Artificial intelligence (1)
Venturing big 人工智慧 （1）
冒險大
SAN FRANCISCO 舊金山
Silicon Valley is racing to build the first $1\$ 1 trn unicorn. What could go wrong? 矽谷正在競相打造第一 $1\$ 1 隻 trn 獨角獸。會出什麼問題？
Two years ago, when Nvidia first joined the club of trillion-dollar firms, plenty of investors worried that its shares were beginning to look pricey. Yet those who happened to buy a slice of the artifi-cial-intelligence (AI) chipmaker at the time would since have quadrupled their money. On July 9th Nvidia became the first ever company to reach a market value of $4trn\$ 4 \mathrm{trn}. 兩年前，當英偉達首次加入萬億美元公司俱樂部時，許多投資者擔心其股票開始看起來很貴。然而，那些當時碰巧購買了這家人工智能 （AI） 芯片製造商的一部分的人，他們的錢將翻兩番。7 月 9 日，英偉達成爲有史以來第一家市值達到 $4trn\$ 4 \mathrm{trn} 的公司。
The sizzling returns enjoyed by investors in publicly traded tech giants over the past few years has been the cause of much envy among Silicon Valley’s venture capitalists (vCs). It is not just Nvidia. CoreWeave, a cloud-computing provider, has seen its market value rise by over 300%300 \% since it listed in March (see next article). Flush with cash and fired up by the AI boom, many VCs are now looking to hold on to the most promising startups for longer, hoping to ride their valuations into the stratosphere. Some now say it is a case of when, not if, Silicon Valley creates its 過去幾年，上市科技巨頭的投資者所獲得的豐厚回報一直引起矽谷創投家 （vC） 的羨慕。不僅僅是英偉達。雲計算提供商 CoreWeave 自 3 月上市以來，其市值已經上漲了超過 300%300 \% （見下一篇文章）。由於現金充裕，並受到人工智慧熱潮的推動，許多創投公司現在希望更長時間地持有最有前途的初創公司，希望將其估值推向平流層。現在有人說，這是矽谷何時而不是是否創建其
first unlisted firm worth $1trn\$ 1 \mathrm{trn}. The pursuit of that goal is transforming how the VC industry operates-and making a volatile business riskier still. 第一家非上市公司價值 $1trn\$ 1 \mathrm{trn} 。對這一目標的追求正在改變風險投資行業的運作方式，並使不穩定的業務風險更大。
As recently as 2023 the VC industry was in a funk. Fully 344 unicorns-unlisted firms worth more than $1bn-were minted in America in 2021 amid the pandemic-era funding bonanza. Two years later the figure was just 45, as higher interest rates brought the VC industry crashing down to earth. Many of the valuations set amid the 就在 2023 年，風險投資行業還處於混亂之中。2021 年，在大流行時期的融資富礦中，美國鑄造了整整 344 家獨角獸公司，價值超過 10 億美元的非上市公司。兩年後，這個數字只有 45 人，因為更高的利率導致風險投資行業崩潰。許多估值設定在
rarr\rightarrow also in this section rarr\rightarrow 同樣在本節中
54 Neoclouds on a high 54 個新雲處於高位
55 Remote work v company culture 55 遠距工作與公司文化
56 America's construction woes 56 美國的建築困境
57 Bartleby: Brand love 57 巴特爾比：品牌熱愛
58 Schumpeter: Bosses wield the axe 58 熊彼特：老闆揮舞斧頭
rarr also in this section
54 Neoclouds on a high
55 Remote work v company culture
56 America's construction woes
57 Bartleby: Brand love
58 Schumpeter: Bosses wield the axe| $\rightarrow$ also in this section |
| :--- |
| 54 Neoclouds on a high |
| 55 Remote work v company culture |
| 56 America's construction woes |
| 57 Bartleby: Brand love |
| 58 Schumpeter: Bosses wield the axe |
boom became as illusory as the mythical beasts for which they were named. Socalled zombie unicorns from that period, whose valuations would now be far lower if vc firms were to correct them, still haunt the Silicon Valley landscape. 繁榮變得像它們得名的神獸一樣虛幻。那個時期的所謂殭屍獨角獸，如果風險投資公司糾正它們，它們的估值現在會低得多，仍然困擾著矽谷的格局。
Yet generative ai has sent Silicon Valley into a new frenzy that is beginning to look even more berserk than the last. According to PitchBook, a data gatherer, almost twothirds of VC dollars invested in America in the first half of this year went to AI firms. Unicorns have given way to decacorns (worth over $10bn) and hectocorns ($100bn-plus). OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, was most recently valued at $300 bn\$ 300 b n. Coatue, an investment-management firm, has calculated that there are currently more than $1.3trn-worth of private companies valued at $50bn or higher, greater than double the level two years ago. 然而，生成式人工智慧將矽谷推向了一場新的狂熱，這種狂潮開始看起來比上一次更加狂暴。根據數據收集機構 PitchBook 的數據，今年上半年投資在美國的風險投資資金中，近三分之二流向了人工智能公司。獨角獸已經讓位於十角獸（價值超過 100 億美元）和百角獸（超過 100 億美元）。ChatGPT 的製造商 OpenAI 最近估值為 $300 bn\$ 300 b n 。投資管理公司 Cotue 計算出，目前有價值超過 1.3 萬億美元的私營公司價值 50 億美元或更高，是兩年前水平的兩倍多。
These rich valuations are partly the result of an abundance of capital. Last year assets managed by American VC firms approached $1.3trn\$ 1.3 \mathrm{trn}, more than three times the level in 2015. Money left over from the pandemic-era fundraising boom has been swiftly diverted to AI startups. New foreign investors eager to splurge on AI, such as Middle Eastern sovereign-wealth funds, have been handing fistfuls of cash to VCs, making up for the retreat of some pension funds and endowments. 這些豐厚的估值部分是資本充裕的結果。去年，美國風險投資公司管理的資產接近 $1.3trn\$ 1.3 \mathrm{trn} ，是 2015 年水平的三倍多。大流行時期籌款熱潮的剩餘資金已迅速轉移到人工智慧新創公司。渴望在人工智能上揮霍的新外國投資者，例如中東主權財富基金，一直在向風險投資公司提供大量現金，以彌補一些養老基金和捐贈基金的退縮。
VCs have also been allocating a much greater share of their expanding cash pile to mature startups, rather than fledgling ones (see chart). In the first half of 2025 these accounted for 78%78 \% of the value of VC deals, up from 59%59 \% in the same period a year before. In a sign of the times, SoftBank, a Japanese tech investor, is throwing sums around that are wild even by its profligate standards. Masayoshi Son, SoftBank’s boss, has said it will put $32bn into Openai by the end of the year-more than any initial public offering has ever raised. 風險投資公司也一直在將其不斷擴大的現金堆中更大比例分配給成熟的初創公司，而不是初出茅廬的初創公司（見圖表）。2025 年上半年，這些佔 78%78 \% 風險投資交易價值，高於 59%59 \% 去年同期。作為時代的標誌，日本科技投資者軟銀正在四處投擲即使按照其揮霍無度的標準也是瘋狂的。軟銀老闆孫正義表示，到今年年底將向 Openai 投入 32 億美元，比任何首次公開募股籌集的資金都多。
The fact that startups are staying private for longer partly reflects the preferences of founders who would rather avoid the drudgery-and scrutiny-that comes with being listed on public markets. But whereas VCs once used to press them to list, today they are in no hurry, and are eager to capture more of the growth in valuations as companies scale up. 初創公司保持私有化時間更長的事實部分反映了創始人的偏好，他們寧願避免在公開市場上市帶來的苦差事和審查。但是，儘管風險投資公司曾經迫使他們上市，但如今他們並不著急，並渴望隨著公司規模的擴大而獲得更多的估值增長。
The trouble with pushing out investment horizons is the need for liquidity. Traditionally, vc firms have had to exit their holdings after a few years in order to return the proceeds to those whose money they are investing. Even before the latest bonanza, Silicon Valley’s financiers had begun to experiment with changes to their investing model to enable them to keep hold of startups for longer. These efforts are being turbocharged. 推出投資期限的麻煩在於對流動性的需求。傳統上，風險投資公司必須在幾年後退出其持股，以便將收益返還給他們投資的人。甚至在最近的富礦出現之前，矽谷的金融家就已經開始嘗試改變他們的投資模式，以使他們能夠更長時間地持有初創公司。這些努力正在加速。
One workaround is secondary tender offers, which allow early vc backers and employees paid in equity to sell their shares without having to wait for a public listing or another private funding round. According to PitchBook, there were some $60bn-worth of such transactions in the first quarter of 2025, up from $50bn in the final quarter of last year. Still, that level of liquidity is a far cry from what is available in public markets. Over the past month an average of $26bn-worth of Nvidia shares have traded hands each day. 一種解決方法是二次收購要約，它允許早期的風險投資支持者和以股權支付的員工出售其股票，而無需等待公開上市或另一輪私人融資。根據 PitchBook 的數據，2025 年第一季度有價值約 60 億美元的此類交易，高於去年最後一個季度的 50 億美元。儘管如此，這種流動性水平與公開市場的流動性水平相去甚遠。在過去的一個月裡，平均每天有價值 260 億美元的英偉達股票易手。
Another solution is permanent capital. Sequoia, a VC stalwart, declared the traditional ten-year fund “obsolete” in 2021, and has since replaced it with a permanent 另一個解決方案是永久資本。創投的中堅力量紅杉在 2021 年宣布傳統的十年期基金“過時”，此後將其取而代之的是永久性基金
Late bloomers 大器晚成的人
United States, venture-capital deal value, $bn By stage 美國，風險投資交易價值，$bn 按階段
structure, the Sequoia Capital Fund, which combines investments in unlisted startups with liquid stakes in public companies it has previously backed. Other VCs, such as Lightspeed Venture Partners, have recently turned to continuation funds, which bring in fresh capital to allow them to hold on to startups. 結構，紅杉資本基金，該基金將對非上市初創公司的投資與其之前支持的上市公司的流動股份相結合。其他風險投資公司，例如 Lightspeed Venture Partners，最近轉向延續基金，這些基金帶來了新的資本，使他們能夠持有初創公司。
All this is changing the character of the vc industry. The largest firms, such as Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, Lightspeed and General Catalyst, have ballooned in size. They now deploy tens of billions of dollars across numerous funds, with scores of people hunting deals. 這一切都在改變風險投資行業的性格。Andreessen Horowitz、紅杉資本、Lightspeed 和 General Catalyst 等最大的公司規模不斷擴大。他們現在在眾多基金中部署了數百億美元，數十人正在尋找交易。
At the same time, a small cohort of youngish firms, such as Thrive Capital, led by Josh Kushner, and Greenoaks, led by Neil Mehta, are competing with a different approach. They are raising sizeable funds of their own, but are using them to back a select few companies, with small investment teams writing big cheques to rival 與此同時，一小群年輕的公司，例如喬什·庫什納 （Josh Kushner） 領導的 Thrive Capital 和尼爾·梅塔 （Neil Mehta） 領導的 Greenoaks，正在以不同的方式競爭。他們正在籌集大量資金，但正在用這些資金來支持少數幾家公司，小型投資團隊開出大額支票來競爭
those of the vc giants. Vince Hankes of Thrive, which has invested over $1bn in Openai, believes that even within the firm’s relatively small portfolio of companies, there could be more than one startup that in time will be worth $1trn\$ 1 t r n. His firm is also experimenting with a private-equitylike model of acquiring and combining existing companies in industries such as IT services and infusing them with AI. 風險投資巨頭的那些。Thrive 的文斯·漢克斯 （Vince Hankes） 已向 Openai 投資了超過 10 億美元，他認為，即使在該公司相對較小的公司投資組合中，也可能有不止一家初創公司隨著時間的推移會值錢 $1trn\$ 1 t r n 。他的公司還在嘗試一種類似私募股權的模式，收購和合併 IT 服務等行業的現有公司，並為其注入人工智能。
The transformation of the VC industry brings risks. Writing ever bigger cheques for companies that have yet to prove they can turn a profit, and holding on to them in the hope that they eventually will, raises the likelihood of enormous losses. The stratospheric valuations enjoyed by the current generation of buzzy startups could turn out to be as overinflated as today’s zombie unicorns were a few years ago. A venture drought could follow. Yet the prospect of trillion-dollar rewards makes it hard to keep the pocketbook closed. VC 行業的轉型帶來了風險。為尚未證明自己能夠盈利的公司開出更大的支票，並持有它們，希望它們最終能夠盈利，這會增加巨額損失的可能性。當前這一代熱門初創公司所享有的平流層估值可能會像幾年前今天的殭屍獨角獸一樣被誇大。隨之而來的是風險企業乾旱。然而，數萬億美元獎勵的前景使得很難關閉錢包。
Artificial intelligence (2) 人工智慧 （2）
Up in the clouds 在雲端
Can a $9bn deal sustain CoreWeave's stunning growth? 90 億美元的交易能否維持 CoreWeave 的驚人增長？
EVEN BY THE mind-boggling standards of the artificial-intelligence (AI) boom, the growth of CoreWeave is striking. Two years ago the so-called neocloud, which rents out access to AI computing power, was a scrappy startup generating about $200m\$ 200 \mathrm{~m} a year in revenue with a small fleet of data centres. Today things look rather different. Analysts expect it to make over $5\$ 5 bn in sales this year. As of January it operated 28 data centres, with ten more being added this year. Since it listed in March, its market value has rocketed by over 300%300 \%, to around $75\$ 75 bn (see chart). 即使按照人工智能 （AI） 熱潮令人難以置信的標準，CoreWeave 的增長也是驚人的。兩年前，出租人工智能計算能力的所謂新雲是一家鬥志昂揚的初創公司，通過一小群數據中心創造了大約 $200m\$ 200 \mathrm{~m} 一年的收入。今天情況看起來相當不同。分析師預計今年的銷售額將超過 $5\$ 5 10 億美元。截至 1 月，它運營著 28 個數據中心，今年還將增加 10 個數據中心。自 3 月上市以來，其市值已飆升超過 300%300 \% ，達到 10 億左右 $75\$ 75 （見圖表）。
In an effort to sustain that trajectory, CoreWeave announced on July 7th that it planned to acquire Core Scientific, a cryptocurrency miner, in a $9bn all-stock deal. The transaction gives it ready-built data centres and power agreements with local utilities, both of which are needed to meet ballooning demand for AI. 為了維持這一軌跡，CoreWeave 於 7 月 7 日宣布，計劃以 9 億美元的全股票交易收購加密貨幣礦商 Core Scientific。該交易為其提供了現成的資料中心以及與當地公用事業公司的電力協議，這兩者都是滿足不斷增長的人工智慧需求所必需的。
CoreWeave, which also started life as a crypto miner, already leases facilities from Core Scientific and other similar firms. The deal will thus lower its operating costs, saving around $10bn over the next 12 years, according to the company. CoreWeave has also said that the added scale will cut the interest rate on its borrowings by a few percentage points. That matters because the firm has piled on debt to fuel its expansion, including novel loans backed by the CoreWeave 最初也是作為加密貨幣礦工開始的，已經從 Core Scientific 和其他類似公司租賃了設施。據該公司稱，這筆交易將因此降低其運營成本，在未來 12 年內節省約 100 億美元。CoreWeave 還表示，增加的規模將使其借款利率降低幾個百分點。這很重要，因為該公司已經積累了債務來推動其擴張，包括由
value of ai chips. As of March it had $10.6bn\$ 10.6 \mathrm{bn} of net debt, equivalent to around six times its annualised operating profit (before depreciation and amortisation). AI 芯片的價值。截至 3 月，它的 $10.6bn\$ 10.6 \mathrm{bn} 淨債務相當於其年化營業利潤（折舊和攤銷前）的六倍左右。
CoreWeave’s rapid ascent could still be derailed, however. One risk is competition. Although it is the biggest of the neoclouds, it has plenty of rivals, including Lambda, one of the first AI-focused cloud providers; Crusoe Energy, another former crypto miner; and Nebius, which was spun off from Yandex, Russia’s answer to Google. These other neoclouds are expanding. Lambda raised a fresh tranche of financing in February. Nebius recently increased its 然而，CoreWeave 的快速崛起仍可能脫軌。一種風險是競爭。儘管它是最大的新雲，但它有很多競爭對手，包括 Lambda，最早專注於人工智慧的雲端供應商之一;Crusoe Energy，另一位前加密貨幣礦工;以及從俄羅斯對谷歌的回應 Yandex 分拆出來的 Nebius。這些其他新雲正在擴展。Lambda 在 2 月份籌集了新一批融資。Nebius 最近增加了
Profit from the core 從核心獲利
CoreWeave, market capitalisation, $bn CoreWeave，市值，$bn
100
Source: LSEG Workspace 來源：LSEG Workspace
planned capital spending for 2025 by a third. Meanwhile, the cloud giants have been busily building more AI data centres of their own. Some are cutting prices, too. Last month Amazon Web Services, the ecommerce giant’s cloud arm, lowered the cost of renting its AI chips by between 25%25 \% and 45%45 \%. 計劃 2025 年的資本支出增加了三分之一。與此同時，雲端巨頭一直在忙於建立更多自己的人工智慧資料中心。有些也在降價。上個月，這家電子商務巨頭的雲部門亞馬遜網絡服務將租賃其人工智能芯片 25%25 \%45%45 \% 的成本降低了。
That, in turn, points to a second problem for CoreWeave: its awkward relations with the tech giants. Microsoft accounted for 72%72 \% of revenue in the first quarter of this year. It leases CoreWeave’s capacity as a way to serve its own cloudcomputing customers when demand outstrips what it can supply. To reduce its dependence on its biggest customer, CoreWeave has been pursuing direct relations with companies that need access to its computing power, including striking a deal worth $12bn over five years with Openai, a big spender with Microsoft. 這反過來又指出了 CoreWeave 的第二個問題：它與科技巨頭的尷尬關係。Microsoft 72%72 \% 佔今年第一季度的收入。它租賃 CoreWeave 的容量，作為在需求超過其供應能力時為自己的雲計算客戶提供服務的一種方式。為了減少對最大客戶的依賴，CoreWeave 一直在尋求與需要使用其計算能力的公司建立直接關係，包括與 Openai 達成一項在五年內價值 120 億美元的交易，Openai 是 Microsoft 的大手筆。
CoreWeave’s relations with Nvidia, its CoreWeave 與英偉達的關係，其
principal supplier as well as a big investor, make matters more delicate still. The AIchip colossus wants CoreWeave to succeed because that weakens the bargaining power of the cloud giants, which are Nvidia’s biggest customers. As a pawn in the power games of the world’s most valuable companies, CoreWeave could well be sacrificed if it is deemed to no longer serve a purpose. In the long run, simply owning AI chips won’t be a defensible “moat” for neoclouds, argues Antoine Chkaiban of New Street Research, a firm of analysts. 主要供應商和大投資者，讓事情變得更加微妙。AI 芯片巨頭希望 CoreWeave 成功，因爲這削弱了雲巨頭的議價能力，而雲巨頭是英偉達最大的客戶。作為世界上最有價值的公司權力遊戲中的棋子，如果 CoreWeave 被認為不再有作用，它很可能會被犧牲。分析師公司 New Street Research 的 Antoine Chkaiban 認為，從長遠來看，僅僅擁有人工智慧晶片不會成為新雲的可防禦「護城河」。
That will be especially true if demand for AI cools-the third, and gravest, risk for CoreWeave. Many companies, hamstrung by archaic IT systems and a lack of technical talent, are struggling to make use of the technology. Some are already quietly scaling back their ambitions. Still, if interest falters, the neoclouds could always pivot back to crypto. Bitcoin, after all, is trading at a record high. 如果對人工智慧的需求降溫，情況尤其如此——這是 CoreWeave 的第三個也是最嚴重的風險。許多公司受到陳舊的 IT 系統和缺乏技術人才的阻礙，正在努力利用該技術。有些人已經在悄悄地縮減他們的雄心壯志。儘管如此，如果興趣動搖，新雲總是可以轉向加密貨幣。畢竟，比特幣的交易價格創下歷史新高。
Office mandates 辦公室任務
Work-life-balancing act 工作與生活平衡的行為
Does working from the office really improve company culture? 在辦公室工作真的能改善公司文化嗎？
“THIS ISN’T just about productivity metrics,” Dara Khosrowshahi, the boss of Uber, told employees recently, after the ride-hailing company said they should all work from the office at least three days a week. “It’s about building the culture that will drive Uber’s next phase of growth.” Mr Khosrowshahi is not the only boss to appeal to such fuzzy ideas while herding workers back through the turnstiles. In January staff at Amazon were told to return to the pre-pandemic norm of being in the office five days a week. “People riff on top of one another’s ideas better when they’re together,” Andy Jassy, Amazon’s boss, told the Harvard Business Review when asked about the policy. “這不僅僅是生產力指標的問題，”優步老闆達拉·科斯羅沙希 （Dara Khosrowshahi） 最近告訴員工，此前這家叫車公司表示他們應該每週至少在辦公室工作三天。“這是關於建立推動優步下一階段增長的文化。”科斯羅沙希先生並不是唯一一個在將工人趕回十字轉門時訴諸這種模糊想法的老闆。一月份，亞馬遜的員工被告知恢復到大流行前每週五天在辦公室的常態。“當人們在一起時，他們會更好地重複彼此的想法，”亞馬遜老闆安迪·賈西 （Andy Jassy） 在被問及這項政策時告訴《哈佛商業評論》。
Although company culture can be a slippery concept, executives are right to worry about it. Research suggests that a company’s values and norms, including those governing how employees work, behave and interact, can affect innovation, profitability and stockmarket returns. But does forcing people into the office really improve a company’s culture? Our analysis suggests that the answer may depend on the type that a firm is trying to instil. 儘管公司文化可能是一個狡猾的概念，但高管們擔心它是正確的。研究表明，公司的價值觀和規範，包括管理員工工作、行為和互動方式的價值觀和規範，會影響創新、盈利能力和股市回報。但是，強迫人們進入辦公室真的能改善公司文化嗎？我們的分析表明，答案可能取決於公司試圖灌輸的類型。
Bosses, by and large, claim that having people in the office is a cultural boon. The spontaneity that often leads to new ideas is lost when staff work from home. Collaboration suffers, too. A study of 61,000 Micro- 總的來說，老闆們聲稱辦公室裡有人是一種文化福音。當員工在家工作時，通常會帶來新想法的自發性就會消失。協作也會受到影響。一項針對 61,000 個微型
soft employees found that remote working in the first half of 2020 made the tech giant more “siloed” and less “dynamic”. It is also harder to integrate new staff. 軟員工發現，2020 年上半年的遠程工作使這家科技巨頭更加“孤立”，不那麼“充滿活力”。整合新員工也更加困難。
Yet virtually all employees say they would prefer to do at least some work at 然而，幾乎所有員工都表示，他們更願意至少在
home. Mark Ma of the University of Pittsburgh and his colleagues found that firms which insisted on workers returning to the office after the pandemic saw job satisfaction fall and staff turnover rise-with no improvement in firm performance. 家。匹茲堡大學的馬克（Mark Ma）和他的同事發現，在疫情後堅持讓員工返回辦公室的公司，工作滿意度下降，員工流動率上升，而公司績效卻沒有改善。
To assess the link between firms’ working policies and their culture, we turned first to CultureX, a research firm run by Don and Charlie Sull. They supplied us with a database of nine corporate-culture indicators across some 900 firms, built using feedback on Glassdoor, a workplacereview website. Our second source was Work Forward, an advisory firm that publishes the Flex Index, a database of the remote-work policies of employers. It sorts firms into three categories-full-time in the office, fully flexible and hybrid. 為了評估公司的工作政策與其文化之間的聯繫，我們首先求助於由 Don 和 Charlie Sull 經營的研究公司 CultureX。他們為我們提供了一個包含約 900 家公司的九個企業文化指標的數據庫，這些指標是根據工作場所評論網站 Glassdoor 上的反饋構建的。我們的第二個來源是 Work Forward，這是一家諮詢公司，發布 Flex Index，這是一個雇主遠程工作政策的數據庫。它將公司分為三類：全職辦公室、完全靈活和混合。
Combining the two databases, we found that firms which insist on staff being in the office five days a week won better ratings from their employees on “agili-ty”-a company’s ability to anticipate and respond quickly to changes in the marketplace. “If you’re in the office,” explains Charlie Sull of CultureX, “you’re going to be able to receive information much more quickly and efficiently, and respond to new circumstances in a more adaptive way.” 結合這兩個資料庫，我們發現堅持員工每週在辦公室工作五天的公司在員工的「敏捷性」方面贏得了更好的評價，即公司預測和快速回應市場變化的能力。“如果你在辦公室，”CultureX 的 Charlie Sull 解釋道，“你將能夠更快、更有效地接收信息，並以更具適應性的方式應對新環境。
But on other measures, companies that were strict on office time scored worse than more relaxed ones (see chart). Firms with five-day mandates received lower marks from their employees for supportiveness (whether workers feel their bosses care about them), quality of leadership, toxicity (the extent to which disrespectful behaviour is tolerated in the workplace), candour and work-life balance. On the remaining three measures tracked by CultureX, the scores were not meaningfully different based on location policies. 但在其他指標上，對辦公時間嚴格的公司得分低於更寬鬆的公司（見圖表）。擁有五天任期的公司在支持性（員工是否覺得老闆關心他們）、領導質量、毒性（工作場所容忍不尊重行為的程度）、坦誠和工作與生活的平衡方面從員工那裡得到的分數較低。在 CultureX 追蹤的其餘三項指標中，根據位置政策，分數沒有顯著差異。
The analysis has its limitations. For example, it could be the case that firms which care less about supporting employees or rooting out toxic behaviour are less inclined to heed workers’ pleas for more flexibility. Even so, the results are suggestive. “Companies that really score highly on agility-Nvidia, SpaceX, Tesla-tend to strike a deal with their employees,” says Don Sull (who is also a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management). Employees are offered generous pay, great career opportunities and other perks. “But the trade-off is the work-life balance tends to be really bad.” 該分析有其局限性。例如，不太關心支持員工或根除有毒行為的公司可能不太願意聽從員工要求更多靈活性的請求。即便如此，結果還是具有啟發性的。“在敏捷性方面真正得分很高的公司——英偉達、SpaceX、特斯拉——往往會與員工達成協議，”唐·蘇爾（Don Sul）（他也是麻省理工學院斯隆管理學院的教授）說。員工獲得豐厚的薪酬、豐厚的職業機會和其他福利。“但代價是工作與生活的平衡往往非常糟糕。”
More than five years after the pandemic began, companies are still trying to find the right mix of in-person and remote work. As labour markets cool, shifting power from employees to employers, bosses may be tempted to demand more office time, claiming that it will help corporate culture. For firms that prize agility, this makes sense. But the data suggest it comes at a cost. 疫情開始五年多後，公司仍在努力尋找面對面和遠距工作的正確組合。隨著勞動力市場降溫，權力從員工轉移到雇主手中，老闆可能會受到誘惑，要求更多的辦公時間，聲稱這將有助於企業文化。對於重視敏捷性的公司來說，這是有道理的。但數據表明這是有代價的。
