“Even Zoom Is Making People Return to the Office”
“End of an Era: Zoom Tells Employees to Return to Office for Work”
“The Remote-Work Revolution Is Officially Dead”
It is easy to understand why Zoom Video Communications Inc’s decision to ask employees to spend more time collaborating in person would make headlines. At first, it sounds a bit like “McDonald’s Asks Employees to Go Vegan.”
However, the drama is overblown. “End of an era” and “Officially dead?”
From reactions like that, you would never know that the videoconferencing company has asked workers to come in just two days a week. What Zoom’s decision really shows is that hybrid work — not fully remote work and not five-days-a-week in-person work — is the new normal.
Zoom’s two-days-a-week threshold is backed by some data. A field experiment led by Harvard Business School professor Raj Choudhury said that one to two days a week in the office is “plausibly the sweet spot, where workers enjoy flexibility and yet are not as isolated compared to peers who are predominantly working from home.”
In the study, workers who were randomly assigned to come in one to two days a week also seemed to show an increase in both the quality and quantity of their output, as measured by their e-mails and by their bosses’ ratings.
While surveys do consistently show that bosses would prefer that their staff show up a little more than that, most companies seem to have settled on a norm of two to three days a week. Office attendance patterns have not changed much over the past 12 months. Cellphone data, office badge swipes and building capacity all show that urban offices remain far emptier than before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Some firms dictate the days teams have to come in, but more simply let employees make their own schedules. Managers generally seem to be getting used to the new rhythm. In a survey conducted last month and commissioned by the Los Angeles Times, 27 percent of respondents said that their companies had become more lenient about remote work policies over the last year, and just 15 percent said that their employer had gotten stricter.
While headlines like “Zoom Employees Also Tired of Zoom Meetings” practically write themselves, the reality is that even when workers are in the office, a lot of video calls still take place. There never seem to be enough meeting rooms to go around, for one thing, and for another, even small companies today tend to have workers scattered across a few locations. Businesses where all the employees come into the office every day hire contractors or vendors located in other regions. The market for videoconferencing is expected to keep growing.
Zoom’s dilemma is that its own growth has stalled. It has had to spend money just to retain its market share. Videoconferencing software has quickly become a commodity, with one offering much like another. Zoom’s rivals, from Microsoft Teams to Google Meet and Cisco’s Webex, all have other streams of revenue and other ways of nudging people to use their videoconferencing software.
Even if I have grown attached to some of Zoom’s features — the “touch up my appearance” option is way easier than either makeup or self-acceptance — the unfortunate reality for Zoom is that most people are probably happy to use whichever videoconferencing app they happen to have installed. That has led to about 15 percent of Zoom’s staff layoffs earlier this year and pay cuts for its executives.
Perhaps Zoom employees would resist the two-days-a-week mandate. Wall Street Journal estimates that about 75 percent of its employees have been working fully remotely. It would be understandable if those employees felt betrayed by the change in policy, which applies to staff who live within 80km of the office. As evidenced by the slew of headlines that greeted the new policy, a recovery time objective mandate does create, if not a branding problem, then a little bit of cognitive dissonance around the company whose name has become a verb for remote work.
Nevertheless, Zoom is a company under pressure. Beating investor expectations is a tough game, especially when those expectations have gotten sky-high, as they did during the firm’s COVID-19 pandemic heyday. For its next trick, Zoom would have to figure out how to survive its own success. Getting together in person — just two days a week — seems like a pretty good way to do that.
Sarah Green Carmichael is a Bloomberg Opinion editor. Previously, she was managing editor of ideas and commentary at Barron’s and an executive editor at Harvard Business Review, where she hosted HBR IdeaCast.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS