Last month, Amazon’s head, Andy Jassy, stirred things up when he insisted that staff should return to working in the office for the full five-working-day week. This announcement echoes similar stipulations made by Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, leading to speculation whether other companies might do the same. It is evident that some are indeed following this trend.
However, Jassy’s demand contradicts numerous studies indicating that a hybrid working model can be beneficial for businesses. One such study was conducted by Nick Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University. His findings suggest that employees working remotely for two days a week are equally productive and less inclined to resign.
The discussion around hybrid work has resulted in disagreements between managers and research findings. Some interpret Amazon’s stance as a covert strategy to reduce their workforce without formal redundancies. A representative from Amazon, however, claimed that this policy is intended to bolster their work culture and strengthen their teams’ connection. She also highlighted that the company does not intend to decrease the number of employees through this decision.
It is curious why numerous self-professed data-driven companies are making decisions that contradict scientific findings. Laszlo Bock, a former senior vice-president for people operations at Google, stated that the research about flexible working isn’t universally conclusive. However, psychologist Adam Grant from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School disagrees, citing a comprehensive review of 108 studies.
Almost half a decade since the outbreak of the pandemic, numerous CEOs are eager to conclude an unplanned experiment. Mr Jassy articulated in a memo about ceasing remote work at Amazon, “Reflecting upon the past five years, we remain convinced that the benefits of congregating in an office context are noteworthy.”
However, Grant suggested that executives might not systematically determine if a certain impact was a result of remote work, the pandemic or another factor, the way a scholarly investigator would. Moreover, they might be reluctant to discover if hybrid working is superior.
Bock suggested, “When leadership is conducted remotely, it becomes significantly less gratifying and less enjoyable.”
These executives, many of whom have recalled their workforce to office premises, perceive their company as an exceptional case, often citing the distinctiveness of their trade or enterprise necessitating physical presence. Jassy confirmed this, writing in his memo, “Our corporate culture is distinctive.”
An inclination to disregard external information is widespread. “Upon replicating research in different sectors, across different corporations, the trends appear rather alike,” Grant stated, “Talking to CEOs reveals that they all face the same hardships and trials, irrespective of their industry.”
Implementing hybrid work might indeed be the ideal path, however, it poses management complexities. Given that time equates to money, CEOs could be disinclined to expend their time deliberating office re-entry decisions or figuring out how to administer a hybrid setting.
However, Grant suggests this might be an oversight. “Decisiveness holds high value in the corporate world, however, when facing a crucial, irrevocable choice, it is advised to be as deliberative as possible.” This piece was initially posted in The New York Times. The New York Times Company owns the copyrights for 2024.