From 996 to Flexible Work: Tech Company Culture is Disappearing

The Empty Conference Room at 2 PM

I had a meeting at 2 PM last week. The original plan was to discuss the product roadmap for the next quarter with a few colleagues.

But 15 minutes in, we realized something: half the seats in the conference room were empty.

No one had asked for leave in advance. No one mentioned going to a client site, nor did anyone say they had a sync meeting with another team. After asking around, it turned out these were all “remote-first” employees—they can work from home, a coffee shop, or anywhere else, as long as they hit their KPIs.

This made me suddenly realize: the internal culture of tech companies may be undergoing a massive shift that none of us have noticed.

996: The Era of Rigid Time-Tracking

If you’re an experienced programmer, or you’ve heard stories from the older generation about tech companies in the past, you probably know what 996 is.

Back then, tech companies, especially internet firms, had a management culture with several distinct characteristics:

Time-clocking: You had to be at your desk before 9 AM, or money was deducted. Some companies even had access control systems to record exactly when you entered the office.

Fixed Desks: You had your own assigned workstation and couldn’t change it arbitrarily.

Instant Messaging: You used the company’s internal IM. You had to reply instantly; you weren’t allowed to set your status to “Busy.”

Overtime Culture: No one left at 9 or 10 PM; if you did, you were considered “not dedicated enough.”

Dress Code: Many companies required business formal; casual wear wasn’t allowed Monday through Thursday.

Surveillance: Some companies monitored your internet history and chat logs.

Underlying all these regulations was one assumption: If I can see you, I can control you.

This culture might have been effective in the industrial era, but in the age of the knowledge economy, it feels increasingly outdated.

Modern Flexible Work: Freedom on the Surface, Struggle Beneath

The phenomenon of the empty conference room at 2 PM is just one slice of “flexible work.”

In recent years, terms like “flexible work,” “remote-first,” and “hybrid office” have become standard selling points for tech companies. Many companies tout themselves during recruitment: “We believe in trust, not rigid forms.”

But the reality is likely more complex.

Friends of mine at several tech companies have had these experiences:

1. Flexible = Interruptible at Any Time

A friend working on backend development told me his current state is “always online,” yet no one tells him his specific working hours. This leads to several problems:

Eroded Boundaries - At 11 PM, on weekends, or holidays, he might receive messages or get pulled into meetings. If he doesn’t join, he is seen as “unresponsive.”
Fragmented Time - His time is sliced into small segments, forcing him to re-enter deep work mode between each task. This context switching is detrimental to deep work.
Rest Guilt - When he actually rests (e.g., not working on the weekend), he feels guilty, as if he is “not working hard enough.”

Is this called “flexibility”? I think it feels more like being “dominated by flexibility.”

2. Remote-First = Isolation

Another friend at a distributed company says their team is “fully remote,” but the company encourages everyone to “return to the office.” The reason? Management feels “face-to-face communication sparks more innovation.”

The result?

Remote colleagues are asked to come to the office 2-3 days a week.
Colleagues who do go to the office feel the long commute is a waste.
The team splits into “office faction” and “remote faction,” creating opposition.

Is this called “priority”? I think it looks more like a “chaotic compromise.”

3. Hybrid Office = Double Standards

Another friend in a hybrid setup says their management rules change every month. Sometimes it’s “must come to the office 2 days,” sometimes “try to be remote,” sometimes “all hands on deck.”

The most confusing part: no one knows the logic behind these decisions. It feels like management is making it up as they go: let’s try this this month, and that next month.

For employees, this means uncertainty: you never know what next month’s work requirements will be, so you can’t plan your life.

The Core Issue: Trust vs. Control

I’ve thought for a long time about why tech companies tout “trust” and “autonomy” on one hand, while constantly tightening management styles with the other.

I think the problem might be this: Companies want the efficiency that comes with trust, but are unwilling to truly let go of control.

Flexible work, remote-first, hybrid office—these terms表面上 give employees freedom, but they may hide a deeper anxiety: companies are afraid of losing their surveillance rights over employees.

This anxiety creates a paradox:

On one hand, the company says: “We trust you to manage your own time.”
On the other hand, the company thinks: “But we still need mechanisms to ensure you are actually working.”

The result is: employees have neither true freedom nor clear management expectations. Everyone exists in a fuzzy intermediate state, unsure if what they are doing is “right” or “wrong,” left to guess based on feelings.

An Observation: 996 Hasn’t Disappeared, It’s Just Gone Invisible

Old corporate management was explicit control (time-clocks, fixed desks, surveillance). Now, it has become implicit control (KPI-driven, instant messaging demands, constant on-call status).

Implicit control might be more terrifying because it wears the cloak of “trust,” making you feel like it’s a free choice, when in reality every step you take is being invisibly measured and constrained.

The empty conference room at 2 PM might just be a manifestation of this invisible control: the company thinks “since you can remote in, it doesn’t delay anything,” but employees tacitly understand and choose to go to the office because they don’t want to give the impression of being “absent.”

What This Means

If I were a company manager, I would ask myself a few questions:

First, are our flexible work policies really for the employees’ convenience, or the company’s? If employees are more productive working remotely, why must I insist they return?

Second, are our monitoring and assessment criteria designed to evaluate work results, or to satisfy management’s desire for control? If we measure everything by KPIs, will employees just chase numbers while ignoring creativity?

Third, is our culture built on trust, or on surveillance? If the two conflict, which one do we actually believe in?

Fourth, if an employee needs to adjust their schedule due to illness or family reasons, do we show understanding and flexibility, or do we show disappointment and hint that they are “unprofessional”?

A Hope of Mine

I’m not saying flexible work is bad. I am a remote worker myself, and I enjoy the freedom it brings.

But I feel the premise of this freedom must be: both sides genuinely acknowledge each other’s needs and boundaries, rather than using “flexibility” as an excuse for the company to evade responsibility.

Flexible work should be: a two-way contract between employee and company, not a form of alms bestowed by the company upon the employee.

If companies really trust their employees, please provide clear policy boundaries. Stop making employees guess every day, “Will I be considered not working hard enough today?”

If companies really want autonomy, please shift evaluation standards from “presence” to “work output,” rather than inferring attitude from “how fast they reply.”

From 996 to 2026: How Far Have We Come?

Tech companies in the late 20th century used time clocks to lock people in offices. Tech companies in the 21st century used Slack to lock people in front of screens.

And today’s tech companies use “flexible work” to lock people in a state where they can be interrupted at any time.

On the surface, employees have gained more freedom. But in reality, the means of control have become more refined and more covert.

Is this progress? Perhaps in terms of management efficiency. But regarding human autonomy, the sense of meaning in work, and professional dignity, I think this is a question worth reflecting on.

Final Words

I hope that in the coming decade, tech companies can find a better balance.

This balance isn’t the extreme of “either total freedom or total control,” but a middle ground of “clear rules, sincere trust, and results-oriented focus.”

In this balance, employees feel a sense of responsibility bestowed upon them, not shackles imposed upon them. Companies gain genuine innovation capability, not false compliance.

The empty conference room at 2 PM shouldn’t just be a symptom of no one showing up; it should be a symbol that everyone dares to be “absent” and also dares to “complete tasks with high quality when present.”

I hope, and believe, that such conference rooms will become more numerous, not fewer.

Because we deserve a more dignified work environment, whether in the office, a coffee shop, or on the sofa at home.