Finding Voice in the New Cocoon

Olivia Bonner on what the remote work revolution taught leaders about who speaks up, who falls silent, and how to create environments where every voice can be heard

Created in Midjourney

A new study reveals that the shift to remote work didn’t just change where we work—it fundamentally altered who speaks up and who stays silent.

Five years after the pandemic forced the largest workplace experiment in modern history, we’re still grappling with its implications. As organizations continue refining their hybrid work policies and debates persist about optimal work arrangements, a deeper question remains underexplored: What did we actually discover about ourselves during those transformative months when millions of knowledge workers were suddenly thrust into their homes, armed with nothing but a laptop and a Zoom account?

While the conversation has largely focused on productivity metrics, employee preferences, and real estate optimization, a remarkable study conducted during the height of the pandemic reveals something far more profound happened during our collective retreat into what researcher Olivia Bonner calls “the new cocoon.”

The question isn’t simply whether people are more or less productive at home—it’s whether remote work fundamentally changed who feels safe to speak and who chooses to remain silent.

The insights from this research, conducted in 2021, have only grown more relevant as we’ve moved beyond emergency measures to intentional workplace design. Understanding what happened to our voices during that period may hold the key to building more effective and inclusive work environments today.

The Great Disruption

When COVID-19 struck in March 2020, the transition to remote work wasn’t gradual or voluntary. It was, as one executive in Bonner’s study described it, “violent—violence to me, the violent disruption.” Within days, millions of office workers found themselves conducting board meetings from kitchen tables while children played in the background and Amazon deliveries interrupted crucial client calls.

But something unexpected happened in those chaotic early months.

As people moved beyond the initial scramble of finding a quiet corner and stable Wi-Fi, they began creating what Bonner’s research identifies as highly intentional “cocoons”—carefully curated spaces that served as both office and sanctuary. These weren’t simply makeshift workstations.

They were transitional spaces that fundamentally altered how people showed up, both literally and figuratively, to their work.

Bonner, who conducted in-depth interviews with 12 senior executives across different industries and countries during 2021, discovered that the shift to remote work created what she terms a “double transitional space”—the physical space of home combined with the virtual dimension of video calls. This combination didn’t just change where work happened; it transformed the psychological dynamics of workplace communication in ways that are still being understood.

Three Types of Cocoons

As the initial chaos of kitchen-table meetings subsided, Bonner found that executives fell into three distinct patterns of space creation:

The Transplanted Office: Some recreated their corporate workspace as precisely as possible at home. Christina, one of the study participants, described her setup: “It’s like for like, if you came to my actual office it would look the same.” These leaders found comfort in familiar objects—the same chair, the same desk arrangement, even carefully curated bookshelves designed to project professional authority on video calls.

The New Space for Me: Others seized the opportunity to create something entirely different—a multi-functional environment that expressed parts of themselves typically hidden in corporate settings. Virginia reclaimed “my study and my creative place. I have all my inspiration around me. It’s like my student room again.” Roger delighted in having his jazz collection and being able to “leave my mess on the desk!”

Work Anywhere: A third group embraced ultimate flexibility, turning work into a state of mind rather than a physical location. These individuals described the freedom as “anti-gravitational,” conducting calls while walking in forests or moving between different spaces throughout the day.

What’s striking about these patterns is how each represents a different relationship with control and self-expression—themes that would prove crucial in understanding what happened to people’s voices in this new environment.

The Paradox of Virtual Presence

The study’s most counterintuitive finding centers on what Bonner calls “virtual equity”—the way video conferencing paradoxically leveled certain power dynamics while creating entirely new ones. In traditional conference rooms, dominant personalities could use physical presence, body language, and spatial positioning to control conversations. The move to Brady Bunch-style video grids changed those rules entirely.

“It’s a level playing field,” one participant observed. “Everybody gets equal time.” The virtual format introduced new etiquette—arriving late became more noticeable and disruptive, side conversations were eliminated, and the loudest voice could no longer dominate simply through volume and physical intimidation.

But this virtual equity worked differently for different people. Stefi, who described herself as typically quiet in office meetings, found a new boldness: “I am braver in the virtual world. If it’s a question I want answered and it wasn’t answered properly I will ask again... I really challenged my chairman.” The structured nature of video calls, combined with the safety of being in her own space, gave her permission to speak up in ways she never had before.

Meanwhile, others experienced the opposite effect. Leaders accustomed to reading rooms, using physical presence to influence outcomes, or relying on spontaneous corridor conversations found themselves feeling “small” and “insignificant” in the virtual space. The inability to use traditional influence tactics left some choosing silence over the discomfort of speaking into what one participant described as a “nowhere space—like in a desert. I have no orientation.”

The Intimacy Revolution

Perhaps the most unexpected finding was how remote work created new forms of intimacy and authenticity in professional relationships. The virtual window into people’s homes—children interrupting calls, dogs wandering through meetings, glimpses of personal spaces and family photos—broke down barriers that had existed for decades in corporate culture.

“With Zoom, there is an immediate window, a pathway to a level of vulnerability that allows you to create human connections,” one executive explained. Participants described seeing colleagues in entirely new ways: “I now see the other side of the person, the way they play with their children... I trust them more.”

This accidental intimacy forced many to grapple with authenticity in ways their corporate personas had previously avoided. Some embraced showing up without makeup or revealing their actual living situations. Others found themselves torn between maintaining professional boundaries and the inevitable humanity that crept into their carefully curated video squares.

The study suggests this isn’t merely about work-life balance but about fundamental questions of identity and expression. When the traditional markers of professional hierarchy—corner offices, expensive suits, commanding physical presence—were stripped away, what remained was a more level playing field where ideas and authentic communication could potentially matter more than traditional power dynamics.

The Dark Side of the Cocoon

Not all the changes were positive. The study revealed significant losses that accompanied the gains in virtual equity and intimacy. Participants described feeling “amputated” from important social and professional cues. The inability to “read the room,” gauge reactions through body language, or engage in the informal conversations that often drive real decision-making left many feeling disoriented and disconnected.

“Humans transmit much more than we language,” one participant noted, highlighting the reduced sensory experience of virtual interaction. The loss of what Bonner calls “negative space”—the informal moments before and after meetings where relationship-building and subtle influence happen—proved particularly challenging for leaders whose effectiveness had depended on these interactions.

The compressed efficiency of back-to-back video calls, while productive in some ways, also created a new kind of pressure. As one executive described: “There is a strange paradox in this space. I have the dog at my feet so on the one hand I feel more comfortable, and yet I am now in back-to-back meetings, a new pressure, a new compression of time.”

Implications for the Future

As organizations continue to navigate hybrid work models, Bonner’s research suggests the question isn’t simply whether people should work from home or in the office. Instead, it’s about understanding how different environments enable or constrain different voices and types of contribution.

The study raises profound questions about organizational value creation. If remote work enables previously quiet voices to speak up while potentially silencing traditionally dominant ones, what does that mean for innovation and decision-making? If authentic vulnerability builds trust more effectively than traditional professional presentation, how should leadership development change?

Most importantly, the research suggests that the pandemic created an unexpected laboratory for exploring fundamental questions about psychological safety, power dynamics, and human expression in professional contexts. The executives who found their voices in virtual spaces are now asking whether they can maintain that newfound confidence when they return to traditional office environments.

Beyond the Binary Debate

The ongoing battle between return-to-office mandates and remote work preferences may be missing the point entirely. Bonner’s research suggests that the real opportunity lies not in choosing between physical and virtual work, but in understanding how to harness the benefits of both environments to create more inclusive, authentic, and effective organizations.

Rather than treating remote work as a temporary disruption to be corrected, organizations might consider it a portal—as writer Arundhati Roy suggested about the pandemic itself—“a gateway between one world and the next.” The question isn’t whether to walk back through it, but how to carry forward the insights about voice, presence, and human connection that emerged from our collective time in the cocoon.

Even during the study, the participants were already grappling with these questions. As Stefi wondered: “I wonder what it will be like when I am back in the office, will I take this ‘new me,’ these new ways’ into the office?” The answer to that question may determine whether the remote work experiment ends up being nothing more than a temporary disruption or whether it becomes instead an invitation to a more permanent transformation in how we think about human potential in professional settings.

For organizations willing to look beyond productivity metrics and real estate costs, the cocoon may have revealed something far more valuable: new ways to create environments where more voices can be heard, where authenticity builds trust, and where psychological safety enables innovation. The challenge now is figuring out how to nurture these insights as we navigate whatever comes next in the evolution of work.

This article is based on research conducted by Olivia Bonner for her Executive Masters in Change thesis at INSEAD, titled “Communicating from the New Cocoon: An Enquiry into Presence and Voice in the Virtual Space” (2021). The study employed interpretative phenomenological analysis to examine the lived experiences of 12 international executives during the pandemic’s shift to remote work.

References

Bonner, O. (2021). Communicating from the New Cocoon: An Enquiry into Presence and Voice in the Virtual Space [Executive Masters in Change thesis, INSEAD].

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organisation: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth. John Wiley & Sons.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349.

Milliken, F. J., & Morrison, E. W. (2003). Shades of silence: Emerging themes and future directions for research on silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1563-1568.

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412.

Roy, A. (2020, April 3). The pandemic is a portal. Financial Times.

Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 89-97.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. Tavistock Publications.