Jonathan Tobias takes genuine satisfaction in his role within the technology sector, largely because his position affords him the privilege of working remotely—a flexibility that has become increasingly precious in the modern professional landscape. The ability to log into work from the comfort of his own home transforms his daily rhythm: the brief journey from his Brooklyn apartment to his child’s day care requires only a five-minute stroll, enabling him to balance his career with his family responsibilities in a way that would be far more difficult if he were confined to an office. “I’m definitely lucky,” Tobias reflected in a conversation with *Business Insider*, conscious that such arrangements have become a dwindling commodity.
At 39, Tobias is keenly aware that his employer’s policy of allowing remote work sets it apart from many organizations shifting toward stricter in-office expectations. After several years in which executives across industries extolled the virtues of flexibility, autonomy, and work-life balance, a noticeable change in tone has emerged. Increasingly, leaders are emphasizing in-person attendance, enforcing more rigorous performance standards, and leaning heavily on artificial intelligence to monitor output and enhance productivity. Alex Bouaziz, cofounder and CEO of the HR and payroll platform Deel, observed that this shift reflects a broader trend: “It’s very much an employer-driven market,” he noted, explaining that such power dynamics give companies the confidence to impose return-to-office requirements and other measures that consolidate control.
However, some analysts caution that in their drive to reestablish authority, CEOs may be venturing too far. While workers today may be clinging to their jobs amid economic uncertainty, prioritizing managerial dominance over mutual trust could have unintended consequences. Experts warn that such strategies may erode morale, stifle engagement, and ultimately undermine retention rates. In essence, the apparent short-term compliance of employees might mask growing dissatisfaction that could explode when conditions improve.
Rajesh Namboothiry, senior vice president at staffing firm ManpowerGroup, told *Business Insider* that many executives have begun “demanding more” from their workforce—whether by pushing for longer hours, weekend productivity, or more frequent check-ins. He characterized the mindset of these leaders as one-directional: CEOs perceive recent efficiency gains as theirs to claim, seldom considering how continuous pressure might affect the people delivering that performance. The power balance has shifted, Namboothiry explained. Only a few years ago, a strong job market allowed both seasoned corporate veterans and restless job-hoppers to command substantial salary increases. Now, with demand cooling and labor supply tightening, executives feel emboldened to assert, “This is the new normal.”
From an economic perspective, it is understandable that company leaders are asserting greater authority: a tighter talent market naturally enables them to establish more restrictive parameters. Yet Namboothiry cautioned that pushing employees too far could deepen a crisis of disengagement already plaguing American workplaces. According to Gallup data, U.S. worker engagement has fallen to its lowest point in more than a decade. If employers continue tightening control, they may find themselves facing even lower motivation levels and, eventually, higher turnover once job opportunities rebound.
Marlo Lyons, an executive coach and host of the podcast *Work Unscripted*, contextualized this phenomenon within the larger backdrop of economic turbulence and the disruptive rise of artificial intelligence. In such an environment, she said, the impulse toward control might seem not merely rational but defensive. “Employers are simply striving to regain predictability in an unpredictable world,” she explained, describing the use of structure, policies, and technological surveillance as attempts to restore order. Yet even as such practices promise stability, they may extract a hidden toll: employees often interpret excessive oversight as a sign of distrust or indifference to their well-being.
A study by the employee benefits firm Businessolver reinforces this concern, showing that workers who perceive their companies as lacking empathy are significantly more likely to experience burnout, mental health challenges, and toxic work culture. These issues, in turn, depress productivity, increase absenteeism, and corrode long-term loyalty. Dion Love, a labor market strategist at the research firm Gartner, told *Business Insider* that the memory of such experiences lingers. “We tend to remember vividly how we were treated when times were tough,” he said, suggesting that acts of insensitivity today could shape workers’ future attitudes toward their employers.
The conversation about leadership, Love added, should also consider what companies are not doing—particularly in preparing their staff for the technologies reshaping their industries. A recent EY survey of roughly 400 senior U.S. executives at large firms revealed that only about a quarter considered investment in employee development a strategic priority for the near future. Dan Kaplan, managing partner and head of HR consulting at ZRG, argued that neglecting technological education—especially in relation to AI—poses serious risks. Without training and transparency, many employees will inevitably view artificial intelligence as a threat rather than a tool, resisting its implementation out of fear that it could eliminate their jobs. “You’re afraid this is the enemy,” Kaplan observed, even while, paradoxically, CEOs themselves champion AI as a cornerstone of corporate transformation.
Yet within this transitional period lies an opportunity. Gartner’s Love noted that leaders who approach the current moment with foresight and empathy could “flip the script” of what is otherwise an employer-dominated market. By channeling resources into professional development, career mobility, and transparent communication, executives can strengthen loyalty and foster a workforce more aligned with technological evolution.
Of course, not all workers are equally vulnerable to the new wave of executive assertiveness. Some, particularly those with highly specialized skills, remain in a position to shape their own career terms. Matt Martin, CEO and cofounder of Clockwise—a company that leverages AI to optimize scheduling and time management—explained that for roles such as machine learning engineers and data scientists, real competition for talent persists. The influx of capital into AI-driven enterprises offers restless employees a tempting alternative should they grow weary of restrictive workplace policies. According to Deel’s Bouaziz, these highly sought-after professionals are also the most likely to resist mandated return-to-office directives, preferring instead to migrate to organizations that maintain flexibility. This, he added, has proven advantageous for his own remote-first company.
Meanwhile, Tobias occasionally shares reflections about corporate life on social media, where followers often remark that pre-pandemic practices—such as rigid attendance policies and limited worker autonomy—belong to a distant past. Yet observing the tightening grip of many CEOs, Tobias suspects that the office-centric ethos is quietly resurfacing within certain firms. For younger employees just beginning their careers, he predicts, this shift could be formative. The experience might toughen them, accustoming them to workplace hierarchies and expectations, or conversely, it might breed disillusionment and eventually drive them away. “It could harden them and get them used to the corporate world—or it can eventually backfire,” Tobias concluded thoughtfully.
Those who wish to share their own workplace experiences can reach out to Tim Paradis at tparadis@businessinsider.com or Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert at ktl@businessinsider.com.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-demanding-more-could-prove-costly-2025-10
