The Arc of Caring At Work

By Angela Lane and Sergey Gorbatov 

The workplace has undergone a profound transformation in how it expresses care for employees, an arc that has steadily risen over the past few decades. We don’t mean care in any paternalistic sense.  Nor are we talking benefits: the defined benefit pension or the corporate medical plans. We are talking about the arc which has reflected a growing openness to caring for the individual—as a whole person, not just a worker or a “human resource”.

The arc has an interesting origin - consider the 1980s.  It might be described as the antithesis of caring. Talent in that era, especially those on a leadership path, were expected to sacrifice personal life at the altar of professional ambition. Long hours and personal trade-offs were not only framed as necessary but also as virtuous. Success was often measured in hours worked and vacations missed. As Gordon Gekko famously said in the movie Wall Street, “need a friend, get a dog.”  And while the film is fictitious, it resonated, capturing the mood of the time. 

Over time, things shifted. Whether due to economic conditions, generational shifts, or increased worker choice, “The War for Talent” entered our awareness.  A new vocabulary emerged. Terms like "work-life balance" began to appear, not yet mainstream, but increasingly visible. In this early stage, balance meant something quite literal: a proportional distribution of time between work and the rest of life. Reasonableness was a virtue. And while the beginning of this era predated much of the technology that now encroaches on personal time, it set the stage for what was to follow.

The next evolution is the era of flexibility. This wasn’t just about how much time was spent working but also about when and how that time was utilised. Flextime, remote work, and compressed schedules—these ideas have moved from perks to policies. Often enabled by technology, they represented an expansion of the employer’s role: it is not just about respecting boundaries but also about enabling autonomy.

Then came what we might consider the era of wellness. Evident before the pandemic but undeniably amplified by it, caring moved beyond balance and flexibility to encompass total well-being—physical, emotional, and mental. Concepts like taking a “mental health day” became not only acceptable but encouraged. Mental health was no longer whispered about; it was featured in company policies. Whether driven by genuine enlightenment or enlightened self-interest, the workplace broadened its sense of care.

This evolution has been fueled—and complicated—by technology. The very tools that enabled employers to grant greater flexibility have also blurred boundaries. The same platforms that support remote work intrude into our private time. This tension between enablement and encroachment is baked into the experience.

We find ourselves at another inflection point. 

As 2024 drew to a close, employers, including prominent tech firms, began calling people back to the office in increasing numbers. The U.S. federal government rolled back hybrid options. Concurrently, concepts like belonging and inclusion, critical to well-being, got caught up in debates on diversity. With agents ready to replace workers, the talent scarcity that potentially supported the rise in care may be receding.  

These shifts raise a critical question: Will the arc of caring continue, or have we reached an apex?

At the 2025 Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, we posed the question: Are we observing a change in how firms think about “caring”?  And if so, is this a temporary moment in time, or the beginning of a trend where we return to a more transactional era? The surprising finding?  Practitioner opinion was split. Just over 50% predicted a continued emphasis on personalised, human-centred work cultures. But 46% believed we are entering a phase that might be thought of as a “correction”, where conditions will favor less emphasis on well-being over the next 3 years.  

And so, we’re naming this the Era of Choice — employer choice. Organisations face a decision: to stay the course and potentially deepen their commitment to care or pivot toward a less holistic model, potentially more centred on a traditional understanding of the employer-employee relationship. 

The arc may continue to rise. Or it may bend.

Either way, the implications go well beyond the firm.   

The perspectives and conclusions expressed in this work are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of any organizations or institutions with which they may be associated.