Economic Signals and the Tech Exodus

The impact of Google’s departure extends beyond the confines of its now-former office complex to the broader economic landscape of San Francisco. The city has been a beacon for tech innovation and entrepreneurship for years, drawing in a wealth of talent and investment. However, Google’s scaling back is symptomatic of a larger trend in which tech companies are reevaluating their physical footprints in response to persistent challenges, including high operational costs, safety concerns, and a complicated regulatory environment.

The Broader Context of Change

This shift comes at a time when San Francisco, like many global cities, faces a post-pandemic reckoning with the viability and functionality of traditional office spaces. The rise of remote work has fundamentally altered the demand for premium office real estate, prompting companies to reconsider the necessity and scale of their physical offices. For a city that has heavily relied on the tech sector for economic growth and stability, the implications of such moves are profound, raising concerns about future office vacancies and the potential decline in commercial property values.

As Google retracts its office space to presumably more strategically advantageous locations, the narrative of San Francisco’s role as a tech stronghold is being rewritten. This recalibration offers a critical lens through which to view the changing dynamics of work, the shifting strategies of tech behemoths, and the economic resilience of cities that have long depended on the prosperity of the tech industry.

The Downside of Progressive Policies

San Francisco has long been celebrated for its progressive stance on social and political issues. However, the city’s approach to homelessness, public safety, and drug enforcement has recently been scrutinized, coinciding with an exodus of retailers and high-profile companies like Google. Critics argue that these policies have inadvertently exacerbated the very issues they aim to mitigate, contributing to increased lawlessness, rampant drug use in public spaces, and a homelessness crisis that remains uncontrolled.

Unintended Consequences on the Urban Landscape

The city’s liberal policies intended to provide compassionate solutions to homelessness and addiction have faced challenges in implementation. For instance, measures aimed at reducing the criminalization of homelessness and drug possession have led to unintended consequences. Critics suggest that these policies have allowed open drug use to flourish, with needle litter and drug-related activities becoming more visible on city streets. This environment has not only deterred tourists but has also made it uncomfortable for residents to navigate their neighborhoods.

Impact on Local Businesses and Economic Health

The visible decline in public order has directly impacted the local economy, particularly the retail sector. Hundreds of retailers have shuttered their doors, citing economic downturns and increased shoplifting and safety concerns for employees and customers. The situation is exacerbated by the high operational costs in San Francisco, which make the business environment increasingly untenable when paired with these growing safety and cleanliness issues.

Corporate Exodus and Economic Reevaluation

Google’s decision to downsize its San Francisco operations can be seen as part of a broader corporate exodus seeking more business-friendly environments. This trend is not isolated to Google alone; other tech giants and smaller enterprises alike are reevaluating the feasibility of maintaining large workforces in an area where employees may not feel safe or supported. This shift signals a critical need for policy adjustments to address the root causes of urban decline and create a regulatory environment to retain and attract business investment.

Looking Forward: Balancing Compassion with Practicality

For San Francisco to reclaim its status as a thriving hub for innovation and commerce, city leaders may need to find a balance between progressive ideals and practical urban management. This includes rethinking how to address homelessness with solutions that also consider the impact on local businesses and the broader community. Engaging with business leaders, community representatives, and social service experts could foster policies that support both the city’s economic ambitions and its social welfare objectives, ultimately ensuring that San Francisco remains a desirable place to live, work, and conduct business.

A Landmark Decision Amid Economic Uncertainties

Google’s decision to vacate a major office space in San Francisco comes at a precarious time for the city’s economy, which is still grappling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The departure from such a prominent location heightens concerns about increasing office vacancies and signals potential shifts in the city’s economic makeup. Local businesses that thrived on the daily influx of tech workers may face downturns, which could ripple out through the service sector, exacerbating the economic uncertainties that have shadowed the pandemic’s wake.

Real Estate Dynamics

The move also stirs the dynamics of the real estate market in San Francisco. One Market Plaza, known for its high-status office spaces and breathtaking bay views, has long been a jewel in the city’s commercial crown. Google’s exit frees up a substantial volume of prime real estate, which could either present new opportunities for other burgeoning tech companies or escalate the vacancy rates that alarm city economists. The real challenge lies in attracting new tenants who are navigating the same uncertain waters, making it a critical moment for real estate developers and city planners alike.

Strategic Shifts in Tech

Google’s contraction of physical office space reflects a broader strategic shift within the tech industry. Companies are increasingly questioning the value of expansive physical footprints when much of their workforce has adapted to—and sometimes prefers—remote work. This trend, accelerated by the pandemic, suggests a transformation in how tech companies view their office spaces, focusing on flexibility and employee preference over the traditional prestige that comes with sprawling urban campuses.

Policy Implications and Responses

The implications of Google’s decision are not lost on city policymakers, who are now under pressure to respond effectively. The potential overhaul of business tax structures proposed to entice companies to retain their office spaces in San Francisco is a testament to the city’s proactive stance. However, balancing the needs of large corporations and small businesses, particularly in a city known for its complex regulatory environment, remains a formidable challenge. This scenario may serve as a bellwether for other cities with similar economic profiles, prompting a reevaluation of urban economic strategies in the face of evolving corporate behaviors.

The Impact on San Francisco’s Real Estate and Economy

The departure of Google from One Market Plaza exacerbates an already growing concern over office space vacancies in San Francisco. As companies reassess their spatial needs post-pandemic, the city faces an increasing amount of empty commercial real estate. This trend could potentially depress property values in what was once one of the hottest real estate markets in the country. Furthermore, reduced occupancy rates may lead to decreased property tax revenues, which are vital for funding municipal services.

Broader Economic Ripple Effects

Beyond real estate, Google’s downsizing will likely impact the broader economy of San Francisco. Local businesses, from cafes and restaurants to retail shops that once relied on the daily patronage of office workers, might see a decline in customers. This could lead to a wave of business closures or scale-backs, further straining the city’s economic health. The overall decrease in corporate presence within the city limits also means fewer opportunities for local employment, which could exacerbate socioeconomic disparities.

A Call for New Strategies

This shift invites urban planners and city officials to rethink their strategies for economic vitality. San Francisco may need to diversify its economic base beyond the tech sector, which has dominated its landscape for decades. There is a growing need for policies that encourage the development of other industries, potentially making the city’s economy more resilient to the fluctuations of the tech industry. Additionally, these strategies could help stabilize the real estate market by attracting a broader range of commercial tenants.

Potential for Innovation and Regrowth

Despite the challenges, this period of change also offers an opportunity for innovation within the real estate sector. Developers and city planners might explore new uses for vacant office spaces, such as converting them into residential units or mixed-use developments. Such transformations could address the city’s housing shortage and inject new life into downtown areas. Reimagining these spaces could lead to a more vibrant, diverse urban core that attracts a wider variety of residents and businesses, fostering a more stable economic environment.

In conclusion, Google’s reduced office space usage in San Francisco is a critical juncture for the city, urging a reevaluation of economic and real estate strategies to ensure long-term prosperity and resilience.

Strategic Consolidation or Economic Retreat?

Google’s decision to downsize its San Francisco footprint may initially appear as a retreat, but it aligns with broader strategic adjustments seen across the tech industry. Companies are increasingly adopting more flexible work models that reduce dependence on large, central offices. This shift is not merely about cutting costs but is a strategic realignment towards greater agility and employee satisfaction. By consolidating spaces, Google may be aiming to optimize its operations and foster a more dynamic work environment that can quickly adapt to changing business needs and employee preferences.

The Influence of Remote Work Trends

Since the pandemic, the normalization of remote work has prompted many firms to reconsider their physical office requirements. For a tech giant like Google, which has the infrastructure to support remote work seamlessly, reducing physical office space in high-cost areas like San Francisco could be a calculated move to fully leverage remote work’s benefits. This trend could indicate a strategic consolidation rather than a withdrawal, positioning Google to maintain its operational efficiency while potentially reducing overhead costs.

Implications for Commercial Real Estate

Google’s scale-back could signal a turning point for commercial real estate in San Francisco. The city, known for its sky-high rents and limited space, might have to adjust to a new reality where big tech companies no longer anchor the commercial market as they once did. This could lead to a significant shift in how commercial real estate is managed and marketed, pushing landlords and developers to innovate and diversify their offerings to attract different tenants.

A Test Case for Economic Diversification

Moreover, Google’s decision could be a test case for other cities with similar economic profiles. It raises important questions about the sustainability of heavily tech-reliant city economies and the need for diversification. For San Francisco, this could be an opportunity to attract new industries and reduce the economic impact of tech fluctuations. It also tests the city’s ability to reinvent its economic model and to create an environment where varied sectors can thrive, not just technology.

In essence, Google’s downsizing is a complex maneuver that reflects broader trends in workplace management and urban economic development. How San Francisco responds could provide valuable lessons for other cities worldwide.

Future Implications for the Tech Giant and the City

As Google reconfigures its presence in San Francisco, the tech giant and the city stand at a crossroads. For Google, the decision to downsize aligns with its strategic goals of efficiency and adaptability, potentially setting a precedent for other tech companies considering similar shifts. This move might encourage other firms to evaluate their spatial needs and the viability of maintaining expansive office spaces in high-cost urban areas. The trend could accelerate the tech industry’s shift toward a more distributed workforce model, influencing where and how future tech hubs are developed.

San Francisco’s Economic Resilience

For San Francisco, Google’s office space reduction poses challenges and opportunities for economic diversification. The city may need to shift from heavily relying on tech giants to stabilize its economy. This could involve attracting emerging industries, such as green technology and biotech, and investing in small to medium enterprises that could benefit from the newly available office spaces. Such changes could stimulate the local economy and reduce the risk of over-dependence on a single sector.

Reimagining Urban Spaces

The departure of Google from significant office spaces opens up possibilities for urban redevelopment and repurposing commercial real estate into mixed-use developments. These spaces could be transformed into residential units, retail spaces, and smaller office setups catering to startups and mid-size companies, potentially revitalizing the area and increasing its appeal to a broader demographic.

Policy Adjustments and Infrastructure Enhancements

San Francisco’s government may need to reconsider its policies to align with the evolving business landscape. This includes revising tax policies, enhancing public infrastructure, and incentivizing companies to operate within the city. Improving public safety, enhancing transportation networks, and investing in public services will make the city more attractive for businesses and residents.

Ultimately, Google’s decision to downsize its San Francisco office is more than a simple real estate transaction; it’s a bellwether for changing corporate strategies in the face of global economic shifts. How Google and San Francisco navigate these changes could provide insights into the future dynamics of work, urban living, and economic resilience in major cities.

In the past year, high-tax states have issued a surge in audit letters, with figures marking a 56% increase from the previous year. The targets? Affluent individuals who have relocated across state lines during the pandemic and remote workers whose physical locations do not align with their company’s base.

AI’s role in these audits is groundbreaking and unnerving for those it targets. By analyzing vast datasets, AI systems identify patterns and anomalies in tax returns more efficiently than human auditors ever could. This capability is instrumental in tracking high earners who might have underreported their incomes or falsely claimed to have moved permanently to tax-haven states.

Accountants and tax lawyers confirm that the rate of audits has escalated dramatically over the last six months. Tax authorities are challenging the permanence of moves made during the COVID-19 pandemic, insisting that many owe state taxes irrespective of their new residences. Furthermore, states are scrutinizing remote workers who, despite working entirely out-of-state, are employed by companies based in places like New York.

The fiscal implications for states are significant. With California facing a $38 billion deficit and New York bracing for a $10 billion shortfall next year, the financial incentive to pursue wealthy taxpayers is compelling. The infusion of $80 billion into the IRS, earmarked for enforcement, means that high earners are likely to face audits from both state and federal levels.

Questions linger about the efficacy and fairness of AI-driven audits. Critics ask whether these automated systems might overreach or misinterpret complex tax data, potentially leading to wrongful accusations. Yet, proponents argue that AI could revolutionize tax enforcement by uncovering hidden patterns of evasion that would be impossible for human auditors to detect.

As states and the IRS increasingly rely on artificial intelligence to bolster their audits, the landscape of tax enforcement is undergoing a profound transformation. This shift promises greater efficiency but raises important questions about privacy, fairness, and the transparency of AI algorithms in legal and financial contexts. Whether this trend will lead to a more equitable tax system or merely shift the burden more heavily onto certain groups remains to be seen.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, many CEOs have pushed for a return to the office, insisting on returning to the pre-pandemic norm. Such efforts have received major pushback, with quality of life and relocation being among the top issues preventing some employees from returning.

According to the 2024 US CEO Outlook Pulse Survey by KPMG, CEOs are finally coming to terms with the new reality.

“The mental well-being of the workforce and preventing burnout remain priorities,” says Paul Knopp, KPMG US Chair and CEO. “In the ongoing future of work debate, the pendulum is swinging back to hybrid work as CEO expectations for a full return to office decline.”

KPMG’s study goes on to show a major shift in hybrid work adoption in 2024 versus 2023.

• 46% of employees are working a hybrid schedule, up from 34% in 2023.
• Only 34% have returned to the office five days a week, down from 62% in 2023.

The survey cites efforts to proactively manage a tight labor market as one of the motivations for the shift.

CEOs are proactively managing a tight labor market and focusing on initiatives to promote mental well-being and prevent burnout as acceptance of hybrid work models grows.

The survey is one of the most conclusive examples yet that hybrid work is the new normal, demonstrating the long-term impacts of the pandemic.

As detailed in a report by Zero Hedge, Amazon’s move to jettison office space comes at a time when the commercial real estate landscape finds itself mired in turmoil. With soaring vacancy rates, an abundance of available sublet space, and a record number of defaults, the once-stable foundation of the office sector now quakes under the weight of economic uncertainty.

The leaked documents, cited by Business Insider, paint a stark picture of Amazon’s cost-cutting ambitions, with plans to save a staggering $1.3 billion over the next three to five years. Sources familiar with the company’s strategy divulged that Amazon intends to allow certain leases to expire naturally, halt the use of particular office floors, and negotiate early lease terminations for select buildings. This tactical retreat from office space is emblematic of a broader trend sweeping through corporate America as companies grapple with the economic fallout from the pandemic and the rise of remote work.

Indeed, the current high vacancy rates plaguing Amazon’s office portfolio are symptomatic of a larger malaise afflicting the technology sector. Companies such as Google and Meta have initiated layoffs, signaling a reversal in the hiring frenzy of the pre-pandemic era. The specter of artificial intelligence looms large, threatening white-collar jobs and further exacerbating the downward trajectory of office demand.

In response to inquiries from Business Insider, an Amazon spokesperson provided a measured response, it is emphasizing the company’s commitment to optimizing its real estate portfolio in alignment with evolving business needs. Yet, beneath the veneer of corporate speak lies a palpable sense of apprehension—a recognition that the winds of change are blowing, and Amazon must adapt or risk being left behind.

But Amazon is not alone in its retreat from office space. Across the tech landscape, companies are slashing square footage as office vacancies soar, placing downward pressure on tower values and leaving landlords in a precarious position. The specter of defaults looms as owners grapple with the stark choice between refinancing at higher interest rates or facing the prospect of financial ruin.

As Goldman Sachs warns of an impending default wave in commercial mortgage-backed securities, the commercial real estate market braces for impact. Yet, amidst the gloom and uncertainty, there remains a glimmer of hope—a belief that innovation and resilience will ultimately prevail.

For Amazon and its peers, the road ahead is fraught with challenges and opportunities for reinvention. As the economic landscape shifts beneath their feet, these titans of industry must navigate choppy waters with nimble agility, lest the tides of change sweep them away.

In corporate history, Amazon’s office space exodus may well be remembered as a harbinger of broader upheaval—a cautionary tale of the perils of complacency in the face of seismic shifts. And as the dust settles, only time will tell which companies emerge stronger and which are consigned to history.

Many companies are trying to bring their employees back to the office part-time, with some pushing for a full-time return. The efforts have not been popular with employees, many of whom have maintained that they are just as productive working from home.

It seems Yelp agrees with that position, telling Fortune it has seen major benefits from maintaining a remote-first policy. Among the benefits are 43% more job applicants across the board, with some divisions seeing 52% and even 103% more applicants.

“It’s rewarding to see both the level of interest and the quality of our applicants,” Carmen Amara, chief people officer at Yelp, told Fortune. “Remote work has allowed us to attract a number of candidates who previously would not have applied to Yelp due to their location.”

Yelp has also disproved many critics’ claims that remote work is not conducive to team-building and collaboration, with 90% of the company’s employees finding ways to collaborate effectively and 91% happy with their long-term prospects for advancement. In addition, 89% credit the company’s remote-first policy with contributing to a better work-life balance.

“Anecdotally, employees have told us that Yelp’s remote posture has allowed them to spend more time with their children, take up new hobbies and live closer to friends and family—all of which we believe significantly contribute to overall happiness,” says Amara.

Yelp’s success should serve as a lesson for other companies evaluating their return-to-office versus remote work policies.

In the wake of the pandemic, many employees were reluctant—or outright hostile—to the idea of returning to work full-time. While some companies have remained fully remote, many have insisted on a hybrid option, leading many employees to fear their bosses would eventually demand a full-time return to the office. According to Axios, those fears are largely unfounded.

In fact, according to the outlet, just 6 of 158 US CEOs surveyed by The Conference Board plan to push for full-time in-office work in 2024.

“The battle is over,” said Diana Scott, human capital center leader at The Conference Board. “There are so many other issues CEOs are facing.”

The conclusion appears to be echoed by other institutions.

“Remote work appears likely to be the most persistent economic legacy of the pandemic,” write Goldman Sachs economists in a recent note, according to Axios.

Remote Work Emerged During the Pandemic

Millions of Americans experienced remote work during the pandemic, sparking a major shift in the work culture. As of 2023, around 40% of U.S. employees worked remotely at least once a week. This trend is more pronounced in certain industries. Information technology leads with 67%, followed by professional and business services at 49%, educational services at 46%, and wholesale trade at 39%. These numbers, however, have seen a gradual decline since 2020. The proportion of people primarily working from home decreased significantly from 35% in 2020 to 12.7% in 2023.

Interestingly, 72.5% of businesses reported having no remote workers in 2023, up from 60.1% in 2021. This increase suggests a partial return to traditional office settings or perhaps a blend of remote and in-office work models.

Diving into a state-by-state analysis, the statistics reveal a varied landscape. Michigan leads with 27% of its workforce operating remotely. Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin closely follow, each with 26%. On the other end, states like Wyoming (3%), Alaska (4%), South Dakota (4%), and Vermont (4%) have the lowest percentages of remote workers. These numbers not only reflect the regional differences in the adoption of remote work but also underscore the diverse infrastructural and economic factors influencing this trend.

Globally, the workforce is predominantly on-site (66.5%), with hybrid models (25.6%) and fully remote arrangements (7.9%) making up the rest. Despite the stabilization of remote work post-pandemic, its advantages for both employees and employers are substantial and hard to ignore.

Employees and Remote Work

Employees benefit significantly from remote work. The elimination of commute time is the most appreciated aspect (60%), followed by savings on gas and lunch expenses (44%), enhanced flexibility (42%), reduced time spent getting ready (38%), more quiet time for focused work (35%), and the opportunity to spend more time with family and friends (29%). These benefits contribute to a better work-life balance and overall job satisfaction.

From an employer’s perspective, the advantages are equally compelling. Remote work leads to a 56% reduction in employee absences and a 50% decrease in sick days. About 68% of businesses observe an increase in productivity with remote work arrangements. Perhaps most notably, remote work significantly lowers employee turnover by 50% and reduces annual costs per employee by $20,000 to $37,000.

In 2023, an overwhelming 98% of people expressed the desire to work remotely, either full-time or part-time. To make this a sustainable reality, businesses need to invest in robust connectivity platforms, advanced cybersecurity, and IT tools, along with AI-driven scheduling software. These technologies are essential for maintaining effective, productive, and connected remote teams.

Conclusion

As the 2024 data suggests, remote work is not just a temporary shift but a fundamental change in the work paradigm. While the extent of remote work adoption varies across industries and regions, the benefits are clear and significant for both employees and employers. Companies that adapt to this new norm by investing in appropriate technologies and flexible work policies are likely to thrive in this changing landscape. The future, as indicated by these remote work trends, will continue to evolve, with remote work being a key component of this evolution.

The global pandemic sped up the transition to remote and hybrid work, as companies were forced to allow their employees to work from home. Post-pandemic, many employees have pushed back against return-to-office plans, especially since many companies reported increased productivity with hybrid work. Employees have also grown accustomed to the increased flexibility and quality of life.

According to The New York Times, one side effect of the transition is that some landlords can no longer afford their mortgages due to decreased occupancy. As a result, landlords are increasingly “handing back the keys,” letting the banks or investors repossess the property. With some 23% of office space in the US reportedly vacant at the end of November, it’s easy to see why landlords are struggling.

Unfortunately, while defaulting on mortgages may make sense for a landlord, it passes the problem up the chain, saddling banks and investors with properties that are not earning what they should.

The issue underscores the deap-seated issues involved in the transition to hybrid work and the need for long-term solutions to such problems.

One of the challenges of virtual meetings is ensuring everyone can be seen, especially when traditional conference rooms are paired with videoconferencing. All too often, some of the attendees are hidden behind others, making it difficult for those tied in via videoconference to interact effectively with everyone.

Zoom’s Intelligent Director is designed to solve that problem.

The traditional conference room experience can come at the cost of clarity and transparency. Someone can get lost in the back of the room, or left out if they’re not in the office. Meaningful connections can’t be mutually exclusive with a physical location — we have to find ways to share information in real time, regardless of where people are.

Building on the popular smart gallery feature for Zoom Rooms, Intelligent Director, patent pending, uses multiple cameras and the latest AI technology to determine the best angle of the individuals in a Zoom Room to display within a meeting. And it’s included in existing and new Zoom Rooms.

The tool is currently available on Mac and Windows but will come to other devices in the future.

To learn more and get started, check out Zoom.com.

Insider gained access to internal documents Amazon is giving managers containing revised policies for firing employees that don’t comply with the company’s return-to-office (RTO) mandate.

“If the employee does not demonstrate immediate and sustained attendance after the first conversation, managers should then conduct a follow-up discussion within a reasonable time frame (depending on the employee situation, ~1-2 weeks). This conversation will 1) reinforce that return to office 3+ days a week is a requirement of their job, and 2) explain that continued non-compliance without a legitimate reason may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of your employment,” the guidelines said.

The new guidelines are a major escalation for the company amid its efforts to force employees back to the office. Amazon executives have been among the most vocal in their RTO push, angering employees who accuse the company of reneging on previous promises. In some cases employees moved to other parts of the country on the assurance their role would remain remote permanently, only to now be asked to move to a location near corporate offices.

Adding to the frustration is the lack of evidence cited for Amazon’s RTO push. Executives, including CEO Andy Jassy, have admitted there is no real data to support the push and credited ‘judgement calls’ instead.

Like many traditional CEOs, Baszucki cites “innovation” as the reason for the change:

I personally hoped that for our culture and our type of work, it might be possible to imagine a heavily hybrid remote culture. But there was a pivotal moment for me when we had our first post-quarantine, in-person group gathering. Within 45 minutes I came away from three separate conversations with spontaneous to do’s and ideas to put in motion, something that hadn’t happened during the past few years of video meetings.

Now, nearly a year after most of us have returned to our headquarters in San Mateo, we’ve seen how much we can accomplish, how far we can push innovation, and how being together strengthens our culture. For many of us, “Zoom fatigue” is real. A three-hour Group Review in person is much less exhausting than over video and brainstorming sessions are more fluid and creative. While I’m confident we will get to a point where virtual workspaces are as engaging, collaborative, and productive as physical spaces, we aren’t there yet.

Baszucki says not all remote employees will be forced back into the office, as some roles require remote work. For everyone else, the message is simple — come back to the office or find another job:

There will be some remote employees who are not asked to return, specifically 1) teams and roles that are required to be remote (e.g., data centers, moderators, call centers, etc.), and 2) individuals who have niche skill sets or significant institutional knowledge (e.g., multi-disciplinary skills, deep expertise with Roblox systems, etc.). At this time, we will not be extending new offers to remote employees, beyond the exceptions outlined above. For the remote employees whom we are asking to move to in-office roles, we will provide the option to join our three-day, in-office schedule (Tues.-Thurs.) or take a severance package.

In the wake of the pandemic, CEOs across the tech industry have been pushing for their employees to come back to the office. Some have settled for a couple of days a week — at least for now — while others have tried to force a full return.

In an interview with Fortune, Houston made clear his belief that remote work is the future and that CEOs should try to force their employees back at their own peril.

“I’d say, ‘your employees have options,’” Houston said when asked what message he had for his peers. “They’re not resources to control.”

Unlike some executives and CEOs, such as Amazon’s Andy Jassy, Houston’s remote work stance is based on hard research, and not on gut feelings or ‘judgment calls.’

“From a product design perspective, customers are our employees. We’ve stitched together this working model based on primary research,” he told Fortune. “We’ve just been handed the keys that unlock this whole future of work, which is actually here.”

Houston also emphasized the importance of trusting employees and treating them like adults rather than resorting to surveillance.

“You need a different social contract, and to let go of control,” he said. “But if you trust people and treat them like adults, they’ll behave like adults. Trust over surveillance.”

Houston’s approach is a refreshingly enlightened approach among CEOs.

Tech CEOs have increasingly been pushing their employees to return to the office despite a lack of data showing tangible benefits and in the face of studies proving that return-to-office (RTO) mandates have been a disaster. In that environment, Farquhar has remained a steadfast proponent of remote work, touting the benefits it brings. In fact, he’s such a believer in remote work that he rarely goes into the office himself.

“I work from home all the time,” Farquhar told Australia’s 60 Minutes, via Business Insider. “I might come into the office about once a quarter.”

“I still work really hard and I work with the teams who are around the world and Australia,” Farquhar added.

Read More: Amazon CEO Andy Jassy Cites ‘Judgment Call’ for RTO Mandate, Not Data

The CEO emphasized the role remote work plays in helping employees with the rising cost of living. For example, working remotely allows staff to “save hours a day,” not commuting to a physical location.

Interestingly, and in direct contrast to many of his peers, Farquhar says the company has seen no drop in productivity from working remotely. What’s more, Atlassian is able to recruit from a much larger pool of potential employees.

“Their work is a vocation not a location and so we expect people to be able to work from home, from a cafe, from an office, but we don’t really care where they do their work – what we care about is the output that they produce,” he told 60 Minutes.

This is not the first time Farquhar has spoken out in favor of remote work. The CEO was vocal in his criticism of Elon Musk and Tesla requiring employees to work from the office.

“Atlassian employees choose everyday where and how they want to work – we call it Team Anywhere,” he said at the time. “This has been key for our continued growth.“

Amazon has been pushing its employees to return to the office, even trying to force some to relocate closer to company offices to make in-person work possible. Executives have failed to produce any data to support the RTO mandates, acknowledging they “don’t have data to back it up” and citing “serendipity” as the motivating reason for wanting people in the office.

Jassy is now adding yet more fuel to the fire, doubling down on the fact that there is no real data to support the company’s decision.

“There was no data when we were deciding to pursue AWS, which was quite different from the rest of our businesses at that time, that we were going to be successful. In fact, most people thought it was nuts internally and externally,” Jassy said during an internal meeting, according to Business Insider.

“Those were judgment decisions by our leadership team,” Jassy continued. “And that is what’s happened here. As a leadership team, we’ve decided that we will be better for customers and for our business being in the office.”

Jassy also made it clear that employees unwilling to return to the office will ultimately need to find other work.

“It’s past the time to disagree and commit,” Jassy said. “And if you can’t disagree and commit, I also understand that, but it’s probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week, and it’s not right for all of our teammates to be in three days a week and for people to refuse to do so.”

Jassy Confirms CEO Bias Against Remote Work

Interestingly, Jassy appears to have unintentionally confirmed reports that RTO mandates are being driven by workaholic CEOS, who tend to be older men who are increasingly out of touch with their employees.

Jassy said he had spoken to “60 to 80 CEOs of other companies over the last 18 months,” with “virtually all of them” preferring in-office work, says Insider.

As further evidence of his disconnect with employees, disgruntled workers took to the company’s internal Slack channel to express their criticism of Jassy’s leadership, or lack thereof.

“The whole answer sounds like he’s defending making decisions without data,” said one employee.

“It isn’t leaning into innovation and bold leadership. It’s following the herd,” another worker said.

Interestingly, Insider reports that the internal meeting where Jassy made his comments was referred to as “Fishbowl.” Given that fishbowls are isolated, self-contained environments that offer limited perspective and have little to nothing in common with the real world, it seems a fitting name for a meeting where Jassy doubles down on RTO mandates.

Companies large and small have been pushing to bring their employees back to the office despite lower costs and increased productivity associated with remote workers. Not even the threat of losing top talent has been enough to stop some of the biggest names in the CEO field from taking a hard line.

According to Business Insider, there may finally be an explanation, and it all boils down to the workaholic, older male CEO at the top who is increasingly out of touch with employees.

“Because the labor market is looser and there’s more talent to be hired, I think the employers think they’ll be able to get their way,” Dr. Grace Lordan, associate professor in behavioral science at the London School of Economics, told Insider.

“This belief of a certain cohort of people, and they are represented across all sectors, that presentee-ism is productivity, for them it’s perfectly rational that if somebody doesn’t want to come into the office then that basically means they’re not somebody who wants to add value to the firm,” Lordan added.

See Also: Marc Benioff – ‘Office Mandates Are Never Going to Work’

Standford economist Nick Bloom agrees, telling Insider:

For most employees, life is partly work, but partly things outside work. These elite CEOs probably work 100-plus hours a week and they’re much more work-focused.

Even some of the RTO mandates betray CEOs’ motives. Zoom CEO Eric Yuan recently demanded employees return to the office at least two days a week, slamming collaboration via Zoom. As Human Workplace CEO Liz Ryan points out, Yuan’s own argument shows the real reason may not be what he says it is:

Zoom showed their hand when they announced that anybody who lives within 50 miles of the office has to show up there. If you hate commuting enough, you could move 51 miles away. It’s not about their culture. It’s about filling up the office space they’re paying for.

— Liz Ryan (@humanworkplace) — August 19, 2023

Lordan and Bloom’s take seems to agree with the evidence, given that studies have shown the costly impact of RTO mandates. Such mandates have cost companies top talent and left them struggling to fill some roles. Similarly, studies have shown that remote workers work longer and are more productive than their in-person counterparts.

Even some of the biggest proponents of RTO efforts, such as Amazon’s Adam Selipsky and Mike Hopkins, admit there is no data to support RTO mandates, relying on “serendipity” as their reason for pushing in-office work.

Employee pushback is not likely to subside anytime soon, with one study showing that 76% of employees plan to quit their jobs if flexible work options are eliminated.

Famed tech icon Marc Andreessen said early on that the shift to remote work was a societal turning point:

“It’s potentially an earthquake,” Andreessen said. “It’s potentially one of those things that in a hundred years, people could look back and say, ‘That was a real turning point for how society developed.’”

Which way society turns will largely depend on whose will is stronger: employees or older, male, workaholic CEOs.

Few companies have helped facilitate — or benefit from — the transition to remote work. In the early days of the global pandemic, companies, organizations, and individuals turned to Zoom to stay connected. As things returned to normal, Zoom continued to play a pivotal role in companies remote and hybrid work plans.

According to Business Insider, Zoom may be turning its back on remote work. Yuan said employees within 50 miles of corporate offices must work from the office at least two days a week, citing “trust” and brainstorming.

“In our early days, we all knew each other,” Yuan said. “Over the past several years, we’ve hired so many new ‘Zoomies’ that it’s really hard to build trust.”

“Trust is a foundation for everything,” he added. “Without trust, we will be slow.”

Yuan said remote work was not conducive to brainstorming and innovation.

“Quite often, you come up with great ideas, but when we are all on Zoom, it’s really hard,” Yuan said. “We cannot have a great conversation. We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call.”

Companies have increasingly been trying to force employees to return to the office despite studies showing that RTO mandates have been disastrous and that most employees are more productive working remotely.

Despite the trends, it is more than a little surprising to see Zoom jumping on the RTO bandwagon.

In late July, Amazon began requesting that corporate employees relocate — in some cases across state lines — to be closer to the hubs and offices where their jobs were located. According to CNBC, some employees are opting to quit their jobs altogether rather than disrupt their lives and those of their families.

CNBC cites the example of an employee who was hired specifically for a remote role, complete with assurances the role would remain remote. The employee and their team were later told they would have to work out of one of the company’s physical locations and given a choice of which one they wanted to move close to.

Company spokesperson Rob Munoz confirmed the relocation policy to CNBC but downplayed the impact.

“It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, so we decided that the best thing to do was to communicate directly with teams and individuals who are affected to ensure they’re getting accurate information that’s relevant to them,” Munoz said in a statement. “If an individual feels like they don’t have the information they need, we encourage them to talk with their HR business partner or their manager.”

Data has shown that RTO mandates have been disastrous for many companies, and Amazon is flirting with that danger. The company has repeatedly angered and frustrated employees by acknowledging there is a lack of “actual data” to support RTO mandates, certainly “any data that I think would stand scrutiny.”

Amazon has been aggressively pushing for employees to return to the office (RTO), even asking some employees to relocate closer to one of the company’s offices in order to facilitate RTO. Mike Hopkins, SVP of Amazon Video and Studios, recently upset employees by saying, “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better,” when referring to RTO mandates.

According to The Seattle Times, AWS boss Adam Selipsky has added fuel to the fire at a recent all-hands meeting. The executive kept falling back to “serendipity” to justify the company’s RTO stance, much to the frustration of those in attendance.

“Just think about … the serendipitous things that can happen,” Selipsky said, referring to employees working in-person.

“Actual data … it’s very hard to come by,” he added, especially “any data that I think would stand scrutiny.”

That revelation did not sit well with employees, with many of them wanting more than just “the faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for” (per Merriam-Webster) to justify upending their lives for the sake of RTO mandates.

“The biggest thing that people have complaints about at the moment is the lack of communication and the lack of transparency on what the expectations are right now and what are the expectations shortly down the road,” an AWS manager told the Times. “It’s like pulling teeth to get anything there.”

That same employee said Amazon’s approach was “dehumanizing,” and it felt like the company didn’t trust its employees enough to communicate with them honestly, relying on vague ‘no data’ and ‘serendipity’ arguments instead.

Studies have already shown that RTO mandates have been a disaster for companies, costing organizations valuable employees in an environment where it is already difficult for tech companies to find the talent they need. What’s more, other studies have shown that remote employees work longer and harder than their in-office counterparts.

Evidently, however, Amazon appears to value “serendipity” over facts.

Companies large and small have been pushing their employees to return to the office, often in the face of stiff opposition. Studies have already shown that many employees work harder and more efficiently from home, and many employees have enjoyed the freedom working from home provides.

According to research by Envoy, some 80% of executives wish they had handled the return-to-office differently.

80% of executives say they would have approached their company’s return-to-office strategy differently if they had access to workplace data to inform their decision-making.

“Many companies are realizing they could have been a lot more measured in their approach, rather than making big, bold, very controversial decisions based on executives’ opinions rather than employee data,” Larry Gadea, Envoy’s CEO and founder, told CNBC Make It.

To make matters worse, some organizations have ultimately hurt their standing with their employees by pushing too hard, only to then have to back down in the face of backlash.

“Many organizations that attempted to force a return to the office have had to retract or change their plans because of employee pushback, and now, they don’t look strong,” Kathy Kacher, the president of Career/Life Alliance Services, told Make It. “A lot of executives have egg on their faces and they’re sad about that.”

Despite the preponderance of data showing how detrimental RTO mandates have been, some companies continue to blindly push forward. Amazon executive Mike Hopkins sparked backlash when he admitted he had no data to back up the company’s RTO push.

“I think it’s just time, it’s time to disagree and commit. We’re here, we’re back — it’s working,” he said. “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.”

At some point, if companies want to keep their employees happy, the facts will have to prevail over old-school corporate culture.

Amazon has been pushing its employees to return to the office, even trying to force remote employees to relocate closer to physical offices. According to an email seen by the Financial Times (via Tech Radar), the company is now monitoring how often employees badge in at the office to see if it is meeting company expectations.

The email was sent to employees who had “badged in fewer than three days a week for five or more of the past eight weeks [or] have not badged in three days a week for three or more of the past four weeks.” Amazon did acknowledge “there may be instances where we have it wrong,” evidently in response to complaints from employees who said they did not fit the criteria Amazon was using.

The incident is just the latest effort by Amazon that has seen the company ignore data in its effort to enforce return-to-office mandates. In a recent meeting with employees, Mike Hopkins, SVP of Amazon Video and Studios, admitted he had “no data either way” on the effectiveness of being in the office.

“I think it’s just time, it’s time to disagree and commit. We’re here, we’re back — it’s working,” he added. “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.”

These comments came despite recent studies showing that the vast majority of employees work longer and more efficiently when working from home.