Has Work Changed, Forever?

What initially seemed to be a simple and extraordinarily long break somehow changed the entire dynamic of our lives. A couple of weeks of pure, unadulterated bliss turned into a tiring, scheduled madness as Zoom call after Zoom call eventually took over the lives of workers across the world. The COVID-19 pandemic clearly, and often permanently, impacted every aspect of how we operated through our new reality, work lives included. With this change, came a cultural shift. A shift in how we view, see, and treat the concept of work as a whole. Personal lives merged with professional lives as meetings were moved into bedroom-turned-offices for video calls. While some argue that the traditional workweek will not remain permanently impacted after the COVID-19 pandemic due to the drawbacks of such online work, I argue that workers have gained far more leverage than they have lost for their work-life balance, ensuring that the effects of the pandemic are here to stay in the long term.

Currently, as the pandemic nears its end and we can finally see a flickering light at the end of a 2-year long tunnel, traces of our past, well-known work-life are far and few in between. Joanne Lipman, former editor in chief of USA Today, writes that with companies “already experimenting with four-day workweeks, including Unilever New Zealand” along with Spain developing a “trial nationwide,” it’s easy to see the universal impacts of COVID-19. Workers began transitioning online, allowing them to have increased autonomy over their schedules, no longer needing to arrive at the office strictly at 8 AM 5 days of the week. Instead, they were delegated tasks to complete on their own time, remotely. This shift to remote work was favored amongst employees, leading to its implementation in our post-, or almost-post-, COVID lives.

This transition to remote or even hybrid work has allowed for substantially increased flexibility in our lives. Kim Parker, Juliana Menasce Horowitz, and Rachel Minkin from Pew Research Center claim that “about half (49%) say they now have the ability to choose when they put in their hours,” meaning workers can work with schedules that optimize their productivity. What does this mean for the average employee? Instead of working during the day for 8 consecutive hours, working remotely enables employees to schedule their work around their lives, not the other way around. In fact, “38% of new teleworkers say it’s easier now to balance work with family responsibilities.” Parker further elaborates. Employees are able to balance their lives, spending time with other priorities alongside their work responsibilities, efficiently and effectively killing two birds with one stone. Of course, employers are encouraged to continue this added online time if it means their employees will be happier and, probably more relevant to them, more productive and thus more lucrative.

This new online realm isn’t all perfect, however. What’s been dubbed as “Zoom Fatigue” has employers in the trenches. While employees are able to work at peak performance, a BBC article cites a study from Stanford University, claiming that “video conferencing saps our mental resources.” Zooming or video conferencing for hours at a time, multiple days a week drains workers immensely. Performance slows as Zoom calls pick up. Even with optimal performance, it is undeniable that Zoom has its drawbacks, but how significant are they? A study by the trio at Pew Research Center reflects that “81% of employed adults” use Zoom or video conferencing “at least some of the time,” and “63% say they are fine with the amount of time they spend on video calls; 37% say they are worn out by it.” Yes, Zoom fatigue is real, and yes, it’s not ideal for every situation. Regardless, does it allow for the ever-cherished flexibility of online task completion? Yes. Workers are still able to efficiently arrange their lives to ensure that they account for the tiring effects of Zoom. In the grand scheme of things, it’s evident that the drawbacks of Zoom are far less than the benefits, and they’re even mitigated with remote work’s overall fluidity.

But even with the flexibility provided with remote jobs, people are left craving more. After tasting the freedom of not going to an office 40 days a week, America saw an elevated level of resignations. With claims of having had epiphanic periods, resignation rates reached “2.9% of the national workforce — the highest number on record,” Bryan Lufkin from BBC says. How does this increase in resignations affect work culture? It significantly rearranges the worker-employee balance. Now, with this decrease in workers available, the demand for employees shot up. “Massive layoffs” are a thing of the past replaced with “a big need for workers,” Jack Kelly, a senior contributor at Forbes and CEO and founder of his own start-up company, asserts. With the need for workers comes negotiation abilities.

Admittedly, while such survey results may show jarring numbers, the validity and applicability of those numbers is a great topic of contention. The reality of a situation doesn’t register with a pen in hand and the potential to rewrite your future. Kelley argues that in surveys, “respondents can be brave and talk tough,” only to double back on their decision when given the chance to “think about the reality of this decision…” According to him, the pressure of committing to such a life-altering path and quitting a job can lead survey-fillers to think more critically, keeping them tied to their status quo. And Kelly is right — people are far more likely to stay on their current, comfortable path than cross a point of no return. Because there are no real, tangible results to simply scrawling across a sheet of survey paper, people become far more insurgent, not aligning to the truths of the matter. Thus, it’s critical to take such study results with a grain of salt — or even a couple of heaping teaspoons.

A couple of additional teaspoons comes with the fact that we have no outstanding source of data to compare recent resignation rates with. Specifically, Lufkin cites, “the US government has only tracked resignations since 2000,” leaving only 22 years of data to lean on. Does this mean to completely disregard all numbers found on the screen? Absolutely not. It is without a doubt that resignations are at a high and that self-prioritization is a trend seen all around, but the reality is indisputable.

Through this new realization period that was spurred by the pandemic, people’s work-life balance was significantly altered. Then arose an emphasis on not needing to live to work, but to work to live. In the long run, this work-life balance relies on the mindsets of the worker. In our case, the mindset of the worker was greatly affected, allowing workers to know what they want and have the ability to ask for it. Employees no longer feel fulfilled by their jobs and thus no longer feel the need to continue to be a cog in an employer’s system. With the resignation of such a high number of employees, employers are now desperate for workers. This means that workers have more leverage in the employee-employer dynamic, enabling them to have more say in their work lives.

Is it up to question whether or not there are drawbacks to the effects of the pandemic? No, of course not. Zoom fatigue is real and it impacts workers. However, in the long run, because workers have gained far more than they have lost during the pandemic, the changes that occurred in their work-life balance ensure that the effects of the pandemic are here to stay. Who knows, maybe our virtual work life won’t stay limited to Zoom calls. Welcome virtual reality handshakes and holographic presentations!