The Future of the Office

The Future of the Office Plot Summary

Introduction

In May 2021, Google made a stunning announcement that shocked the business world. After years of investing billions in lavish office campuses designed to keep employees on-site with gourmet meals and luxury amenities, the tech giant declared that 40% of its workforce could now work remotely. This dramatic reversal signaled a profound inflection point in how we think about white-collar work – one that would ripple through organizations worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic forced an unprecedented experiment in remote work, suddenly sending millions of office workers home for over a year. As we emerge from this period, we face what might be the most significant workplace transformation in a century. Should we return to our offices as before? Should we embrace fully remote work? Or should we forge a new hybrid path? This question affects not just how and where we work, but also commercial real estate markets, city economies, family dynamics, and even our social fabric. The decisions organizations make now will shape not only their futures but potentially redefine what work means in modern society. Whether you're a leader making policy decisions, a manager adapting to new team dynamics, or an employee navigating your options, understanding the true implications of this revolution is essential for making informed choices in this pivotal moment.

Chapter 1: The COVID-19 Experiment: Lessons from a Global Workplace Disruption

When office buildings emptied in March 2020, few imagined that the work-from-home period would extend beyond a few weeks. What began as a temporary emergency measure evolved into a prolonged experiment that lasted well over a year for many white-collar workers. At the peak of the pandemic, approximately 35% of all employees worked completely from home, and among those whose jobs could be done remotely, the figure exceeded 70%. This wasn't a planned transition with careful preparation—it was an overnight shift with little time to develop systems or processes. The results of this massive experiment were surprisingly positive. Numerous surveys, including an extensive study by Adecco of 8,000 office workers, showed that most employees reported improved quality of work and well-being while working remotely. Even more striking, when PwC surveyed employers, 83% considered the remote work experiment a success, compared to 71% of employees. This unexpected outcome challenged long-held assumptions about productivity requiring in-person supervision. Companies that had previously resisted flexible work arrangements discovered that their operations could continue—and sometimes even thrive—with a distributed workforce. However, the pandemic experience came with important caveats. The circumstances were unique in several ways: everyone was remote simultaneously (not just scattered individuals), economic conditions were unprecedented with massive government stimulus, and employees were highly motivated to make things work during a crisis. Productivity may have been maintained because organizations shifted to more "nuts and bolts" work and less innovation. Additionally, Microsoft's research revealed that the workday blurred into evenings and weekends, with employees adding approximately one extra hour of work daily—essentially converting commute time into work time. The positive results also coincided with a shift in management approaches. Many companies had no choice but to trust their employees, relaxing micromanagement and focusing on outcomes rather than monitoring presence. This higher-trust environment likely contributed significantly to remote work success. The norm of reciprocity—where employees felt an obligation to perform well in exchange for being allowed to work safely from home during a crisis—also played an important role that might not persist in normal times. Looking beyond self-reported satisfaction, some objective evidence gives pause. A rigorous study of IT workers found that while performance held steady during work-from-home, hours increased by about 30%, meaning productivity actually decreased. Technical issues remained the number one reported problem, despite advances in video conferencing technology. And perhaps most importantly, the pandemic experience didn't allow us to evaluate how a hybrid model—where some people are in the office while others work remotely—would function, which is the arrangement most organizations are now considering. As we evaluate lessons from this period, we must consider whether the pandemic represented a permanent paradigm shift or what Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon called "an aberration that we're going to correct as soon as possible." The answer likely lies somewhere in between, with organizations needing to distinguish between the unique circumstances of the pandemic and sustainable long-term practices for remote work.

Chapter 2: Looking Back: The Evolution of Remote Work Before 2020

Remote work isn't nearly as new as many believe. Its modern roots trace back to the 1970s Los Angeles smog crisis when the need to reduce pollution led to the term "telecommuting," as telephone was then the only connection to the office. By the 1990s, approximately 10% of employees were doing some form of telecommuting, a figure that rose to 17% by 2010. Even before the pandemic, Pew Research Center data indicated that as many as 20% of regular employees worked from home at least occasionally, though few did so full-time. This history provides valuable context because the extensive research conducted during this earlier telecommuting period offers insights more relevant to today's hybrid models than the pandemic experience. The conclusion of that vast literature was, in summary, "not good." Remote workers consistently reported worse outcomes across many dimensions. The problem wasn't working from home per se—it was working from home when everyone else was in the office, exactly the scenario many organizations are now considering implementing. Studies repeatedly found that telecommuters suffered from professional isolation and had weaker relationships with colleagues. They missed out on informal learning, networking opportunities, and crucial information that flowed through office conversations. Perhaps most critically, remote workers were significantly disadvantaged in career advancement. A UK government survey found that employees working from home were 40% less likely to be promoted than their in-office counterparts, even when performing equally well. The effect became more pronounced the more frequently someone worked remotely. The research also revealed that remote work created additional burdens. Remote employees engaged in more impression management to compensate for reduced visibility, working longer hours and taking on unwanted projects to prove their commitment. Face time mattered tremendously, with managers attributing more positive personality traits to employees who spent more time in the office, regardless of actual performance. Teams with some remote members experienced more conflicts and communication breakdowns, particularly around interpreting silence, which could mean anything from agreement to strong disagreement. Interestingly, remote work didn't necessarily improve work-life balance as much as expected. A 2012 study concluded that telecommuting extended working hours, pushed up work demands, and did not meaningfully reduce work-life conflicts. The promised flexibility often came with a hidden cost: the boundary between work and home life blurred, with work increasingly encroaching on personal time. This finding contradicts the common assumption that remote work automatically enhances work-life integration. Not all pre-pandemic research was negative, however. A field experiment in a Chinese call center found that productivity increased 13% for remote workers, primarily through working longer hours. When employees were later allowed to choose whether to stay home or return to the office (roughly half chose each option), productivity increased even further. Another study at the U.S. Patent Office found performance improvements when employees moved from a telecommuting program to a "work from anywhere" model, with evidence suggesting the gains came from psychological factors like reciprocity—employees worked harder in exchange for receiving greater flexibility. These earlier studies highlight crucial factors for successful remote work: jobs with independent tasks fare better than highly collaborative roles; experienced supervisors with strong organizational connections are essential for remote team success; and the degree of autonomy and schedule flexibility significantly affects work-life balance. Understanding this pre-pandemic evidence provides a more realistic foundation for evaluating today's hybrid work options than the unique all-remote experience of COVID-19.

Chapter 3: The Two Paths Forward: Contrasting Models of Hybrid Work

As organizations plan their post-pandemic work arrangements, two distinct hybrid models are emerging. The first—which we might call the "Two-Tier Hybrid Model"—establishes a permanent division between remote and in-office employees. Some workers remain permanently remote while others return fully to the office. The second approach—the "Choose-Your-Own Hybrid Model"—gives employees flexibility to work remotely on certain days while spending other days in the office, with everyone participating in both environments. The Two-Tier approach offers clearer benefits for employers. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg articulated one advantage explicitly: "Access to a wider talent pool. So right now, we're constraining ourselves to a small number of cities... there's an advantage to opening up more widely." This model allows companies to hire from anywhere, potentially expanding beyond national borders for certain roles. It also enables significant real estate savings by permanently reducing office footprints. Companies like REI sold their headquarters before even moving in, while others like Ralph Lauren and CVS announced plans to cut office space by 30%. However, this model creates substantial concerns. Research strongly suggests that permanently remote workers will become "second-class citizens" with fewer advancement opportunities and greater risk during layoffs. The approach makes significantly higher demands on supervisors, who must anticipate problems remote employees cannot see and run interference for them in securing resources. Performance management becomes more complicated, shifting toward explicit up-front agreements on expectations and deliverables rather than adjustments through daily interaction. Perhaps most concerning, this arrangement begins to resemble independent contracting more than traditional employment—a slippery slope that could eventually lead to converting these positions to actual contractor roles. The Choose-Your-Own model, while more popular with employees, presents complex administrative challenges. Basic questions become difficult: Does everyone get the same work-from-home options? What if performance suffers? How do we handle scheduling when everyone wants to work remotely on Fridays before holidays? Will remote work days need to be coordinated so teams can collaborate effectively, or will employees have full autonomy in choosing their schedules? These coordination issues multiply as more employees participate in flexible arrangements. Both models raise equity concerns. When local managers determine who can work remotely, bias often influences decisions. Yet performance-based criteria create their own problems, implying that remote work is a reward rather than a functional arrangement. Similarly, the trend of adjusting pay based on where remote employees live raises troubling questions. Companies like Facebook and Twitter announced plans to reduce salaries for employees who moved to less expensive regions, while Stripe offered a $20,000 relocation bonus coupled with a 10% pay cut. Critics point out that this approach makes little sense—high-skilled workers are paid based on their market value and contributions, not their local cost of living. International trends suggest another dimension to this transition. A survey by Adecco found both employees and executives agreeing that work should move away from being based on hours at a desk toward what the business actually needs. However, these groups likely have very different interpretations of what that means. For employees, it suggests greater flexibility and autonomy; for employers, it might mean expectation of availability regardless of time or location. As organizations navigate these models, they face complicated tradeoffs between real estate savings, employee preferences, equity concerns, and long-term implications for organizational culture. Citigroup's approach represents one thoughtful response—CEO Jane Fraser announced employees would be in the office three days weekly, with a cultural shift that assumes there needs to be a good reason when everyone is required in the office simultaneously. Other companies like PwC, KPMG, and BP have implemented similar policies with varying specifications about which days can be remote. The diversity of approaches reflects the fundamental tension underlying all hybrid models: whether the primary goal is to benefit individual employees or to benefit the organization.

Chapter 4: Corporate Real Estate: How Office Space Shapes Work Culture

The physical office has been so intrinsic to white-collar work that we rarely questioned its necessity until the pandemic forced us to work without it. Yet the history of office design reveals an ongoing tension between cost considerations and cultural impacts that directly informs today's remote work debate. This evolution helps explain why companies are making such different choices about their future workplace strategies. In the 1980s and 1990s, under pressure to improve shareholder value, companies began recognizing how much capital they had tied up in unproductive office space. The size of a typical office fell by about one-third from the 1970s through the early 2010s, while cubicles shrank by 25%-50%. IBM claimed to have cut real estate costs by 75% in one division by having consultants telecommute. This cost-cutting drive led to innovations like "hoteling"—where employees who were frequently out of the office would reserve temporary workspaces when needed rather than maintaining permanent offices. The advertising agency Chiat took this concept to its extreme in the early 1990s. CEO Jay Chiat removed all private offices and desks, gave employees laptops and cell phones, and told them they could work from anywhere. The redesigned office featured only shared spaces, couches, conference rooms, and even amusement park ride cars repurposed for brainstorming sessions. While design critics praised the innovation, employees struggled. People competed for desirable spots, hoarded supplies, and stored files in their cars because they had no personal space. When the agency was sold, the new owners quickly reinstated traditional offices—a cautionary tale for today's radical workplace redesigns. Open office plans eventually became the dominant cost-cutting approach, with companies justifying them as enhancing collaboration. However, research showed that employees actually interact less in these environments, creating personal barriers through headphones and avoidance behaviors to compensate for the lack of privacy and quiet. The pandemic has made these densely packed spaces particularly problematic under social distancing requirements, forcing companies to rethink these designs. Today's decisions about office space reflect deeper questions about organizational purpose and function. Google's pre-pandemic approach—lavish campuses with amenities designed to keep employees on-site—represented a philosophy that physical proximity fueled innovation through spontaneous interactions. Companies that maintain significant office investments, like Amazon's continued expansion despite remote work trends, are signaling their belief in this collaborative advantage. Meanwhile, those drastically reducing their footprints, like Twitter and Dropbox, are betting that other factors matter more for their success. These choices about physical space directly impact organizational culture. Offices have traditionally provided powerful mechanisms for cultural transmission—new employees learn by observing more experienced colleagues, teams develop shared norms through daily interactions, and the physical environment itself communicates values through its design. A recent poll by the British Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors identified hybrid models as a significant business risk precisely because of their potential to weaken organizational culture and make fraud harder to detect. For new employees especially, reduced office time compromises the onboarding process. Learning organizational culture remotely is challenging when the subtle cues, informal conversations, and relationship-building that typically shape acculturation are limited. Companies must decide whether to invest more heavily in formal culture-building processes or accept a weaker shared identity as the price of flexibility. The same applies to mentoring and career development, which have traditionally relied on in-person interactions that are difficult to replicate virtually. The significance of these real estate decisions extends far beyond balance sheets. Shifts in office usage will transform downtowns, impact surrounding businesses, and potentially reshape housing patterns. While the pandemic saw people moving from city centers to suburbs rather than to distant locations, permanent remote work could have more dramatic effects. Contrary to expectations, "edge cities" and corporate suburbs might suffer more than urban centers if workers can truly live anywhere, as many people would prefer vibrant cities or natural landscapes if untethered from commuting requirements. For organizations making these pivotal decisions, the key question isn't simply which arrangement is cheaper or more popular—it's which physical environment best supports their core purpose and values. The physical spaces we create or eliminate will ultimately shape not just where work happens, but how it happens and what it produces.

Chapter 5: Work-Life Integration: The Hidden Costs and Benefits

The promise of improved work-life balance has been among the most compelling arguments for remote work, particularly for employees juggling career ambitions with family responsibilities. The elimination of commuting alone—which averages 54 minutes daily for American workers—seems to offer a straightforward benefit. But the reality of how remote work affects life integration proves considerably more complex, with hidden costs that offset apparent advantages. Pre-pandemic research on telecommuting yielded surprising findings about work-life dynamics. Rather than clearly improving balance, remote work often extended working hours and failed to meaningfully reduce work-life conflicts. A 2012 study found that the time saved from not commuting was largely absorbed by additional work rather than personal activities. Many telecommuters reported working an average of six hours weekly from home in addition to their regular office hours—remote work supplemented rather than replaced office time. The pandemic experience reinforced this pattern. Microsoft's research team discovered that remote employees worked approximately one additional hour daily compared to pre-pandemic norms. Work increasingly blurred into evenings and weekends, with a noticeable surge of activity after dinner hours as parents returned to computers once children were settled. The traditional boundaries that once separated work and personal life—like the physical transition of commuting—disappeared, making it harder for employees to disconnect. For employees with children, the benefits of remote work varied dramatically depending on childcare availability. During school closures, parents faced the impossible task of simultaneously working and supervising children's education. Even with schools open, the flexibility to be physically present at home doesn't necessarily translate to actual availability for family needs if work demands remain constant or increase. This reality explains why survey data shows mixed results—remote work helped some families while creating new stresses for others. The question of where people would live if untethered from office requirements reveals another dimension of the work-life equation. Despite assumptions that employees would flee expensive urban areas for cheaper locations, evidence suggests more nuanced patterns. While some families value larger homes in suburban or rural settings, many employees—particularly younger workers without children—prefer urban environments with social and cultural opportunities. The notion that remote workers would automatically prioritize housing costs over other quality-of-life factors oversimplifies complex personal preferences. Transportation research adds another counterintuitive finding: innovations that reduce commuting time historically led to people living farther from work rather than reclaiming that time for other activities. If employees only need to be in the office two days weekly, they might tolerate longer commutes on those days, potentially negating some environmental benefits of reduced office attendance. Similarly, studies show telecommuters take more trips during the day than office workers—they drive less in total but remain more mobile than anticipated. For employers, the work-life discussion connects directly to compensation strategies. Some companies have attempted to adjust pay based on employees' locations, arguing that salaries should reflect local costs of living. Facebook, Twitter, and others announced policies reducing pay for workers who relocated to less expensive regions. However, this approach contradicts market reality—skilled knowledge workers are paid based on their value and contributions, not their zip codes. Such policies risk appearing exploitative rather than fair, especially when executives who work remotely face no similar adjustments. The pandemic has accelerated important questions about how we define work itself. Both employers and employees increasingly express interest in moving away from measuring work by hours at a desk toward focusing on outcomes and deliverables. However, these groups likely have different visions of what this means. Without careful implementation, outcome-based approaches could intensify rather than reduce work pressures, particularly in competitive industries where expectations continuously escalate. The most successful approaches to work-life integration through remote work share a common element: giving employees greater control over when and how they work. Studies consistently show that autonomy and flexibility significantly reduce stress and improve well-being. Organizations that focus on clear expectations and trust rather than monitoring and control are more likely to see positive outcomes in both performance and employee satisfaction. This suggests that the specific remote work policy matters less than the degree of agency it provides to employees navigating their professional and personal responsibilities.

Chapter 6: Building Trust at a Distance: Leadership in the Virtual Age

Leading remote or hybrid teams demands a fundamental rethinking of management approaches. The shift from visibility-based supervision to outcome-focused leadership represents perhaps the most significant challenge—and opportunity—in the remote work revolution. Throughout the pandemic, organizations that thrived generally embraced higher-trust environments where employees enjoyed greater autonomy, while those attempting to maintain tight control through digital surveillance often struggled with morale and engagement. Trust has always been the cornerstone of effective leadership, but remote work makes it simultaneously more crucial and more difficult to establish. In traditional office settings, trust develops naturally through daily interactions, shared experiences, and the ability to observe colleagues' work habits. Virtual environments remove these natural trust-building mechanisms, requiring more intentional approaches. Leaders must now demonstrate trust first—by allowing flexibility and focusing on results rather than activity—before expecting to receive trust in return. One of the most successful pandemic-era leadership innovations was increased check-in frequency. Microsoft's research showed that managers who scheduled regular, brief conversations with team members created stronger connections than the incidental interactions that previously characterized office relationships. These check-ins worked best when focused not just on task progress but also on well-being and potential obstacles, signaling genuine concern rather than surveillance. Paradoxically, some employees reported improved relationships with supervisors during remote work precisely because these interactions became more intentional rather than happenstance. Communication patterns also require recalibration in virtual environments. Studies of distributed teams consistently show that remote workers misinterpret silence, struggle with context, and miss subtle cues that office workers take for granted. Effective leaders addressed these challenges by establishing explicit communication norms—for instance, GitLab developed comprehensive guidelines specifying which platforms to use for different types of communication, how to structure meetings to allow informal conversation time, and how to ensure remote participants could fully engage in discussions. For organizations managing hybrid models where some employees work remotely while others return to the office, preventing a two-tier system presents a particular leadership challenge. Research shows office workers often develop an in-group/out-group mentality, treating those physically present better than remote colleagues. Leaders must actively counter this tendency by ensuring remote employees have equal access to information, opportunities, and recognition. Some companies have adopted "remote-first" meeting protocols where everyone joins virtually even when some participants are in the same physical location, creating procedural equality. Onboarding and culture transmission demand special attention in remote and hybrid environments. New employees cannot absorb organizational norms through observation as they traditionally would. Leaders must create structured alternatives, such as explicit documentation of values and expectations, designated mentorship programs, and virtual socialization opportunities. Companies like Fidelity Investments developed virtual reality-based onboarding during the pandemic to compensate for the lack of physical presence, while others instituted virtual coffee breaks or social hours to build relationships. The pandemic highlighted a stark contrast in leadership approaches to remote work monitoring. Some organizations invested in surveillance software that tracked keystrokes, took random screenshots, or monitored activity levels—what some employees termed "digital presenteeism." These low-trust tactics typically generated resentment and damaged engagement. By contrast, high-trust approaches focused on clearly defined deliverables, regular feedback, and employee autonomy consistently showed better results. This distinction offers a crucial lesson: the technology that enables remote work can either enhance trust through connection or undermine it through control, depending on how leaders deploy it. Perhaps most importantly, leaders must recognize that building trust at a distance requires acknowledging and accommodating the whole person, not just the professional role. The pandemic erased the artificial separation between work and personal life as colleagues saw into each other's homes, met family members, and witnessed the complex realities of balancing multiple responsibilities. Effective leaders embraced this integration rather than pretending it didn't exist, allowing for flexibility while maintaining clear expectations about outcomes. As organizations navigate permanent remote or hybrid arrangements, the leadership qualities that matter most have shifted from presence and charisma toward clarity, consistency, and communication. The most successful leaders in this new landscape will be those who can articulate compelling direction while trusting their teams to determine how best to achieve it, regardless of where they physically work.

Chapter 7: From Control to Outcomes: Reimagining Performance Management

The transition to remote work has exposed fundamental flaws in traditional performance management systems. For decades, organizations relied heavily on "face time" as a proxy for productivity—employees who arrived early, stayed late, and looked busy at their desks were presumed to be high performers. When the pandemic eliminated this visibility, companies were forced to articulate what actually constituted good performance, creating an unprecedented opportunity to develop more meaningful assessment approaches. Traditional performance appraisal systems were already struggling before 2020. Supervisors with expanding spans of control had less time to observe and evaluate subordinates meaningfully. Annual reviews often reflected recency bias, personal impressions, and surface-level observations rather than substantive contributions. Remote work made these weaknesses impossible to ignore, as managers could no longer rely on physical presence as a performance indicator. During the pandemic, organizations that adapted successfully typically shifted toward three core principles: clearer expectations, regular feedback, and outcome-based evaluation. Instead of assuming employees understood priorities, managers became more explicit about deliverables and success criteria. Rather than waiting for annual reviews, they instituted regular check-ins to discuss progress and obstacles. Most importantly, they focused on what employees accomplished rather than how or when they worked. This approach aligns with research showing that employees perform better when they understand exactly what's expected, receive timely feedback, and have autonomy in how they achieve objectives. A call center study found that remote workers who received explicit metrics and regular coaching outperformed both their in-office counterparts and remote workers with less structured guidance. Similarly, the U.S. Patent Office saw productivity improvements when it moved from monitoring activity to measuring output for remote examiners. Implementing outcome-based performance management in hybrid environments presents distinct challenges. When some employees work remotely while others remain in the office, managers must guard against proximity bias—the tendency to rate physically present workers more favorably despite similar performance. Some organizations have addressed this by standardizing evaluation criteria, requiring documentation of specific achievements, and training managers to recognize and counter their biases. Technology plays a complex role in this transformation. The pandemic accelerated adoption of digital collaboration tools that can provide objective data about work patterns, contributions, and results. Used thoughtfully, these platforms can support fairer evaluations by making individual contributions more visible regardless of location. However, the same tools can easily become surveillance mechanisms if deployed primarily to monitor activity rather than facilitate work. The difference lies in whether technology serves employees by helping them demonstrate achievements or serves managers by helping them enforce compliance. Career development represents another performance management dimension requiring reimagination. Traditional advancement often depended on informal sponsorship, visibility to senior leaders, and gradual assumption of leadership responsibilities—all challenging to replicate in remote settings. Organizations committed to equitable opportunities for remote workers need explicit development paths, deliberate exposure to key projects, and virtual mentoring programs to replace the spontaneous learning that occurs in offices. The most forward-thinking organizations are leveraging this moment to question fundamental assumptions about performance itself. Rather than simply adapting old systems to remote conditions, they're asking deeper questions: Do we measure individual or collective performance? Should evaluation focus on short-term results or long-term capability building? How do we assess collaboration, innovation, and other contributions that defy simple metrics? The answers vary by organization and role, but the willingness to reconsider basic premises represents a significant opportunity. For employees, this shift toward outcome-based management offers both benefits and responsibilities. Greater autonomy provides flexibility to work in personally optimal ways, but it also requires self-management skills that weren't as necessary in highly structured environments. Remote workers must learn to communicate achievements effectively, manage their visibility intentionally, and demonstrate impact without physical presence. Those who master these skills often find they perform better under outcome-based systems than they did under traditional supervision. As organizations plan their return-to-office strategies, they face a crucial choice about performance management. They can view the pandemic as a temporary disruption and revert to familiar practices, or they can build on what they've learned to create more effective approaches. The most successful will likely embrace hybrid systems that combine the accountability of clear expectations with the engagement that comes from trusting employees to determine how best to meet those expectations.

Summary

The dramatic shift to remote work during the pandemic has revealed a fundamental tension that will shape the future of white-collar work. On one side stands the traditional office model—expensive but powerful in building culture, fostering collaboration, enabling social connection, and creating shared identity. On the other stands the remote model—cost-efficient, flexible, and empowering for employees, but challenging for engagement, innovation, and career development. Neither represents a perfect solution, and the hybrid approaches most organizations are adopting attempt to capture benefits from both while minimizing their respective drawbacks. This revolution offers a rare opportunity to reimagine not just where work happens, but how it happens. Organizations that seize this moment can transform management practices that have remained largely unchanged for decades. The shift from monitoring presence to evaluating outcomes, from rigid schedules to flexible arrangements, and from hierarchical control to distributed responsibility represents potentially profound improvements. However, this transformation requires deliberate effort and thoughtful implementation. Companies that simply eliminate offices without investing in new ways to build culture, develop talent, and foster collaboration will likely create two-tier workforces with diminished engagement. Similarly, those that force a full return to pre-pandemic practices without incorporating lessons about flexibility and trust risk losing talent to more adaptive competitors. The most successful organizations will be those that align their workplace strategy with their core purpose and values, recognizing that the true measure of any work arrangement is not its popularity or cost-effectiveness, but its ability to enable people to do their best work while living fulfilling lives.

About Author

Loading...

Peter Cappelli

George W. Taylor Professor of Management Director of the Center for Human Resources

Read more