inefficient for complex discussions and moments that require more empathy. As virtual communication and hybrid work become increasingly popular, leaders must navigate communication channels carefully–especially when giving feedback or resolving conflict–to maintain strong working relationships.

This challenge also connects to the role of visibility in power. In traditional offices, employees often gained influence through proximity to decision-makers. Hybrid structures complicate that dynamic, unevenly rewarding those who attend in person more frequently or are more active in digital communication. This creates an ethical dilemma of visibility granting reward rather than actual contribution, supporting Bloom’s claim regarding the necessity of clearly communicated structure in work environments. By enforcing clear attendance expectations or consistent performance reviews, leaders can ensure equal access to mentorship, recognition, advancement opportunities.

I’ve witnessed how communication and visibility shape group dynamics and productivity. A close friend who recently started her first post-grad job in Atlanta described how her hybrid office often felt isolating. While her team seemed to be made up of outgoing and nice people, she wasn’t able to experience the work environment to its fullest extent as most of the time employees weren’t in the office. When her group of new hires would be asked to come in for meetings or training, they were some of the only people in the seemingly-deserted office, which in turn discouraged productivity and made collaboration awkward. She expressed that she wished more people would choose to come in person or that there was at least some sort of structure within the office so that teamwork felt natural rather than forced. This example reflects Bloom’s description of unstructured flexibility quickly becoming disengagement.

Ultimately, Bloom’s research suggests that “getting hybrid right” isn’t about simply choosing between in-person or remote, it’s about balance and knowing your team. Successful leadership in the modern workplace means creating systems of clear communication, enforced structure, and equal visibility to provide a productive and welcoming environment for all employees, no matter where they work.

The term “zoom fatigue” entered the business vocabulary as a shorthand of the tiredness, stress, and burnout associated with using hybrid work platforms like Zoom and Teams. Many employees report feeling exhausted after the endless cycle of zoom meetings, emails, and constant virtual work; however, even when returning to office virtual meetings continue to persist in the workplace. Therefore, virtual fatigue will continue to be a problem even with full RTO. While there are positives (for example, you can have meetings with people from all over the world), it can also be overused the volume of screen time if this is taken advantage of. MIT Sloan has analyzed the effects of virtual meetings using EEGs to measure the activity in the central nervous system and ECGs to measure the activity in the autonomic nervous system. They found that virtual meetings trigger neurological stress responses in comparison to face-to-face meetings. Participants showed higher levels of brain activity and elevated heart rates, suggesting that digital meetings can be more cognitively and physically demanding than traditional in person meetings.

Hybrid work also can make this fatigue more complicated. While virtual meetings are still used in in-person workplaces, the constant mode switching (shifting between remote and in-person environments) requires employees to continually adapt to their new environments, which can take a toll on them since it takes a lot of brain power and energy. Overall, the cognitive drain, emotional fatigue, and mode switching demands mental effort that can quietly drain energy over time.

As a result, many workers experience a decline in motivation and engagement. When the brain is being overworked and is consumed with managing transitions and recovering from digital fatigue, there is less capacity for the other aspects of people’s lives. This can affect the creativity, problem-solving, or enthusiasm in other daily tasks. This past summer, I experienced this firsthand. I had an internship where I was required to go into the office four days a week and was able to work remotely on Fridays, which was less hybrid than other modern roles. However, no matter if I was in person or not, I mainly if not solely had online meetings since all of my managers and peers worked fully online. This not only made me feel as if I was wasting my time with the commute to the office, it was draining to constantly be on my computer during times when I could be having face-to-face conversations with people if this was before the age of zoom.

This experience helped me realize that while hybrid work offers flexibility and connection across distances, it also challenges how we sustain motivation, balance, and genuine human interaction. The technology that keeps us connected can just as easily wear us down if we don’t use it mindfully.

Moving forward, it is clear that the challenge isn’t whether we should work hybrid or not, it’s how to shape it. While there is immense potential and added possibilities that comes from zoom and hybrid work, it is important to recognize the challenges that come with this and can negatively effect the motivation, creativity, and health of employees.

Sources: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/virtual-meetings-and-your-brain-four-ways-to-refresh/?utm_

https://www.activtrak.com/blog/how-do-companies-monitor-remote-workers/?utm_

In both retail and hybrid work environments, AI surveillance can be seen as a tool for efficiency and accountability, but a lot of the time it serves as a way to control and invade the lives of your employees. This first article discusses how AI-powered surveillance is being marketed to the retail industry as a “no-brainer” upgrade for their companies. However, there are a lot of ethical issues that come with this technological advancement. While these advancements would help with anti-theft and loss-prevention (through camera, sensors, technology to spot theft at self-checkout kiosks, etc.), it would also would have broader ethical issues as it would create constant monitoring which could undermine worker autonomy and privacy. When employees are aware that every movement, interaction, or facial expression might be analyzed by an algorithm, it fundamentally alters how they behave and communicate. Also, surveillance has been tied to reducing dissent and prevent collective bargaining, which could intentionally or not discourage workers to unionize.

While this article focuses on retail environments, this same technology and thought process could raise concerns for hybrid working models, where technology like this could engage with home offices and monitor teams. This second article describes the type of software companies are using to monitor remote and hybrid workers by using tools like time tracking, activity monitoring, app and website usage, etc. While companies like ActivTrak frame these technologies as tools for transparency and performance optimization, they also represent a new age of workplace surveillance. Hybrid work is supposed to foster increased trust and autonomy, however technologies like these directly combat this initiative.

From an ethical perspective, this shift raises difficult questions about consent, privacy, and the boundary between professional and personal life. Hybrid life already starts to blur this line, but this may be pushing it too far. Ultimately, the discussion around AI surveillance in hybrid environments is less about whether such tools can improve productivity, and more about how they are used. It is necessary for companies to be transparent about new policies and the data they are collecting.

As I enter the work force, I know that hybrid work will continue to increase and be relied on. In the past I have been both an in person and online intern, and the experiences were quite different. Going into the in person summer internship I assumed I would feel more of a connection with my peers and mentors, this wasn’t always true as the other employees were typically all online while I was in the office! This experience made me realize that being in person doesn’t always guarantee collaboration or community in a hybrid world. At the same time, I became more aware of how technology shapes these environments, not just with facilitating communication, but also in tracking and managing it. My own experiences have shown me that hybrid work can definitely blur boundaries, but I do think facilitating trust and pushing towards autonomy needs to be focused on when using hybrid work initiatives. This is because the promise of hybrid work lies in flexibility and autonomy, but those values can only thrive if employees feel respected, not monitored.

In a recent Quartz article, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is doubling down on his belief that the work environment should be completely back in office, despite a recent internal petition with 2,000 signatures calling for hybrid work that was sent to his desk. He backs up his belief by arguing that the younger employees aren’t able to learn as much remotely, as they miss out on the in-person mentorship by senior leadership taking them on sales calls or guiding them on how to handle mistakes and difficult situations.

With this return-to-office plan, JPMorgan’s 300,000+ employees have expressed a variety of concerns and frustrations, stating that the new policy is a step backwards that will put a strain on their finances and their work-life balance. Despite the multitude of opposing opinions, Dimon went on to say that anyone who doesn’t want to show up can find a new job. This debate raises an important question about leadership in our post-pandemic working world: is it more about trust and adaptation, or enforcing tradition and control?

Taking an ethical approach to this example, we can look at Jamie Dimon’s leadership through the lens of the Four Drive Theory and Affective Commitment.

According to the Four Drive Theory, employees are motivated by four innate drives: acquire, bond, comprehend, and defend. While Dimon’s return-to-office fulfills the drive to bond in the workplace by aiming to rebuild mentorship and collaboration, it simultaneously strains that same bond by increasing the work-family conflict that was specifically mentioned by employees. Regarding the other three drives, the drive to acquire may decrease as employees feel they’re working harder (commuting, adjusting schedules, paying for childcare) for the same opportunities and rewards in return. The drive to comprehend weakens as flexibility and autonomy in employees’ working environments are taken away, limiting how employees approach and learn from their work. Finally, the drive to defend may be triggered in a negative way when employees feel their well-being and expressed values are being threatened.

From the perspective of Affective Commitment, this policy risks damaging the emotional attachment, identification, and involvement employees have with JPMorgan. Commitment builds when employees feel their well-being is supported, their central values are shared, and their leaders and job security can be trusted. All of these are undermined by Dimon’s elimination of hybrid work and his statement telling employees to find new jobs if they don’t want to come back, as it comes across as dismissive and apathetic–especially given that the announcement came just a week after the petition. As a whole, the policy weakens the sense of shared purpose and community that drive loyalty and engagement of employees, in turn weakening the internal cohesion of the company.

While Dimon’s reasoning for bringing employees back in-person is rooted in a desire to preserve work culture and mentorship, leadership today requires balancing authority and personal desire with empathy for the values and realities of their employees. As the modern workplace continues to be defined more and more by communication and flexibility, ethical leadership needs to adapt from solely enforcing control in order to strengthen both motivation and commitment.

When revealing his reasoning behind this choice, Breslow stated, “It sounds progressive, but it’s totally broken. When time off is undefined, the good ones don’t take PTO. The bad ones take too much.” He further explained that those who took the most time off were “b-performers,” leaving “a-performers” to pick up the slack, and thus not be able to take off as much time as others. This ultimately led to an unjust system within the company that not only gave lower performing employees more benefits, but also hindered higher performers. “This leads to A-performer burnout. B-performer luxuries. And feelings of unfairness across the board.” This new approach places employee ethics as Bolt’s number one priority, fostering an environment of transparency, integrity, and fairness.

While Breslow is confident in this shift, frustration has been sparked amongst employees all over the world regarding this topic. Many workers argue that unlimited PTO is an essential aspect of work-life balance—despite the fact that only 7% of employers utilize this policy. Netflix was one of the first to adopt this policy, which set the precedent for the idea of unlimited PTO and increased expectations among competing companies. As a result, the controversy regarding the concept of unlimited PTO continues to surge, with many insisting that unlimited PTO “could lead to outperforming the S&P 500.”

I personally believe that Breslow’s shift from unlimited to limited PTO is not only the most effective decision, but also the most ethical one. Alloting a specific duration of PTO has a multitude of benefits—not only does it prohibit employees from overseizing this time off, but it also encourages employees to meet a certain quota of time away from work, working to ultimately decrease burnout and eliminate confusion. Many employees work more productively and efficiently when given rigid structure, as opposed to being given free rein. Unlimited PTO opens up the possibility of guilt amongst employees, as many are unclear what the “acceptable” amount of time off is. By capping time off with a number, everyone benefits—ambiguity is completely eliminated, and employees are still able to take a healthy amount of rest away from work. Furthermore, with more employees present in the office at once, the company as a whole is able to maximize operational success. I look forward to monitoring Bolt’s upcoming success, and seeing how this policy shift may influence other players in the industry.

Source: https://fortune.com/2025/07/02/bolt-millennial-founder-ceo-ryan-breslow-killed-unlimited-pto-burnout-mandatory-four-weeks-paid-vacation-fintech-startup/

JP Morgan has just opened up their new 60 story headquarters at 270 park avenue. This comes with both pros, fitness center, nutrition consultations, modern mother’s rooms, large good hall, large outdoor/public plaza, and cons, the shift back to full-time in-office work. This project symbolizes their commitment to revitalizing in-person work and is designed to accommodate over 10,000 of their employees. The Four-Drive Theory, developed by Paul Lawrence and Nitin Nohria, explains that human behavior and motivation is driven by four fundamental emotional/instinctual drives, the drive to acquire, bond, comprehend, and defend, and with this new headquarters these are all satisfied. First, the drive to acquire is satisfied by moving into such a prestigious building, having access to various amenities, and having lots of opportunities for advancement. Next, the drive to bond is met by having many social spaces and shared activities. The drive to comprehend is fulfilled through the increased use in technology and AI resources. Lastly, the drive to defend is satisfied as the employees will feel satisfied, safe, and valued in this new environment. While the new building successfully meets the motivational drives of the four-drive theory, the mandated return to office introduces potential challenges that could counteract these benefits. These employees are required to be back into the office 5 days a week, which can negatively affect their work-life balance, motivation, and overall job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is positively correlated with job performance; therefore, when employees are satisfied they tend to perform better, be less likely to leave, and be more productive. By moving employees into such a fully equipped, social oriented workspace, the firm is trying to boost satisfaction using all four drives. The return-to-office stance suggests that the firm prioritizes collaboration, mentoring, and social workspaces, and if successful this will enhance the organizational culture. However, if the drives are imbalanced then the satisfaction could dip and this could be an issue for some employees as full-time in person can reduce flexibility, increase commute stress and time, increase costs, etc. Ultimately, the success of this new headquarters will depend on whether employees perceive these changes as beneficial or restrictive to their overall well-being and if it outweighs the positives of the building itself.

Overall, JP Morgan’s new 270 Park Avenue headquarters represents more than just a state of the art office and collaboration space, it is a strategic investment in employee motivation and organizational culture. By fulfilling the four drives, JP Morgan is looking to boost the personal lives of their employees while economically benefiting the company. However, will this in office mandate end up negatively affecting the motivation of these employees? Will the negatives outweigh the positives? Only time will tell.

PwC’s policy aligns with many other organizations in today’s work environment; however, it raises concerns about fairness, trust, and the individual rights of employees. They desire to increase performance ratings overall and improve themselves as a company. This can be connected to the Expectancy Theory, which states that effort leads to performance, which leads to overall better outcomes. They believe that working in person will force their employees to work harder and hope that it will not only benefit the employees but also enhance the quality and efficiency of their work for their clients. However, this could have the reverse effect from the employee’s point of view. Workers may think attendance is valued more than results and quality of work, which would weaken expectancy. This, in turn, could harm motivation by placing more emphasis on in-person presence and less on performance. It reveals a possible shift from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation in employees; they may move from feeling individually driven to make meaningful contributions to simply doing tasks to avoid trouble or impress their boss. The overemphasis on external control can lower creativity and engagement, meaning tracking and forcing employees to come in person can negatively affect their motivation.

The new tracking system also raises questions about individual rights and privacy. PwC claims to respect and support flexibility and autonomy; however, the strict tracking of employees’ whereabouts creates a misalignment of values and a sense of distrust towards the company. If employees disagree with this new implementation and feel discouraged, it could negatively impact the company by reducing satisfaction and loyalty.

PwC’s new tracking system emphasizes the battle between employee freedom and organizational control in the evolving hybrid workplace. The company hopes to boost performance and collaboration; however, this brings a risk of undermining employee trust and motivation.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/13/pwc-tracks-uk-office-attendance-with-traffic-light-dashboard?utm_source=chatgpt.com

This in-office mandate seems to be the result of two objectives. Of course, Paramount is a very large company with many initiatives that it needs to tackle to remain successful. But additionally, as a result of their merger with Skydance in August of this year, the company has “pledged more than $2 billion in post-merger cost-cutting.” This is expected to take the form of reducing about 2,500-3,000 heads. A back-in-office initiative already filters out an abundance of employees in and of itself; and Ellison made clear that the company will be “offering a severance opt-in program for VPs and below, based in Los Angeles and New York, who cannot or do not wish to return full-time.”

The article also suggests that Paramount’s decision to shift back to a complete in-office environment is ahead of its industry. Most companies that have made this change have been in technology and finance sectors, whereas Paramount is one of the first in the entertainment and media industry. In fact, “Traditional studios’ office schedules remain hybrid (for now): 4 days a week (Disney) and 3 days a week (NBCUniversal, Warner Bros,” and many are curious whether companies like these will follow in Paramount’s footsteps.

I really admire David Ellison’s delivery of this news—his reasoning for this shift was abundantly clear, and his tone was gentle and supportive. Additionally, by announcing this mandate four months ahead of its effective date, he gave his staff ample time to adjust in order to foster a more seamless transition. I believe that the way that he communicated this will ultimately positively impact person-to-organization value congruence. If bringing everyone back into one shared space is successful for the company, a strong sense of shared purpose will be reinforced among all employees.

I also believe that this mandate will positively impact individual self-fulfilling prophecy cycles. Since this message was focused on the collective success of the company, as opposed to being confrontational or accusatory, I think that this will actually assist employees in becoming more motivated and determined. The CEO’s memo is phase 1 of the cycle, where the supervisor formed new expectations about the employee. Because phase 1 was so supportive, phases 2, 3, and 4 will likely follow suit, ultimately resulting in a positive feedback loop and causing employee behavior to be more consistent with supervisor expectations.

Traditionally, I am a believer in a flexible hybrid working schedule, but this specific instance demonstrates how transparent and understanding leadership can make even a difficult policy modification feel practical. Ellison’s decision was a bold one; as the first in the industry to pursue this initiative, Paramount is taking a risk, especially since bringing every staff member back in-office is an expensive call. It is evident that Ellison weighed these costs with the benefits of the value and creativity that in-person collaboration brings. I find his reasoning to be completely rational—and even beneficial. I look forward to seeing how Paramount progresses this coming year as a result of this policy shift—and I am curious to see how this influences working norms for the rest of the industry.

Source: https://deadline.com/2025/09/paramount-return-to-office-mandate-1236507493/

Interestingly, before they started they asked the managers what they believed the findings would be of this experiment, and they predicted a 2.6% reduction of productivity. The actual results contradicted this expectation, after six months they found a 1% increase in general productivity, and that those working that had a hybrid schedule had a higher satisfaction and 35% lower attrition. Also, quit rates fell by more than a third, primarily due to long commutes, work-life balance, etc.

However, hybrid work and its benefits go past employee satisfaction. By reducing attrition by a third, Trip.com saved millions in recruitment and training costs. It also allows companies to tap into a broader talent pool because location becomes less of a limiting fact when employees can work from anywhere, or do not have to be in the office everyday. This is an example of how hybrid work policies can directly enhance profitability even without affecting productivity.

In contrast, this past January under the new CEO, Andy Jassy, Amazon has made the decision to bring employees back to the office five days a week. As one of the most influential companies world-wide, Amazon’s choice will likely have an affect on broader corporate policies based on the negative and positive impacts Amazon faces.

Jassy stated that he wants Amazon to operate like the “world’s largest startup,” which many believe is a bold idea for such a large company with over one million employees. He believes that “the advantages of being together in the office are significant” and that being in the office with other employees has the ability to promote collaboration, culture, and learning. Additionally, Jassy argues that an in-person work environment can promote decision making and even spark innovation that may not be possible remotely.

Overall, this study shows the benefits of hybrid work when it comes to reducing turnover and increasing profits. By using real-world data instead of assumptions, like the ones of the managers at Trip.com, companies can promote the well-being of their employees, retention, productivity, and profitability.

Sources:

https://hbr.org/2024/10/one-company-a-b-tested-hybrid-work-heres-what-they-found?utm_medium=paidsearch&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=intlcontent_businessmgmt&utm_term=Non-Brand&tpcc=intlcontent_businessmgmt&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20712984860&gbraid=0AAAAAD9b3uRzLAyNHeIjFiDSqoPpolrNV&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIwpWOqdOPkAMVN8l5BB2xcQ08EAAYASAAEgL_RvD_BwE

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/ceo-andy-jassy-latest-update-on-amazon-return-to-office-manager-team-ratio?utm

In July, Business Insider came out with an article speaking on Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, requiring its employees to install Hubstaff, a workforce management system, on their laptops. Hubstaff tracks keystrokes and mouse movements, monitors URL and application visits, and takes random screenshots to verify activity. If an employee did not have a company-issued computer, their personal device was still required to have this system downloaded.

This news sparked immediate backlash from fellow employees and the public for many reasons. At first glance, surveillance software might seem like a logical solution to the challenges of remote work, such as easy access to distractions and the inability to sustain productivity. After all, companies want reassurance that employees are focused during the workday; beneath the surface, though, Musk’s decision with xAI’s employees reveals complex communal, ethical, and practical implications about privacy, trust, and dignity in the workplace.

From an organizational behavior perspective, surveillance changes the relationship between employer and employee. Work runs best when there’s mutual trust and respect; when workers feel trusted, they are more likely to reciprocate with commitment and creativity, leading to higher productivity. Surveillance, however, communicates suspicion and an idea that employees need to be babysat, in a way. This in turn will give employees less of an incentive to create consistent, quality work; over time, this weakens, or even eliminates, morale and the culture of accountability.

Looking at this from an ethical standpoint, the reason for backlash becomes even clearer. Requiring employees to put tracking software onto their personal laptops crosses heavily into the privacy that each human has a right to with their belongings. On top of the extreme intrusion, Hubstaff also turns the employees into sources of data rather than actual human beings of a community; they become an amount of minutes spent on a certain tab, a number of calls made to a client in one day, and so on rather than actual people in a workplace. Even if the logistics behind the software make sense, the ethical consequences (employee stress, frustration, distrust, etc.) cannot be ignored.

There are also practical boundaries to take into account. A personal laptop is not just a work tool—it often contains private files, family photos, medical documents, and other sensitive information. Pushing corporate surveillance into this domain threatens to eliminate the line between professional and personal life, which as we’ve talked about in class the past couple of days, is extremely detrimental. Even if a company pledges not to misuse the data, the act itself of requiring that kind of access chips away at employees’ sense of privacy in the digital workplace.

So what could xAI have done differently? It has been shown through the practices of other organizations that remote productivity can be measured just about as well by looking at the overall outcomes rather than the daily activities. Instead of monitoring keystrokes and screen time, companies assess performance based on projects completed, client outcomes, and contributions to team goals. Another way could be to have required in-person meetings every now and then, not only to sustain the sense of community within the workplace, but also to have a chance to talk to each employee individually about their remote practices and productivity.

Overall, the xAI story is a prime example of still needing to consider ethical implications when combatting the struggles of remote work. Monitoring laptops might force people to follow the rules, but following the rules isn’t the same as engaging or being passionate about your job. Real productivity, even in a remote setting, stems from having trust, the desire to do well for yourself and your teammates (aka having a sense of community), and a shared sense of purpose in the industry. As the remote method of work continues to be a popular choice in the workplace, companies need to ask themselves at what point does the desire for ensured productivity justify the elimination of privacy, trust, and the culture that keeps employees motivated in the first place?