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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS