Employees are a company’s greatest asset. – Anne M. Mulcahy, former CEO and chairwoman of Xerox Corporation.
Companies are emboldened to raise…share prices and thus the wealth of already wealthy shareholders. – Edmund Phelps, American economist and winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics.
Kaplan et al. (Reference Kaplan, Aitken, Allan, Alliger, Ballard and Zacher2025) relied upon a quote from Keynes (Reference Keynes1930) to initiate a debate regarding why work hours have not declined precipitously in economically developed nations despite technological advancements. The key premise of Keynes’s quote is that employees should reap the benefits of technological advancements. Yet, this assumption overlooks that employees may diverge from shareholders—who wield tremendous power in organizations—when deciding whether technology should be used to save time or increase production (Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022). We rely on stakeholder theory (Freeman, Reference Freeman1984) to explain why shareholders, rather than employees, have ultimately reaped the benefits of technological advances. We also explore how the power dynamic may shift in favor of employees with continued pushback against the 40-hour workweek and legislative changes.
Shareholders as the beneficiaries of technology
Kaplan and colleagues overlook a fundamental question: “In whose interest should the public corporation be governed?” (Fiss & Zajac, Reference Fiss and Zajac2004, p. 501). Organizations “serve as sites of contested power,” whereby practices are predominantly determined by the stakeholders that possess the greatest power (Grimes et al., Reference Grimes, Williams and Zhao2019, p. 825). Stakeholders are persons or groups with a vested interest in an organization, including employees, customers, suppliers, and shareholders (Donaldson & Preston, Reference Donaldson and Preston1995). Stakeholders often pose conflicting demands of organizations; meeting the demands of one stakeholder group may necessitate violating the expectations of other stakeholders (Pache & Santos, Reference Pache and Santos2010). From shareholders’ perspective, “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman, Reference Friedman1970, p. 32). Employees, customers, and suppliers have broader interests, nudging corporations to focus on social responsibilities beyond profits, including environmental impact and fair working conditions (Aguilera et al., Reference Aguilera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi2007).
Shareholder-profit maximization and employees’ desideratum are often positioned as oppositional (e.g., Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022; Jones et al., Reference Jones, Harrison and Felps2018). Prioritizing shareholders over other stakeholders’ interests is the predominant business model in the United States and is emerging as a global standard (Fiss & Zajac, Reference Fiss and Zajac2004). By contrast, employees rely upon organizations for wages and economic status, creating a system in which organizations wield tremendous power over employees (Amis et al., Reference Amis, Brickson, Haack and Hernandez2021). This power dynamic holds despite increased social awareness of the need for organizations to act justly (Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2020). Although some leaders advocate for firms to prioritize the just treatment of employees, profitability is typically prioritized over ethical responsibilities (Carroll, Reference Carroll1991; Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2020). Firms may pursue the social goal of investing in employees, “but only when they also improve the profits of the corporation”; whereas economic and social goals are posited as “a win–win, the first win (financial performance) always trumps the second win (social good)” (Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2020, pp. 2–3).
We propose that prioritizing shareholders over employees’ desideratum is responsible for the persistence of a 32–40-hour work week despite technological advancements. To illustrate, the United States has observed a 2.1 average annual percent increase in labor productivity from 1947 to 2024 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). Yet, employees’ wages have grown at about half that rate, whereas the S&P has gained an average of 10.5% annually since its inception in 1957 (Campbell & Safane, Reference Campbell and Safane2024; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). COVID-19 preliminarily shifted the balance of power in favor of employees—government-mandated lockdowns necessitated that employees transition to remote work, ostensibly giving employees more control over their time. Yet, employers responded by implementing electronic monitoring designed to supervise employees and maximize productivity (Di Meglio, Reference Di Meglio2023). Postpandemic, many firms—including Amazon, AT&T, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Google, and SAP—implemented return-to-work policies, restricting remote work in an attempt to increase productivity (Palmer, Reference Palmer2024; Telford & Abril, Reference Telford and Abril2024). For many employees, mandating time in the office undermines the time savings reaped from remote work, requiring setting aside time for commuting and donning work-appropriate attire.
Next, we contemplate how the balance of power could shift toward utilizing technology to save employees’ time. Specifically, we centrally implicate employee activism and legislative changes as mechanisms that may alter the balance of power toward prioritizing employees alongside shareholders.
Taking back power so technology benefits employees
Employees globally are pushing back against overwork, engendering a rise in antiwork sentiment (Alliger & McEachern, Reference Alliger and McEachern2024; O’Connor, Reference O’Connor2022). China is known for a 996-work culture, whereby people work from 9 am to 9 pm 6 days a week (Yip, Reference Yip2021). Yet, following a series of deaths—including a worker collapsing on the way home from work—employees have begun protesting a culture of overwork (Yip, Reference Yip2021). In the U.S., 37% of the workforce would consider quitting if required to spend more time in the office, and 47% are not focused on career progression (Dickler, Reference Dickler2024). Half the U.S. workforce are “quiet quitters” who exert minimum effort to meet job requirements (Harter, Reference Harter2022). Indeed, 45% of U.S. workers admit to working 4 hours or less per day (Callahan, Reference Callahan2023). Even among organizational demands, employees find ways to regain control of their time and use technology for personal gain. Yet, any worker’s isolated behaviors or protests cannot broadly shift the balance of power. To see changes in the status quo, collective employee activism and legislative change may help employees realize Keynes’s vision.
Employee activism has tremendous potential for shifting firms’ actions toward greater inclusion and meeting the desideratum of their employees (Briscoe et al., Reference Briscoe, Chin and Hambrick2014; Buchter, Reference Buchter2021). For example, Germany is currently in a recession and facing severe labor shortages as workers strike to attain higher wages, better working conditions, and greater work–life balance (Schuetze & Solomon, Reference Schuetze and Solomon2024). In response to employee activism, Germany is experimenting with 4-day workweeks, with 73% of Germans in favor of maintaining the same wage while working one less day per week (Prakash, Reference Prakash2024). Similarly, organizations in South Africa, Belgium, Iceland, Japan, the US, and the UK are experimenting with 4-day workweeks (Dmitracova, Reference Dmitracova2023; Egan, Reference Egan2024; Smith, Reference Smith2024). Notably, the business model behind a 4-day workweek is 100-80-100: employees receive 100% of their pay for working 80% of the time but are expected to deliver 100% of their typical output (Liu, Reference Liu2023). To increase the impact of activism, employees may need to band together across organizations. For instance, the International Longshoremen’s Association attained a 62% wage increase for dock workers through collective bargaining (Eavis, Reference Eavis2024).
Without government mandates, these marginal gains are inherently limited because they rely upon temporary market factors that shift power dynamics, such as a tight labor supply. Regulatory agencies and legislative bodies can alter the power dynamic in favor of employees by establishing maximum work hours, which typically result in increased employment levels without harming wages (Erbaş & Sayers, Reference Erbaş and Sayers2001). Furthermore, the legal understanding regarding the duty of organizations can be modified to prioritize employees. Some legislative possibilities include requirements that corporate boards reserve at least 40% of seats for board members elected by employees (Accountable Capitalism Act, 2017–2018) and legally redefining the fiduciary duty of boards to emphasize meeting employees’ personal and financial needs (Palladino, Reference Palladino2020). Together, these actions may shift the balance of power away from shareholders toward employees, allowing technological gains to benefit employees alongside shareholders.
As organizational scholars, practitioners, and educators, we can also shift the power dynamic in favor of employees. Prioritizing shareholders over employees has seeped into management science, shaping our research questions, contributions, and how we use data to influence organizational leaders. Despite warnings about relying on the business case and calls to place greater value on employees, scholarship remains primarily focused on firm performance and shareholder value maximization (Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022; Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2020). Placing workers’ needs at the forefront of scholarship requires reflecting on moral and ethical values at all levels of the profession (Lefkowitz, Reference Lefkowitz2011; Weiss & Rupp, Reference Weiss and Rupp2011). For example, reward systems could be incorporated in professional associations that hold organizational scientists accountable for addressing applied problems that treat employees’ humanity as equally—if not more—important than productivity.
Conclusion
Time is invaluable, and deciding whether to use technology to advantage employees or shareholders is foundationally a choice. We deduce that organizations use technology to monopolize employees’ time while increasing financial payoffs for shareholders. Strong institutional and societal forces maintain shareholder power, but employees may gain some control over their time through collective activism and government regulation. Moreover, as educators and scholars, we have the potential to influence organizational leaders, engendering meaningful change toward ensuring employees are at the forefront when balancing stakeholders’ desideratum.
