OpenAI’s history as a nonprofit research institute that also sells commercial products like ChatGPT may be coming to an end as the San Francisco company looks to more fully convert itself into a for-profit corporation accountable to shareholders.

The company’s board is considering a decision that would change the company into a public benefit corporation, according to a source familiar with the discussions who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about them.

While OpenAI already has a for-profit division, where most of its staff works, it is controlled by a nonprofit board of directors whose mission is to help humanity. That would change if the company converts the core of its structure to a public benefit corporation, which is a type of corporate entity that is supposed to help society as well as turn a profit.

No final decision has been made by the board and the timing of the shift hasn’t been determined, the source said.

OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman acknowledged in public remarks Thursday that the company is thinking about restructuring but said the departures of key executives the day before weren’t related.

Speaking at a tech conference in Italy, Sam Altman mentioned that OpenAI has been considering an overhaul to get to the “next stage.” But he said it was not connected to the Wednesday resignations of Chief Technology Officer Mira Murati and two other top leaders.

“OpenAI will be stronger for it as we are for all of our transitions,” Altman told the Italian Tech Week event in Turin. “I saw some stuff that this was, like, related to a restructure. That’s totally not true. Most of the stuff I saw was also just totally wrong,” he said without any more specificity.

“But we have been thinking about (a restructuring),” he added. OpenAI’s board has been considering a revamp for a year as it tries to figure out what’s needed to “get to our next stage.”

OpenAI said Thursday that it will still retain a nonprofit arm.

“We remain focused on building AI that benefits everyone and as we’ve previously shared we’re working with our board to ensure that we’re best positioned to succeed in our mission,” it said in a written statement. “The nonprofit is core to our mission and will continue to exist.”

The resignations of Murati, Chief Research Officer Bob McGrew and another research leader, Barret Zoph, were “just about people being ready for new chapters of their lives and a new generation of leadership,” Altman said.

The exits were the latest in a string of recent high-profile departures that also include the resignations of OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever and safety team leader Jan Leike in May. In a statement, Leike had leveled criticism at OpenAI for letting safety “take a backseat to shiny products.”

Much of the conflict at OpenAI has been rooted in its unusual governance structure. Founded in 2015 as a nonprofit with a mission to safely build futuristic AI to help humanity, it is now a fast-growing big business still controlled by a nonprofit board bound to its original mission.

This unique structure made it possible for four OpenAI board members—Sutskever, two outside tech entrepreneurs and an academic—to briefly oust Altman last November in what was later described as a dispute over a “significant breakdown in trust” between the board and top executives. But with help from a powerful backer, Microsoft, Altman was brought back to the CEO role days later and a new board replaced the old one. OpenAI also put Altman back on the board of directors in May.

© 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon sparked debate on the future of work in New Zealand this week when he ordered public service employees back to the office.

But Luxon’s edict neglects a broader transformation in work culture.

Work from home (WFH) arrangements have grown considerably over the past decade, propelled by an increase in dual-income households and rapid technological advancements.

The COVID pandemic acted as a catalyst for further change, proving that many jobs could successfully be performed remotely.

Our upcoming article in the New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations addresses the pros and cons of remote work. We highlight how a hybrid model—mixing days in the office with days working from home—can improve well-being, engagement and productivity.

We found embracing a hybrid approach may lead to better outcomes as society shifts with technology and employment expectations. And, despite the prime minister’s demands on public service workers, it may be too late to go back.

Embracing flexibility

Under current rules, employees can request flexible working arrangements. Employers must provide valid reasons if they decline the request.

According to a 2023 survey from Human Resources New Zealand, 40% of HR professionals noted productivity gains as a critical advantage of WFH arrangements.

And some professional organizations have embraced work from home or hybrid work arrangements.

The New Zealand Law Association, for example, has emphasized the significant benefits of flexible work for their members, including increased employee engagement, productivity, and overall well-being.

A report from Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission noted the public service’s success in delivering quality services during the pandemic while working remotely.

The commission’s current guidance on hybrid work arrangements supports flexibility that allows working from home to focus and working together when necessary.

Does WFH reduce efficiency?

Luxon argues forcing workers back to the office will promote efficiency. But there is little evidence suggesting New Zealand’s productivity has significantly declined with WFH or hybrid arrangements.

Instead, we found office-only arrangements risked introducing new inefficiencies for the government. These included new layers of permissions and reporting on arrangements that have already been agreed to.

The assumption that office work suits everyone is also contradicted by experiences during and after COVID.

During the first year of the pandemic, many workers felt the void of casual interactions that once sparked creativity. They also struggled with isolation. This was especially pronounced for caregivers, often women, who had to juggle professional duties with increased childcare responsibilities.

Despite this, a University of Otago survey conducted during the pandemic noted 67% of participants preferred a hybrid work model.

Many expressed optimism regarding remote work’s continuation, with significant portions reporting stable or increased productivity, although some struggled with home distractions.

And our research found taking a hybrid approach to work—with one or more days at home—reduced the risks from professional and social isolation and improved collaboration.

Opportunities to work at home some of the time also allowed time for focused work, reduced commuting time and improved well-being.

Boosting productivity from home

Luxon’s assertion that working from home is “not an entitlement” aligns with traditional views on work. These include the belief that time at a desk is a measurement of productivity, rather than measuring the outcomes from work.

However, a growing body of evidence indicates remote work can elevate both productivity and employee satisfaction.

Eliminating daily commutes allows employees to redirect time toward focused work, positively impacting job satisfaction and mental well-being.

Moreover, remote work fosters inclusivity, enabling organizations to source talent from a broader geographic area, which in turn enhances diversity and innovation.

A report from McKinsey & Company found businesses adopting flexible work arrangements are better positioned to navigate future uncertainties, sustaining or even boosting productivity.

A survey by the Australian Council of Trade Unions exploring WFH revealed nearly 48% of participants experienced enhanced productivity, attributed in part to the elimination of commuting.

However, it also highlighted challenges. Some 40% of respondents said they were facing longer work hours, which can lead to burnout. Addressing these issues is essential to maintaining employee well-being.

The future of work

Instead of enforcing strict office attendance, leaders should adapt to the changing work landscape.

Promoting flexible arrangements can foster a more productive and engaged workforce, ultimately benefiting New Zealand’s public service in today’s dynamic environment.

Balancing both office and remote work presents the most promising path forward.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.