Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

80% of Bosses Say They Regret Earlier Return-To-Office Plans (cnbc.com) 152

Posted by BeauHD from the phase-of-remorse dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: A whopping 80% of bosses regret their initial return-to-office decisions and say they would have approached their plans differently if they had a better understanding of what their employees wanted, according to new research from Envoy. "Many companies are realizing they could have been a lot more measured in their approach, rather than making big, bold, very controversial decisions based on executives' opinions rather than employee data," Larry Gadea, Envoy's CEO and founder, tells CNBC Make It.

Envoy interviewed more than 1,000 U.S. company executives and workplace managers who work in-person at least one day per week. Some leaders lamented the challenge of measuring the success of in-office policies, while others said it's been hard to make long-term real estate investments without knowing how employees might feel about being in the office weeks, or even months, from now. Kathy Kacher, a consultant who advises corporate executives on their return-to-office plans, is surprised the percentage isn't higher. "Many organizations that attempted to force a return to the office have had to retract or change their plans because of employee pushback, and now, they don't look strong," says Kacher, the president of Career/Life Alliance Services. "A lot of executives have egg on their faces and they're sad about that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

80% of Bosses Say They Regret Earlier Return-To-Office Plans More

80% of Bosses Say They Regret Earlier Return-To-Office Plans

Comments Filter:

  • The other 20% also regret it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Narcocide ( 102829 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:05PM (#63767634) Homepage

    ... but these aren't the type of people known for being able to publicly admit when they know they made a mistake.

    • Re:The other 20% also regret it... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @10:29PM (#63767994) Homepage

      You give them too much credit. The other 20% are probably too stupid to realize they made a mistake.

      • You give them too much credit. The other 20% are probably too stupid to realize they made a mistake.

        "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong." - Principal Skinner

        LK

    • The other 20% probably just haven't noticed yet that they're losing their key talent.

      Believe it or not, there are companies that have so much inertia that they will not notice that they lost their key movers and shakers for long enough that they have reached the point of no return when they finally do. And this is when they lament and cry how "the economy" is causing their business to fail when it's not "the economy" but their total and utter inability to deal with a changing economy.

      And they are supposed t

      • And they are supposed to perish. Let them. It's time we cut the dead weight.

        These companies have minimized unnecessary costs like their employees, investing instead where it matters: campaign donations. This allows taking bold risks, with the safety of knowing the important shareholders (ie, not you) will be protected by bailouts.

  • Real reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:05PM (#63767636) Journal

    "A lot of executives have egg on their faces and they're sad about that."

    It's not about employees, it's not about profit, it's about losing status among your fellow executives/managers.

    • Re:Real reason (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:40PM (#63767708)

      "A lot of executives have egg on their faces and they're sad about that."

      It's not about employees, it's not about profit, it's about losing status among your fellow executives/managers.

      Let's see how well the Board favors the executive stance carrying an expensive corporate building lease on the financial back of the business when the competition figured out how to not half-ass WFH and shitcan that building expense entirely, ultimately driving others out of business.

      Bankruptcy is a hell of a status symbol.

      • The problem is that the board also has the same conflict of interests regarding corporate real estate, involving their own personal investments which they've no doubt carefully diversified into real estate.

        • The problem is that the board also has the same conflict of interests regarding corporate real estate, involving their own personal investments which they've no doubt carefully diversified into real estate.

          All while the other fist is buried deep in the corporate stock hole.

          That's not a conflict of interest. It's a dismantling of morals and ethics in business that lobbied to allow your example to exist. Since those actions remain legal, they're likely worth it damn near every time to those putting themselves in the occasional Catch-22. Downsides are likely nothing more than a calculated business expense at this point.

        • Re:Real reason (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @01:00AM (#63768220)

          It's not just real estate. Listen to what city leaders are saying:

          I'll paraphrase: "We gave you big discounts, and gave you personally higher status and more power in return for your delivering 5,000 employees to the city center where they spend money. Why should we give your company anything if you no longer provide any revenue to the city?"

        • I'm not here to prop up their failed investments. Cry me a fucking river.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kisai ( 213879 )

        Indeed. The sooner these big businesses that have no business owning the naming rights on a luxury commercial/residential tower, the better.

    • Make no mistake it's about the employees (Score:4, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:57PM (#63767738)
      the CEOs were expecting interest rate hikes to continue until we hit a major recession, so that their employees wouldn't have any choice but to keep working like slaves or be homeless.

      Thing is the last Administration did massive banking deregulation, making the banks way, way more fragile than anyone, including Jerome Powell, realized. As a result they've had to go easy on the interest rate hikes. They don't care what happens to us [youtube.com], but the banks must be protected.

      So we didn't get that recession, and when the CEOs did RTO they lost a *ton* of expensive and valuable employees. They still need us. It galls them to no end, but they do. They're not quite Kings & Queens yet (though they're trying to fix that [nytimes.com]).

      It is absolutely bonkers what's going on in our economy and political system these days, and has been since the early 2000s. That's the problem really. It's all so bat shit crazy when you lay it out (like I did above) nobody wants to believe it. It's easier to believe in crazy theories about secret cabals than the shit that's happening right out in the open. Like the whole Iran Contra thing or the Gulf Of Tonkin. You can read about it, confirm it all, but it's more than most people can take in...

    • Well it is about profit - but the executive's profit/pay check, not the company's.

      • Often you will see people/managers/executives working against their own monetary interest, because of the "oh no that person is making more than me" principle.

        So for example, if we all have stock in our company, I should want you to succeed, even if that means you get promoted ahead of me, that will still mean my own stock is worth more. But actually people will backstab you to keep you from getting promoted, even if that means hurting their personal income.

    • Sorry, but I don't give a fuck about the sensibilities of big babies. Let them cry, let them stomp their feet, if they can't do anything else, they don't deserve being C-Levels.

      Let them fail.

  • Not me! (Score:4, Informative)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:11PM (#63767644)

    I think we had a solid plan that addressed employee needs and was flexible enough to allow people to do what they needed to get the job done. We are technically 3 days in the office now, but most only do two days. We also take a break periodically and officially say nobody needs to work in the office.

    Some people have been coming in since June 2020 for their own reasons.

    What we have been unsuccessful with though is bringing on new remote workers; I thought we would have better luck there.

    • Re: Not me! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jrnvk ( 4197967 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:16PM (#63767656)
      Current remote workers do not want to waste time with orgs that even think about forcing people back to the office.

      • That is for current workers, not new workers.

        The problem with bringing on new remote workers is they know nobody. They have no idea what other parts of the company are doing or even who they are. They don't know the culture. Meeting people on Zoom is not the same as sharing air with them.

        • Re: Not me! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:53PM (#63767728)

          I switched employers during COVID. My interview was done by videoconference, my training was done with mixed media including videoconferencing support, and my work was done that way too.

          The company had mandatory (excluding time-sensitive emergency tasks) meetings three times a week with as many people as they could fit on a video screen. I got to know people, it can work if done well.

          Though oddly, despite doing it so well... once the main rush of COVID was done my new employer forced back-to-work for anyone who wasn't a manager or lacked leverage. The critical guys who could walk and cripple a department with the institutional knowledge loss still work from home. Guys like me are forced to commute in and the reasons given are very much bullshit (you figure it out when the reasons change based on what sounds plausible in the moment... or when they no longer apply and are still insisted upon).

          • I switched employers during COVID. My interview was done by videoconference, my training was done with mixed media including videoconferencing support, and my work was done that way too.

            The company had mandatory (excluding time-sensitive emergency tasks) meetings three times a week with as many people as they could fit on a video screen. I got to know people, it can work if done well.

            I"ve worked contracting gigs in IT for years and years....and NEVER met any of the people I worked with in real life, and

        • Corporate culture's over rated. It's a job, not a life style. As for "Knowing People", it's worthless. Companies don't promote from within below C-level and haven't in two decades. The way you get ahead is get some experience and move to another company, then come back with the experience from that company. Everything changed when companies stopped training and paying for education. They're all after the cheapest labor they can get their hands on.
        • Company culture should now be working from home. I don't need to know what Janet in accounting is doing. Sharing air with people can be done quarterly or annually. Offices are just glorified day cares for needy extroverts.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          It would probably be close enough if someone was designated to make introductions and make sure new hires had a complete contact list.

          It's time for managers to step up and manage. Not by just doing whatever they did before but actually earn their pay by coming up with effective strategies to work in the new work from home reality.

          Perhaps instead of mandated in office days, mandate spending a half hour twice a week on a company maintained chat roulette like server. Maintain a company directory including vide

        • I switched employers mid-pandemic (beginning of 2021). Everything took place remotely except paperwork signing. Got a new project, with a new client, gathered a fresh team, we learned every specific aspect of that project and became good at it, all while working 100% remotely.
          The first time most of us met face-to-face (save one guy who works from a different city, and another who works from a different country) was about three months ago, when we met outside the office, at some bar/restaurant, on the terrac

        • I've worked in places for years and not known what people at the same table do.

          Video conferencing opens up a company to quickly work people out that you may only have been able to email or phone.

          COVID made video conferencing the norm, which is great in many ways.

        • I'm old. I had my share of companies. And I can say with some experience that most of the cultures that exist in companies should better be kept in Petri dishes in high-sec labs because they're quite toxic. The less you get exposed to that carcinogen, the better.

          It's bad enough that I have to share a planet with other people. Having to share air with them sure is a stress factor for me and anything I could do to avoid this will be done.

          If you have problems retaining people because they know nobody, your pro

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khchung ( 462899 )

          The problem with bringing on new remote workers is they know nobody. They have no idea what other parts of the company are doing or even who they are. They don't know the culture. Meeting people on Zoom is not the same as sharing air with them.

          Somehow all these were never a problem when companies outsource roles to overseas in the last 20+ years.

          Starting from more than 10 years ago, I already have had to deal with new employees joining the team who work 100% remotely in another office, in another country, with a different first language and different culture. We were told to deal with it, and we did so effectively. But now it is a problem become someone new is working 100% remotely less than 50 miles away in the same country, speak the same fi

        • They don't know the culture.

          People bandy this word about all the time....IMHO it is perfectly meaningless.

          What's a company culture? A new slogan on the walls or letter head every couple of years?

          Who actually puts true meaning into that.

          You have a company that needs work.

          A worker has skills the company will pay for....

          What culture? If it is a culture...WTF difference does it ever make in your day to day work life?

          I've seen companies spend $$$ for consultants to come in and revamp the culture.

          What

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by N1AK ( 864906 )
            Companies 100% tend to have a culture (as much as any group of individuals can be considered to). But although I disagree with you on that point, the point you are making about companies wasting money on changing culture is absolutely right. Companies think they can spend years hiring people based on criteria, managing and promoting in certain ways, filtering down hires and people who stay to share certain values and preferences, then spend a couple of months talking about culture and expect the whole organ

    • What we have been unsuccessful with though is bringing on new remote workers; I thought we would have better luck there.

      Find ways to have work social events. Play "exploding kittens" together, or online pictionary, or whatever. Another thing you can do is have an online work room, where people get together for a couple hours a day to work together. Another thing is pair programming (even if you don't need to do it, it can be really helpful for social reasons, and the code tends to be better quality).

      • Or run a discord server/channel for your buddies you would normally hang out with at work. Basically keep socializing with those you would have before with. Back when I went into the office I did not talk/communicate on a social level with 95% of the staff. The 5% I do/did, it seems no different to me now. We just don't go to lunch every day like we did before.

        • That's difficult for bringing in new employees though. Unlike with cubicles, you can't hear the guy a couple of home-offices over talking about something interesting on discord as you walk past in order to realize "Hey, they might be part of the 5% it's worth talking to." in the first place.

          Or so it seems to me at least. How many of "the new guys" have joined your discord clique?

          • What the hell is that other guy saying that is so important to you and why aren't you focusing on your own job? If you are listening to conversations in other cubicles then it makes your actial job horrible because you aren't focusing on it, you are doing it distracted all the time which is never fulfilling.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Having occasional social get togethers is a lot better than daily grind in an office. When you are working it's different, you don't get time to socialise because you need to be concentrating on the work.

        Plus who says you only have to socialise with colleagues? How about getting to know your neighbors too?

        • Having occasional social get togethers is a lot better than daily grind in an office. When you are working it's different, you don't get time to socialise because you need to be concentrating on the work.

          Plus who says you only have to socialise with colleagues? How about getting to know your neighbors too?

          Yeah I don't get all this "socialization at work" people are talking about.

          Don't most people have a life AND close friends and family outside of work to do their socialization with?

          Don't get me wrong

          • I am like you, but i think some people don't see value in relationships with others unless those relationships get them somewhere financially or in terms of status. I hope the boat and expensive car makes them happy.

            • I am like you, but i think some people don't see value in relationships with others unless those relationships get them somewhere financially or in terms of status. I hope the boat and expensive car makes them happy.

              Friends help you move.

              REAL friends help you move bodies.

    • Re:Not me! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @10:35PM (#63768004) Homepage

      The whole in / out / in / out game is just that, a game. Executives are basically trying to get a toehold, give employees a "taste" of being back in the office, as if that will make them forget all about those long commutes. It ends up being the worst of both worlds: on days when you're in the office, you don't actually get the benefit of being "together" because so many people are not there, and your conference room meetings still have to be on Zoom. On the other side, you still don't get the benefit of not having to commute.

      The thing is, many of the best people are going to opt for full-time remote positions, and they'll hold out until they get it. I've hired 11 developers in the last 5 months, and every single one of them only accepted the job on condition that the job would be remote. We gladly accommodated.

      • The thing is, many of the best people are going to opt for full-time remote positions, and they'll hold out until they get it.

        This right there. Good people earn(ed) good money. They have enough stored to cushion them 'til they find someone who gives them what they want.

        And what they want is WFH. It's never been easier to hire good talent, all you currently have to offer is to not have them waste office space. It's kinda weird but I sure as fuck won't complain that we get people cheaper and easier now.

      • Yeah, seems like if you're going to do some time in the office, you really need to have everyone there at the same time, or else what's the point?

        At the very least everyone on the same team/project/etc. that will need to be in a conference together.

        Heck, ditch the office and just rent some conference rooms once a week.

      • My job has been "strongly" suggesting returning to the office 2-3 days per week. Since my entire team is distributed globally in the USA, UK, India, and Singapore, all of my "team" interaction is on the phone anyway. There is literally no incentive other than free coffee and drinks to make me come into the office when my entire day is one conference call after another. It just means a 45 minute to hour commute, battling traffic, to get into an office that has white noise generators that are so loud I

    • 0 days in office and we start talking.

      Why the hell do you need my cadaver at a specific place? Care to explain?

  • They didn't know? (Score:5, Informative)

    by TomR teh Pirate ( 1554037 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:17PM (#63767658)
    This sure sounds like it was written by a management-friendly author. "The poor, hapless manager had no idea their people would be pissed about returning to long commutes, re-juggling childcare, and losing the extra personal time they had gained in the 2+ prior years", wrote the tone-deaf idiot whose feeble attempts to curry sympathy from the millions of Americans who knew that returning to office was going to suck.

    They needed researchers to figure this out? Really?
    • Google it. You won't last long in mainstream journalism if you're saying things your corporate masters don't like. It's why the only possible solution to inflation most people can come up with is hiking interest rates until there's a recession or depression and everyone is willing to work for 1/2 the pay. As if mega corps with monopolies or at best duopolies are going to drop prices because their profits went up.
    • Envoy sells solutions for monitoring employee presence in buildings. They want those back-to-the-office managers to know that they are sympathetic and that Envoy has products that make management's over-watch responsibilities easier. This is a clever marketing piece.
    • From the summary:

      Kathy Kacher, a consultant who advises corporate executives on their return-to-office plans

    • Re:They didn't know? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMworf.net> on Monday August 14, 2023 @08:20PM (#63767786)

      This sure sounds like it was written by a management-friendly author. "The poor, hapless manager had no idea their people would be pissed about returning to long commutes, re-juggling childcare, and losing the extra personal time they had gained in the 2+ prior years", wrote the tone-deaf idiot whose feeble attempts to curry sympathy from the millions of Americans who knew that returning to office was going to suck.

      They needed researchers to figure this out? Really?

      Yes, you would not believe how management can be extremely clueless.

      FIrst, remember management usually has an office and stuff, and thus LIKES coming to the office. Thus they assume everyone else does too.

      Or, they think normal workers "aren't busy" as the C-suite people who are overbooked for meetings and other things, which is why the C-suite should work from home, but the peons don't have anything going on in their lives and thus can commute.

      And most don't listen to concerns - that's what the middle manager is for. So complaints about it never get heard by C-suite.

      The only time they notice something is wrong is when their metrics suddenly go awry. Maybe their profits went down because there's no one left to make the product.

      HR can be equally blind - exit interview or not, they only hear what they want to hear. They exist only to deny requests.

      Think of it as one big management circlejerk - and the fact that a pro-management magazine suddenly comes out and spills the truth is not news to employees, but news to managers Don't forget these pro-management magazines have been promoting RTO for months now, so as far as anyone in management knows, RTO is a good thing.

      You probably think "management can't be that clueless". Well, they are.

      • Yes, you would not believe how management can be extremely clueless.

        Anyone who worked for more than a year not only would believe it but would know it.

    • There is no more sympathy for top management than top management has for us.

      If you see a manager drown, handing him a glass of water may be in bad taste, but it's damn satisfying.

    • They needed researchers to figure this out? Really?

      Most people in the "top executives" category tend to have pretty substantial egos. Thus, they aren't generally the type of people who listen to researchers... quite to the contrary: no amount of research would have ever convinced these "80%" managers that they didn't already know what was best for everybody. What they actually needed was the practical experience that a little "egg on their face" provided.

      And the other 20% that didn't make decisions that they regret? I personally think that represents roughl

  • Business "leaders" make obvious lies about "collaboration", while trying to protect real estate interests, or blindly copying other companies, or outright being their bitches by way of the boardroom, and then they are sad about looking weak?

  • Bosses fuck up, employees leave (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:36PM (#63767698)

    What else is new? Of course, the first to leave are always the valuable ones because they have other options.

  • Total misrepresentation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DavenH ( 1065780 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @08:21PM (#63767792)
    This is CNBC's headline:

    80% of bosses say they REGRET earlier return-to-office plans

    The report they are quoting from says instead

    80% of executives say they would have approached their company’s return-to-office strategy differently if they had access to workplace data to inform their decision-making.

    What the fuck? Of course they'd approach things differently if they had prescience... doesn't mean they regret it one bit.

    80% would have approached things differently? What is the threshold for different? Some may regret, but some may well have decided that they would have RTO'd 6 months earlier if they had access to future workplace data. Who knows?

    There is not one instance of the word 'regret' in the Envoy report. Nor anything else about 80%. Nor anything about return to office. Useless clickbait which should be well below the standards of CNBC.

  • Now seek counseling. Live life with fewer regrets. Make meaningful changes in order to get closer to and spend more time on the things in life you find most important. This might mean leaving the company, but you'll have plenty of cash to get you through to the next gig in the network. Try to need other and need of others less and give of yourself more. Not because you want more back but because you really can't not do the thing you love to do. Sure would be great if half the people that ran companies would

  • say they would have approached their plans differently if they had a better understanding of what their employees wanted

    They were blindsided by this "listen to employees" thing, who knew?

  • then find out

  • > [bosses] would have approached their plans differently if they had a better understanding of what their employees wanted

    Perhaps if they cared about what their employees wanted, they could have had a better understanding.

    • Exactly.

      If they wanted to know, all they had to do was ask.

      Not even that - all they had to do was listen when their employees told them "We don't want this!"

      Instead they ignored them, and now want piss and moan about how they couldn't have known that their quality talent that never really needed *this* particular job in the first place might just go somewhere else that *did* listen.

  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2023 @01:50AM (#63768270)

    They're pissed that their best employees quit and they're now stuck with the duds that can't just jump ship to greener pastures. Next time, they wait for the economic downturn to complete before they whip their subjects back to the pens so they can't escape.

  • Worked for about 50 years and retired now, so I'll tell you straight up, your nothing but a # to them. Even the CEO /board members are replaceable ! No matter how good you are and think you are too important to be let go, you can/will be replaced. There is no company loyalty any more, except maybe in smaller companies. Like the Pink Floyd song, you are "Just another Brick in the Wall" !!!
  • They are only saying this for some easy PR points. What are they doing to make amends? Letting people go remote? Increasing salary? Nope. Words cost nothing, CEOs love to apologize.

    • I believe them. I believe them that they regret that they managed to annoy away all the talent and all they managed to retain are the duds that couldn't find something else.

  • Most bosses I know circulated surveys etc and then ignored the results, saying something about efficiency blah blah.

  • "Bosses sad"

    Good to hear!

  • Fact is, the companies ultimately hold the cards. I don't get why people feel so entitled about the work from home thing, really? The change wasn't brought about by any business insight that "WFH would lead to more productivity and happier employees". It only happened because the pandemic forced the issue. Government itself was telling companies to "either figure out some way to keep running without people gathering in your building, or we'll shut you down".

    I always knew it was a temporary situation. Sure,

Slashdot Top Deals

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Close