Corporations in the US would very much like their employees to be quiet now. Executives have had enough of the bring-your-whole-self-to-work and speak-up-at-the-office grand experiment of the COVID-19 pandemic era.
Across the US, C-suites are yearning for a return to business as usual — aka, you do what we tell you, we pay you for it and you keep your opinions to yourself.
However, if the activity on college and university campuses is any indication, Gen Z is unlikely to cooperate. For weeks, pro-Palestinian student protests have roiled higher education. Disrupted and canceled commencement ceremonies have put a bookend on the turmoil. Students at Duke University walked out of a graduation ceremony; at the University of California, Berkeley they chanted during speeches; and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, they turned their back on the chancellor. Loath to repeat these scenes, Columbia University and the University of Southern California canceled their main graduation ceremonies altogether.
Illustration: Mountain People
Employers better prepare themselves for this kind of energy; soon enough this crop of new graduates will be arriving in the office.
For some Gen Zers, it is not just the war they are protesting, but also a more general failure by those in power to care for them and the mess of a world they are set to inherit.
“We are the generation of school shootings, the generation that is tasked to deal with climate change,” Columbia University senior Sofia Ongele told the New York Times last month. “We’ve just been dealt the short end of the stick time and time again.”
Do not expect Ongele and the rest of her cohort to buy into the idea of deferring to their workplace elders.
“The generation coming through is not willing to accept the hierarchical approach that previous generations have done,” said Megan Reitz, associate fellow at the University of Oxford’s Said Business School.
These dynamics are setting up a major clash between employers and their young workforce. Companies want a rollback of the corporate activism that marked the pandemic era, while Gen Z now expects the workplace to be a forum for political candor.
A recent survey from job search and review site Glassdoor found that 64 percent of Gen Z had talked politics at work in the past year, more than any other age cohort. Almost half say they would not apply for a job at a company where the CEO backs a political candidate they disagree with — versus 39 percent for millennials and about 30 percent of Gen X and baby boomers. Younger workers might be more inclined to talk politics and expect their companies to do the same because they do not remember the time, not all that long ago, when both were taboo.
Now has come the fallout. If a company takes what is considered a left-leaning position on a political or social issue, it will be pilloried by the right for “woke capitalism,” but stay quiet and employees — whose outspokenness corporate culture has cultivated — might rebel.
“Companies are desperate for a route of the hole they’ve dug themselves into,” said Alison Taylor, New York University business school professor and author of Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World.
There is no clearer example of this than Alphabet Inc’s Google, which from its early days encouraged employee voice and activism, giving workers a sense that they had a say in how the company was run. The rank-and-file had a track record of successfully advocating for change; in 2018, Google succumbed to pressure from employees and ended its Project Maven contract, a deal with the US Department of Defense to help analyze drone videos.
Now even Google has had enough. The company fired 50 employees last month for protesting the tech giant’s contract with the Israeli government.
In a memo to employees, Alphabet chief executive officer Sundar Pichai wrote: “This is a business and not a place to act in a way that disrupts coworkers or makes them feel unsafe, to attempt to use the company as a personal platform, or to fight over disruptive issues or debate politics.”
That Pichai had to spell this out was a sign of just how much the company had encouraged employees to think otherwise.
This might feel like a betrayal to Google employees who thought they were joining a free-wheeling and open culture, one not all that dissimilar from the college campuses some of them had recently departed, but Pichai is right to make it clear what the expectations are, even if employees do not like them. If CEOs really want to revert to the “I just work here” era, they need to have those expectation-setting conversations early and often. Notably, Pichai’s letter came after the employee protests.
As this year’s graduates enter the workplace, companies might even want to consider making those discussions part of new employee onboarding, if they are not already. Better yet, business leaders should be upfront about not just what is forbidden, but also what is allowed when it comes to employees using their voices — a subject that, in the age of social media, is not always limited to 9am to 5pm.
And while companies might now want politics and personal values out of the office, why not give employees ample opportunity to express them in other settings, perhaps by providing time off to vote or volunteer for a nonprofit of their choice? Because if companies are asking Gen Z to quiet down at work, they are going to need space elsewhere to speak up.
Beth Kowitt is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporations in the US. She was previously a senior writer and editor at Fortune magazine. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS