The Economist - USA (2020-08-01)

The EconomistAugust 1st 2020 Business 51

2

1

Bartleby Backonthechain gang

R

ememberthe7amalarm?The

rushedgoodbyewithspouseand

childrenasyoudashoutofthehouse?

Thenervouspattingofpocketstocheck

forkeys,seasonticket,securitypassand

phone?Andthecloggedtrafficorcrowd-

edtraincarriage?

Mostofficeworkershaveescaped

thosefamiliarritualsforthepastfour

months.Butofficesareslowlyreopening

again.Andgovernmentsarekeentolure

workersintothecities,wheretheycan

spendtheirmoneyandhelptorevive

batteredeconomies.

A groupofacademicsledbyEthan

BernsteinofHarvardBusinessSchool

hasbeensurveyingAmericanworkers

duringthecrisis*.It foundthatmanyfelt

theycouldbejustasproductiveathome

astheyhadbeenattheoffice.Intermsof

jobsatisfaction,a smallwobbleinthe

firstfewweeksoflockdowneasedas

workersadjustedtonewroutines.But

oncethatadjustmentwasmade,satisfac-

tionincreased.Stresslevelshavefallen

bymorethan10%.Thatdespitethefact

thatworkerstoilforlonger:ananalysis

ofonetechnologycompanyshowedthat

workinghourshaveincreasedby10-20%

duringthepandemic.

Thatcontrastswithlesspositive

resultsofpreviouscasestudiesofhome-

working.MrBernsteinandhiscol-

leaguessuggestthatthemaindifference

thistimeisthatallemployeeshavebeen

forcedintothesamesituation.Inthe

past,thosewhoworkedathomewerein

theminority,oftenfeltexcludedfrom

thegroup,andsowerelesslikelyto

identifywiththecompany.

If theywereright,thenthisproblem

mayreassertitselfwhenofficework

resumes.Atthemoment,thosewhohave

returnedtotheofficeareina minority,

comprisingthosewhofindit mostdiffi-

culttoworkathome.Butthebalancemay

shiftastimegoeson,perhapsbecause

peoplebecomemorerelaxedaboutthe

virus,orbecausepeoplewillmissthe

fellowshipoftheircolleagues.Atthat

pointthosewhoremainathomemaystart

tofeelisolated.

Theemotionthatismostlikelytolure

workersbacktotheofficeisparanoia.The

pandemicmayhavecausedmanagersto

realisewhoisindispensableandwhoisn’t.

Bartlebyrealisesheisentirelydispens-

able:anamusebouchebetweenthemeaty

stuffofstructuralreformandvaccines.

Failtoamuseenoughbouchesandhewill

beshuffledintoretirement.Millionsmay

reasonthesameway.Whenthenumberof

thosebackatworkreachesa criticalmass,

therestmaybeobligedtofollowsuit.

Thetrade-offforemployersisrather

different.Mostcompanieswillbethinking

aboutwhethertheyneedallthatexpensive

officespace.If theydowanttolureback

theiremployees,theymayhavetospenda

lotoncontactless,sociallydistantoffice

designtokeeptheirworkerssafe,suchas

doorsthatopenautomatically.

Somefirmsmaybeworriedabout

security.OnJuly27tha Britishstandard-

settingboardissuedguidanceforfi-

nancialfirmsaboutthesecurityrisksof

fixed-incomeandcurrencytraderswork-

ingathome.Othercompaniesmayworry

aboutthelong-termimpactofhome

workingonproductivity.Onemissing

elementmaybethecasualinteraction

thatoccursbetweenemployeesoutside

formalmeetings—thosechatsbythe

fridgemaysparkideasorsuggestnew

waysofco-operating.Indeed,employees

mayfindit moredifficulttobuildrela-

tionshipsthroughoutthecompany

withoutmeetingcolleaguesinperson.

Thiswillbeparticularlydifficultfor

newemployees.It isnotalwayseasy

evenforthosewhohavebeendoingtheir

jobfora whiletoperformthesametasks

athome.Andnewcomersmustadjustto

a firm’sculture,whichusuallyhappens

bypickingupsubtlecuesfromthepeo-

plearoundthem.Companiesmaybom-

bardthemwithtrainingmodulesand

videochats—“onboarding”,inthejargon

ofhuman-resourcesdepartments.But

thatmaybenomoreusefulthanreading

a manualasyouronlypreparationfor

tryingtoridethewinninghorseinthe

KentuckyDerby.

Giventhestateoftheglobaleconomy

it willtaketimebeforemostcompanies

hirea lotmoreemployeesorlowerem-

ployeeinteractionweighsoncorporate

performance.Withmanyemployees

happytoworkfromhome,thatmay

meannogreatrushtorepopulatethe

office.Youmaynothavetoresumeyour

morningroutineuntil2021.

Employeesandemployersbothfacetrade-offsasofficesreopen

.............................................................

* “The implications of working without an office”

by Ethan Bernstein, Hayley Blunden, Andrew

Brodsky, Wonbin Sohn and Ben Waber, Harvard

Business Review, June 2020

planes have suffered similar declines. Boe-

ing’s situation is made worse by the pro-

tracted grounding in 2019 of its 737 max, a

rival to the a320, in the wake of two fatal

crashes. It has kept making the aircraft and

hopes to have it recertified for flight later

this year. The American firm will slowly in-

crease production to 31 a month by the start

of 2022. But like Airbus, it too has an-

nounced cuts to wide-body production.

This will open a big gap between what

the pair, along with Embraer and Bombar-

dier, makers of smaller regional jets, hoped

to sell and what they actually will (see chart

2 on next page). According to consultants at

Oliver Wyman, by 2030 the global fleet will

be 12% smaller than if growth had contin-

ued unabated. That amounts to 4,700 fewer

planes, which could translate to $300bn or

so in forgone revenue for Boeing and Air-

bus, according to a rough calculation by

The Economist.

With so many aircraft sitting idle and

balance-sheets in tatters, airlines are get-

ting rid of planes. Even low fuel prices will

not save older, thirstier models. Four-en-

gine wide-bodies are all but finished. On

July 17th British Airways (ba) said it would

retire all 31 of its Boeing 747 jumbo jets. iba,

an aviation-research firm, expects 800

planes around the world to be retired early.

Not all orders will dry up. Airlines, as

well as leasing firms, which now own close

to half the global fleet, are contractually ob-

liged to take aircraft on order. Many buyers

will have made pre-delivery payments of

up to 40% of the price. Airbus and Boeing

are, to varying degrees, pushing customers

to take deliveries. Most negotiations have

centred on deferring deliveries. EasyJet, a

British low-cost carrier, has pushed back

delivery of 24 Airbuses by five years. At