Information Cascades in Action: Understanding Post-Pandemic Workplace Shifts
As the world recovered from the pandemic, employees faced a key decision: continue working remotely or return to the office. While many initially favored remote work for its flexibility and convenience, a growing number chose to return to in-person settings, where collaboration often felt more dynamic and engaging. Additionally, being physically present in the office fostered greater accountability, as employees could no longer hide behind a turned-off camera while multitasking on unrelated tasks at home.
The shift to return to the office was driven not just by individual preferences but largely by an information cascade, where decision-makers based their choices on the observed actions of others rather than their own private knowledge or “private signal.” By examining the return to the office trend through the lens of the information cascade model, it becomes clear how social influence overtook personal preference and how fragile such cascades can really be.
A fundamental aspect of an information cascade is a choice between two possible outcomes. In this case, employees had to choose between remaining remote or returning to the office. Their private signals likely differed; some employees excelled in remote settings, finding themselves more productive, able to spend more time with family, and free from the hassle of commuting, while others felt the absence of in-person collaboration. However, it is fundamental to recognize that the presence of a choice alone does not constitute a cascade; the sequence of decision-making is what drives the phenomenon.
In an information cascade, individuals must observe the actions of others before making their own choices. Early on, some employees returned to the office when it was allowed, either due to personal preference or subtle pressure from other employees, especially their boss. Their visible choices signaled to others that in-person work might be beneficial, even if there was no explicit requirement to return yet. This set the stage for other employees to follow suit, particularly as managers and key personnel were increasingly present in the office or from their point of view they felt responsible for setting an example for the staff.
Another crucial element to an information cascade is the distinction between one’s private signal and public behavior. Each employee had personal reasons for favoring remote work, such as achieving a better work-life balance; however, as more colleagues returned to the office, they had to reconcile their individual preferences with the broader trend, mindful of how their choice might be perceived by coworkers.
An additional defining characteristic of information cascades is their fragility. Because cascades form when individuals rely on limited information rather than their own judgment, they can collapse just as quickly as they begin. Just as employees followed the observable behavior of their colleagues in returning to the office, they may also follow new trends that prioritize remote flexibility. For example, many companies now designate Fridays as remote.
Ultimately, even if employees viewed remote work as more efficient, the growing office presence led staff members to note that being in person was arguably essential for professional visibility and career growth. Moreover, people may imitate others’ actions if doing so offers them a direct benefit. In this case, employees go into the office because it benefits their professional status at work. Some feared missing out on networking opportunities or being perceived as less committed to their jobs. Others may have assumed that returning must be the right decision since so many had already done so. The result was a widespread movement back to in-person office work, even in the absence of concrete evidence that it was inherently superior. In conclusion, an information cascade happens when individuals ignore their own knowledge and instead follow the majority, particularly as social pressure to conform increases.