Amazon Joins The Frenzy To Make A Terrible Leadership Decision Forcing In Office Work

Another company has joined the ranks of businesses beginning to demand their employees to return to the office.

Amazon VP of Prime Videos and Amazon studios, Mike Hopkins, made his beliefs vocal during a meeting recently.

We'll go into the claims of why Amazon is demanding employees back, why it is still a bad decision, and what was said that makes this situation worse.

The Reasoning Amazon Has Given

Now, if you read my recent article about Apple demanding employees to return, you'll see that the reasoning given by Amazon is strikingly similar.

Based on a shareholder letter from Andy Jassy, it was said:

"The energy and riffing on one another's ideas happen more freely, and many of the best Amazon inventions have had their breakthrough moments from people staying behind after a meeting and working through ideas on a whiteboard, or continuing the conversation on the walk back from a meeting, or just popping by a teammate's office later that day with another thought..."

"Serendipitous interactions help it, and there are more of those in-person than virtually."

I find it extremely interesting that the phrase "Serendipitous Interactions" keeps appearing as the reason for forcing employees back into the office coming from these major companies.

It is like one person said it, and it just spread through large organizations like wildfire.

It sounds more like an unproven mantra than an actual reality.

Now, I'm not saying that it is "technically" incorrect to make this claim from a Psychophysiological point of view.

Technically speaking, it is true that "Serendipitous" moments are more likely to occur in person than virtually.

The highest levels of productivity and creativity (a better word for what they are attempting to get at) do "technically" occur during states of Group Flow, which best occurs in person.

However, there are factors that will prevent these moments from occurring due to the "reality" of the current Psychophysiological state people are in today.

Why It Is Still A Poor Leadership Decision

As I mentioned, the "goal" of these Leaders attempting to drive employees back into the office is that they hope it will unleash Group Flow and therefore lead to more Creativity.

Aka "Serendipity".

However, there are MUCH bigger problems in the current work environments that these Leaders are completely discounting.

Due to discounting this, not only are these Leaders working AGAINST creating Group Flow, but they are making it WORSE than it was Pre-Pandemic!

It's simple - most of our work offices are creating too much Dis-Stress to allow for Flow States.

Prior to the Pandemic, our workplaces were the number one driver for accelerating rates of Burnout.

Burnout just means that people have been in Dis-Stress for SO long that their bodies simply can't take it anymore.

Why was this happening?

Poor In-Person Leadership.

See, when our Leaders are in constant Dis-Stress, they can CAUSE their teams to go into Dis-Stress as well (a function of Neurocardiology, measurable through HRV).

These high levels of Dis-Stress cause Toxic Workplaces and continuously create more problems, leading to Burnout.

Productivity decreases.

Creativity decreases.

Workplace satisfaction decreases.

However, when you are "in" that environment for so long, sometimes you simply "accept" it.

Which is where employees were before the Pandemic.

However, when the Pandemic hit, employees finally felt what it was like to NOT go into a toxic workplace.

For the first time in a long time (for some the first time ever), they knew what it felt like to not have Dis-Stress put onto them by others, ESPECIALLY their Leaders.

It was like having shackles removed for the first time, and people loved it.

Their productivity went up, their wellness improved, and everything was going fantastic for the employees.

All the data shows this.

The only thing lost?

Control.

Leaders of these organizations felt they were losing control because they couldn't "see" what was happening.

Essentially, these Leaders were feeling "Fear".

Here's the problem with that from our Psychophysiology - If Leaders force employees back, that "Fear" has left damage on them that hasn't been fixed (Due to deep issues having to do with Micro-Nutrition).

This will lead to those same Leaders continuing to feel Fear and Dis-Stress, forcing their employees back into the office where they too will have Dis-Stress put back on them.

However, it will now be WORSE because there will also be deep resentment from these employees.

They will resent their Leaders for FORCING them back into a Toxic environment that they had been free from for so long.

The "Best" employees (aka the ones who are most likely to create Group Flow and have the Creativity needed for "Serendipity") will simply leave these organizations.

Everyone is still in dire need of employees, businesses have been struggling to get their workforces up to what is needed, and the best employees know this.

The only employees who will stay due to being "Forced" will either be

• Employees who are most desperate (creating MORE Dis-Stress)
• Employees who THRIVE in Toxic Environments (adding to the Toxicity)
• Employees who hope that a "quick" promotion will boost their career (who will only give the minimums necessary to maintain their job until they get something better).

No matter which way you look at it, Amazon (and any organization that chooses to force employees back) loses.

What Makes This Worse From Amazon

However, this was the icing on the cake to prove my point, coming from Mike Hopkins specifically.

"... it's time to disagree and commit. We're here, we're back - it's working... I don't have data to back it up, but I know it's better."

So, you want me to believe that one of the most data-heavy businesses in the WORLD doesn't have the "data" to back up this claim?

The reason they don't have the data is simple - it doesn't exist.

All data around remote work has proven, time and time again, that due to the state of "in-office" environments, that remote work is simply better at this time.

The data is there, it is staring executives and businesses in the face, but these same executives are choosing to ignore it for what they are "more comfortable" with.

The executives can't get the data, yet claim to "know" that in person.

What they are "seeing" is not reality - it's a faulty perception due to their own biases.

These executives "want" in-person to be better, they "want" more Serendipitous moments, and they "want" more collaboration to exist, despite the FACTS that ALL the data says it doesn't.

So their perceptions become "skewed" to only see what they want.

But it simply isn't true.

The real data proves it isn't true.

Employees don't agree that moving back has been better.

The vast majority of employees (estimated around 75%) who have been forced back are looking for other jobs that keep remote work.

This means that you "might" have a workforce of 25% that plans on staying, and that doesn't mean that they agree or like the decision (or are good for your organization).

The problem we are seeing isn't that these businesses are losing productivity or "creativity" due to remote work - since before the pandemic Burnout has been preventing businesses from achieving high levels of Creativity.

What we are seeing are high-level executives who are afraid of a loss of control, and are willing to push their own "comfort zones" on employees despite the costs.

Quote: "...it's time to disagree and commit."

The executives don't care what the employees believe, they don't care about how people's wellness is impacted, and they don't care about the toxicity their mindsets create.

They don't care about the reality.

All they care about is what they want - which seems to be control.

What's sad about all of this is that if they allowed remote work to stay for a while longer, they could do a SIGNIFICANTLY better job of fixing the Dis-Stress and Toxicity that exists.

Remote work is a GREAT way to determine which Leaders are good or not - loss of control allows you to determine which Leaders can continue to keep their teams together.

You could quickly discover which Leaders are causing your worst problems, either improve them or eliminate them (either option is easier remotely due to Psychophysiology), and then re-design the workplace to ACTUALLY benefit everyone.

Until you fix the Leadership and the Toxic Workplaces, "Serendipity" becomes futile.

However, if all of this wasn't enough, they have made another poor Leadership decision.

There is a company policy for considering "some" individuals to continue to work remotely on a "case-by-case basis".

This is a NIGHTMARE policy that is just ASKING for problems with favoritism, unfair treatment, and higher levels of resentment from teams.

All of which will lead to a more Toxic Workplace.

Based on recent data about Forced Return to Office, I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to problems with "representation" as remote work has been shown to benefit "underrepresented" groups.

This policy will almost always favor the "higher-ups" whose presence is MORE necessary within the office, ESPECIALLY when employees are being forced back against their will.

I wrote another article recently about how Meta's policy like this was negatively impacting them.

All of this to say (again) that forcing employees to return to the workplace is a poor Leadership Decision.