By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

The most profitable thing many companies can do this year is tell their employees to stop responding after hours. That claim sounds like heresy in an “always on” economy that valorizes availability, but new evidence from a study by Dr. Mark Ma and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh shows that setting a hard stop after the workday pays off for both employers and workers. The data lands at a moment when many are debating whether to follow dozens of jurisdictions that already protect the right to disconnect, and both Congress and state legislatures should strongly consider following their lead.

Profits Rise When Workers Can Log Off

Here is the study headline finding you do not hear in late-night Slack threads: When countries adopt right to disconnect laws, firm profitability goes up. In a large difference-in-differences analysis spanning 143,396 firm-year observations across 28 OECD countries from 2014 to 2024, companies in nations that enacted a right to disconnect posted significant gains in both return on assets and operating income after adoption. The increases equal roughly 5.7 percent and 6.1 percent of the standard deviation of those measures, a real boost that shows up quickly after the laws take effect.

The mechanism is not mystery or magic. Productivity improves when people recover outside work. The study documents higher revenue per employee after adoption and lower operating expense per employee, while total headcount does not change in a statistically significant way. In other words, firms generated more per person with leaner operating costs, which is exactly what executives say they want.

Methodology matters in policy debates, and this one holds up. To avoid the pitfalls of traditional two-way fixed effects with staggered policies, the authors use modern statistical methodology and match treated countries to neighbors to control for regional effects. The profitability gains persist across specifications and appear soon after adoption.

If you assume these results are simply macro tailwinds, think again. The study finds that adoptions are not explained by GDP growth, employment, or birth rates, and the pre-trend checks are flat. That strengthens the causal story policy makers care about: limit after-hours interruptions and firms perform better.

Stronger Rules, Stronger Results

Not all right to disconnect laws are created equal. Design choices determine whether the policy is a paper tiger or a performance enhancer. Countries that pair the right with meaningful enforcement see larger gains. Where fines for noncompliance exist and where employers must include the policy in employment contracts, the profitability lift is bigger and statistically stronger.

Eligibility matters too. Extending protections to all workers beats limiting them to remote or hybrid staff, although even remote-only rules still help. These details are not abstractions; they are levers U.S. lawmakers can pull.

International experience offers practical templates. Australia’s Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act created a national right to refuse employer contact outside working hours, with clear timelines for rollout and guidance from the Fair Work bodies. The official legislation and regulator explain when the right applies, how disputes are handled, and when small businesses come into scope, giving employers certainty and workers clarity.

Europe’s experience is instructive as well. Company-level research compiled for the EU finds that right to disconnect policies work best when paired with awareness efforts, manager training, and practical measures that limit out-of-hours connection. That combination raises acceptance and improves effectiveness on the ground. Over seventy percent of workers in companies with a policy rate its impact positively, but the biggest gains come when policies are embedded in day-to-day practice.

This is the core lesson for the United States. If Congress or states choose to act, they should avoid vague aspirations and write rules that are easy to follow. Spell out what counts as “nonworking hours,” require written policies, align with time-zone realities, and specify enforcement that nudges compliance rather than inviting litigation. The profit story depends on clarity.

A Policy Win For Workers And Employers

Profit is only half the story. Workers’ lives improve when they can truly unplug. Using tens of thousands of Glassdoor ratings, the study shows a statistically significant rise in work-life balance satisfaction among employees in Ontario after the province implemented its right to disconnect in 2022. The effect is strongest at firms that started with weaker work-life balance, exactly where policy can do the most good.

Independent surveys point the same direction. Slack’s Workforce Index, based on more than 10,000 desk workers, finds that people who log off at the end of the day report “20 percent higher productivity” than those who feel pressure to work after hours. That is a striking confirmation that productivity improves when boundaries are respected.

Opponents warn that the right to disconnect will paralyze urgent operations. That straw man ignores the text of modern bills and laws, which include exceptions for emergencies and scheduling. New Jersey’s pending A4852 would require employers to set a written policy defining nonworking hours, while allowing exceptions for emergencies or scheduling and specifying administrative enforcement, a straightforward and flexible approach.

California’s 2024 proposal stirred a healthy debate and has not advanced, due in part to concerns from employer groups. Even critics acknowledged the challenge the policy tries to solve. That debate is worth having, but it should be anchored in facts rather than fears, because the best evidence we have shows that clearly drafted rights with reasonable enforcement and exceptions can raise productivity and satisfaction at the same time.

For lawmakers who are cautious about mandates, there is a middle road that still captures the performance gains the study identifies. Congress could set a floor for federal contractors, requiring a written right-to-disconnect policy with emergency carve-outs and reporting requirements. Agencies could model best practices by setting server-side delays on emails sent after hours or by adopting default quiet hours, techniques already used by several European employers. States can run alongside with targeted statutes like New Jersey’s. If you prefer a market approach, the evidence still helps: boards and investors can ask management teams to adopt right-to-disconnect policies voluntarily, because the business case is now clear.

Finally, consider the labor market angle. The profitability effect in the research is greater in tighter labor markets, where employees have more bargaining power. That implies a competitive advantage for jurisdictions that make it easier to attract scarce talent with credible work-life balance. If Washington wants to keep high-skill workers in the United States, codifying a sensible right to disconnect would be a smart way to do it.

Conclusion

When lawmakers ask business what they need, the answer is usually the same: productivity, predictability, and talent. The right to disconnect delivers all three. Productivity improves because rested people do better work. Predictability improves because expectations are clear and after-hours communication is reserved for truly urgent needs. Talent flows to places that respect time outside the office, especially in a world where many of the best candidates can take their skills anywhere.

The latest evidence should move this debate out of the realm of intuition. We now have large-sample, multi-country data showing that right to disconnect laws are associated with higher profitability and better employee satisfaction, with larger gains where rules are clear and enforceable. The picture that emerges is a blueprint for policy that supports business outcomes without sacrificing human ones.

It is time to stop treating after-hours availability as a proxy for commitment. A clear pro-growth move Congress can make for the modern economy is to help Americans log off, so they can show up the next day ready to produce at the top of their game.

About the Author

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

Corporate leaders everywhere crave momentum. They seek progress, faster outcomes, and robust growth. Yet siloed teams struggle to integrate innovative technology in ways that produce long-term value. Gen AI, the next big wave of transformative technology, cannot be deployed successfully by a single team operating in isolation. That is why I advocate for cross-functional Gen AI committees, which unite diverse expertise and perspectives and ensure technology seamlessly aligns with strategic goals. Today, organizations are scrambling to incorporate Gen AI into every corner of operations, but the real competitive advantage emerges when Gen AI committees harness the power of collective knowledge to guide, optimize, and champion these initiatives from start to finish.

Gen AI Excellence via Cross-Functional Collaboration

Gen AI integration thrives when representatives from different parts of the business collaborate. Information Technology might spearhead the technical aspects, but finance, human resources, marketing, and operations hold knowledge that can make or break a launch.

I once consulted with a mid-sized manufacturing company looking to leverage Gen AI to forecast demand and automate select processes. The senior leaders initially believed the IT department could handle the entire project. They assumed that data scientists and software developers, working by themselves, would build the perfect solution. That perception changed when I showed how marketing input shaped predictive analytics models, and how frontline employees’ perspectives on production timelines gave the project a ground-level understanding that mere data sets could never fully capture.

The client formed a cross-functional committee that included IT professionals, a marketing director, an operations specialist, and a data-oriented HR representative who brought valuable insights into upskilling staff. This committee met frequently, shared domain-specific feedback, tested iterative versions of new tools, and ultimately produced a Gen AI forecasting system that improved production efficiency by over 30% and cut waste by 25%. The Chief Technology Officer fully acknowledged that working alone, IT wouldn’t have come close to achieving these outcomes.

This approach unites teams under one mission: to embed Gen AI into strategic initiatives that solve real business challenges. In my experience, individuals often resist new technology when they sense it’s being forced on them by senior management or by a department that doesn’t grasp the full scope of their daily activities and fails to grasp the realities of each department’s risk management needs.

Cross-functional committees eliminate that problem. They give employees a voice in the process. Regular dialogue between departments fosters buy-in because no one feels left behind. Instead, every participant sees his or her insights reflected in the final decision. That sense of ownership matters. It turns reluctant adopters into enthusiastic advocates.

Effective Committee Composition for Gen AI Excellence

Some leaders worry that forming these committees is cumbersome. They ask whether people with different skill sets and priorities can collaborate without clashing. My answer is straightforward: the friction caused by diverse perspectives is exactly what makes these committees so effective.

You want IT professionals who understand database security, HR specialists who can foresee how automation affects workforce morale, marketing directors who see how Gen AI can bolster customer engagement, and finance experts who evaluate potential savings. Each member contributes a fresh angle that illuminates corners of the business usually hidden from others. These committees unify the organization’s purpose under a shared goal and drive progress that resonates across the entire enterprise.

In my consulting work, I once guided a consumer-packaged goods (CPG) company seeking to apply Gen AI to inventory management. The supply chain leader quickly recognized that automating the reorder process could be transformative, but only if the algorithm accounted for market fluctuations that the marketing team diligently tracked. We put together a committee including the CFO, who cared about balancing capital locked in inventory, and a customer service manager, who worried about how automated ordering might impact shipping times and product availability. Meetings involved direct discussion of real challenges, not abstract debates.

Every participant pressed each other to explain why certain operational constraints existed. Discussions were lively, and disagreements arose, yet each friction point sparked a more refined solution. Ultimately, the committee designed a system that cut inventory costs by 15% in the first quarter of launch, and another 10% in the second quarter. The CFO’s perspective ensured the algorithm included real-time budgeting triggers, while the marketing department’s input enabled more precise demand forecasting.

I see that synergy repeated in many of my engagements. The tension of varied perspectives helps anticipate problems early in the design phase. Implementation timelines shorten. Resistance diminishes. Workflows flow.

Technology projects often stumble when decision-making excludes or underrepresents particular voices. Gen AI committees prevent that pitfall by welcoming relevant stakeholders who test assumptions from every angle. Imagine trying to solve a Rubik’s Cube using only one side. That’s how many companies operate when they relegate key decisions to a single department. Cross-functional committees fix that inefficiency by compiling a mosaic of skills that align to produce solutions that stick.

Steering Implementation for Sustained Value

Cross-functional committees serve another crucial function. They help you identify and prioritize use cases for Gen AI with clarity. IT alone might fixate on system integration, whereas a marketing department might prioritize predictive analytics to shape product launches. By synchronizing these visions, the organization can evaluate which projects deliver the greatest return.

Think of it as risk mitigation. If one department misjudges an emerging risk or an unforeseen bottleneck, someone else in the committee spots it. This ensures that the rollout proceeds smoothly, with minimal wasted resources.

My consulting firm intervened in one recent case where a healthcare enterprise needed to adopt Gen AI for patient billing automation. Leaders worried about compliance with privacy regulations, while patient-facing nurses worried about possible disruptions to the personal aspect of patient care. The newly formed committee pulled in experts from legal, IT, billing, and patient care teams.

We conducted a pilot rollout with a few specialty clinics to stress-test the technology. The pilot revealed that front-office staff needed more training on adjusting codes for unusual billing scenarios. Without that insight, the entire system might have bottlenecked or even triggered a compliance red flag. Because the pilot was carefully orchestrated by a diverse group with a mandate to test each facet, the committee fine-tuned the solution, provided targeted staff training, and delivered a final product that saved staff hours without compromising patient experiences.

This iterative approach is essential for any Gen AI initiative. Rather than presenting a finished product to the organization in one swoop, committees release early versions, gather feedback, integrate what they learn, and refine processes with each cycle. This generates momentum and confidence. People see tangible benefits within weeks or months, not years. They speak up about functionality that needs improvement, and the committee makes swift revisions to keep morale and efficiency high. Over time, this cycle fosters an environment where employees not only trust Gen AI but also champion continued innovation, which drives sustainable growth.

Why This Matters Now

Organizations often overlook the power of broad-based involvement. They assume senior leaders or technical experts know best. Gen AI, due to its vast potential, requires nuance and creativity that flourish when everyone who might be touched by the technology has a seat at the table. When committees guide development, employees become co-creators rather than passive recipients. Adoption accelerates. Resistance falls away. That kind of buy-in is indispensable, particularly as today’s markets reward agility.

Gen AI tools evolve, and so must your teams. Cross-functional committees create channels of continuous feedback. They transform conflict into productive dialogue. They help you find overlooked synergies that lead to breakthroughs in everything from cost savings to customer satisfaction.

Innovation rarely follows a smooth path. It thrives on diverse perspectives that reveal hidden stumbling blocks. Cross-functional committees, in my experience, represent the surest way to harness that diversity so Gen AI investments fulfill their promise. They reduce friction and unite different parts of the organization around a shared vision. Leaders who embrace this approach see technology adoption move faster, yield greater returns, and spur deeper employee engagement. Workers relish the chance to shape Gen AI’s direction, and clients benefit from solutions that solve real, day-to-day pains. Committees present a practical, user-friendly route to achieving business goals in a hyper-competitive environment. They funnel each department’s best ideas into an integrated blueprint for success.

Conclusion

When Gen AI is championed by a cross-functional committee, the entire organization feels its value. People who once feared automation or data analytics gain confidence because they see how the new processes make work more efficient and rewarding. There is a tangible sense of unity in purpose, and that emotional energy fosters a culture ready to embrace what comes next. As I always tell my clients, the sweet spot of innovation emerges when leaders encourage broad collaboration. Cross-functional Gen AI committees represent that sweet spot, bringing together the brightest minds, bridging departmental gaps, and building a united front that propels an organization toward sustainable growth.

About the Author