Ordered Back To the Office, Top Tech Talent Left Instead, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com) 200
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Washington Post: Return-to-office mandates at some of the most powerful tech companies -- Apple, Microsoft and SpaceX -- were followed by a spike in departures among the most senior, tough-to-replace talent, according to a case study published last week by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan. Researchers drew on resume data from People Data Labs to understand the impact that forced returns to offices had on employee tenure and the movement of workers between companies. What they found was a strong correlation between the departures of senior-level employees and the implementation of a mandate, suggesting that these policies "had a negative effect on the tenure and seniority of their respective workforce." High-ranking employees stayed several months less than they might have without the mandate, the research suggests -- and in many cases, they went to work for direct competitors.
At Microsoft, the share of senior employees as a portion of the company's overall workforce declined more than five percentage points after the return-to-office mandate took effect, the researchers found. At Apple, the decline was four percentage points, while at SpaceX -- the only company of the three to require workers to be fully in-person -- the share of senior employees dropped 15 percentage points. "We find experienced employees impacted by these policies at major tech companies seek work elsewhere, taking some of the most valuable human capital investments and tools of productivity with them," said Austin Wright, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Chicago and one of the study's authors. "Business leaders should weigh carefully employee preferences and market opportunities when deciding when, or if, they mandate a return to office." While the corporate culture and return-to-office policies differ "markedly" between the three companies, the similar effects of the RTO mandates suggest that "the effects are driven by common underlying dynamics," wrote the authors of the study.
"Our findings suggest that RTO mandates cost the company more than previously thought," said David Van Dijcke, a researcher at the University of Michigan who worked on the study. "These attrition rates aren't just something that can be managed away."
Robert Ployhart, a professor of business administration and management at the University of South Carolina, said executives haven't provided much evidence that RTO mandates actually benefit their workforces. "The people sitting at the apex may not like the way they feel the organization is being run, but if they're not bringing data to that point of view, it's really hard to argue why people should be coming back to the workplace more frequently," Ployhart said.
Senior employees, he said, are "the caretakers of a company's culture," and having to replace them can have negative effects on team morale and productivity. "By driving those employees away, they've actually enhanced and sped up the very thing they were trying to stop," Ployhart said.
At Microsoft, the share of senior employees as a portion of the company's overall workforce declined more than five percentage points after the return-to-office mandate took effect, the researchers found. At Apple, the decline was four percentage points, while at SpaceX -- the only company of the three to require workers to be fully in-person -- the share of senior employees dropped 15 percentage points. "We find experienced employees impacted by these policies at major tech companies seek work elsewhere, taking some of the most valuable human capital investments and tools of productivity with them," said Austin Wright, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Chicago and one of the study's authors. "Business leaders should weigh carefully employee preferences and market opportunities when deciding when, or if, they mandate a return to office." While the corporate culture and return-to-office policies differ "markedly" between the three companies, the similar effects of the RTO mandates suggest that "the effects are driven by common underlying dynamics," wrote the authors of the study.
"Our findings suggest that RTO mandates cost the company more than previously thought," said David Van Dijcke, a researcher at the University of Michigan who worked on the study. "These attrition rates aren't just something that can be managed away."
Robert Ployhart, a professor of business administration and management at the University of South Carolina, said executives haven't provided much evidence that RTO mandates actually benefit their workforces. "The people sitting at the apex may not like the way they feel the organization is being run, but if they're not bringing data to that point of view, it's really hard to argue why people should be coming back to the workplace more frequently," Ployhart said.
Senior employees, he said, are "the caretakers of a company's culture," and having to replace them can have negative effects on team morale and productivity. "By driving those employees away, they've actually enhanced and sped up the very thing they were trying to stop," Ployhart said.
Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is *exactly* what those of us who support WFH said would happen.
And now you have a situation where the top leaders of these companies are harming their own culture and bottom line. It is a tsunami of unprofessionalism.
At the end of the day, these CEOs are fundamentally unprofessional by making decisions without the needed data to back it up.
âoeI feel like forcing people back is the best for the companyâ(TM)s culture âoe is not a professional response for a CEO. And yet here we are.
Re: (Score:3)
They should face shareholder lawsuits when products are inevitably delayed.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Interesting)
They should face shareholder lawsuits when products are inevitably delayed.
Except that many of the shareholders were exactly the reason it happened. If you maintain a well diversified portfolio, a portion of it is going to be in corporate real estate. Many people, and particularly companies, have foolishly lopsided portfolios heavy in real estate because "it always goes up". These people definitely buy into the astroturfing of how essential offices are etc. etc.
Then of course there are the boards. How many boards does Blackrock sit on, with it's $60B in real estate assets?
Re: (Score:3)
And they now get exactly what they deserve.
I hope they get to crash and burn this time instead of being bailed out on my dime yet again.
Re: (Score:3)
Up until quite recently, that was conventional wisdom for the simple reason that it was true. Until the Internet became ubiquitous most office work required you to be in the office to work because if you weren't you didn't have access to the information you needed to get your job done. Now, time have changed, and it's going to take some time for managers and investors to wrap their little minds around the new way of
Re:Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)
Up until quite recently, that was conventional wisdom for the simple reason that it was true. Until the Internet became ubiquitous most office work required you to be in the office to work because if you weren't you didn't have access to the information you needed to get your job done. Now, time have changed, and it's going to take some time for managers and investors to wrap their little minds around the new way of working.
I've had the option to WFH at least in part, if not full time, at every tech job I've had since like 2004. Provided I could provide a stable internet connection, I could WFH via ISDN or DSL. These weren't hugely progressive companies on the cutting edge of tech either. This was a mid-sized healthcare IT company peddling tech from the 1970s, GE, and a tiny defense contractor.
Heck, my dad was able to WFH @BBN in the mid 80s via an acoustically coupled 300bps modem and a VT200. My mom did most of her work remotely as a journalist using a Mac plus and a telephone with no data connection at all.
The point is, WFH is not exactly a recent development. There was no need for managers to "get used to it" as if it were something invented in 2020 with the advent of COVID. This is pure ego and power tripping by big tech companies, because they thought the prestige of working for a famous brand outweighed the value of working remotely.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh...I just don't get it with the whole company "culture" and the importance some people put on it.
Back in my early days of working when I was W2 direct....a number of companies went all out on the "culture"....we had rah-rah meetings, hell had company outings to promote whatever the latest culture motto that year was.
They spent money on consultants to come out with new mottos and branding....and such.
And, just what does that gain or give you as an employer or employee other than wasting a ton of money on consultants ever year or so?
What is company "culture"?
I mean, you go in....work to get paid and leave.
WTF culture is involved in that.?
It's not like your employer really cares about you....they want work from you.
I'm old enough to remember when companies were a bit more "caring" of their employees...and still the culture thing was bull shit.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the paid days off on day trips for team building....we went bowling, tubing down river all day, laser tag...etc.
But it didn't really. mean squat as far as work went...
Again it was fun...but I can't perceive it did fuck all for work or productivity....and hell, I'd rather have had more raises than the money spent on this crap.
So, I really don't get it.
Work is work....I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't need a paycheck, and the more $$ the better.
I went contracting 1099....and just got away from all that crap...strictly business.
Anyway..does anyone actually see the culture thing as anything that's real? Valuable? Does it make you more money? The company more money?
I just don't get it....yet I see it mentioned quite frequently, especially nowadays with the WFH topic.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Interesting)
Company culture is bullshit, company friendships are anti-churn. Getting them drunk together is best way to accomplish that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess, maybe for some people, but I don't get it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm quite sociable and easy to make friends.....outside of work.
I've always kept co-workers at arms length, at least as far as socializing outside of work, or confining, talking, sharing, etc.
I work well with others, but they are co-workers, they, almost without exception, have not been what I'd term "friends".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd do work lunches, sure...but to me, that's still part of the "work day"....
Once I leave work at the end of the day...I do not have any type of meaningful contact with co-workers.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Funny)
It's just too easy for something to go wrong at work and jeopardize your job
This. I met my wife at work. I moved my job last year, and haven't seen her since.
More seriously, at work I get to hang out with my bros every day and make money while doing it. When we were young, before we all started having families, a handful of us frequently had house parties and not by the boss' urging. It happened organically on our own. Even long work term friends I still see long after they've moved on.
All my other long term friends I have, I made through highschool, or friends of friends from college. It comes from bonding over shared experiences and there's no surprise that'll happen at work too. That's all there is to "get." I even have a friend at work who indeed trusts me with the keys to his house and vehicle.
I don't think there's anything wrong with your approach either, it's just a choice people make.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Interesting)
But I guess some people mix the two more than they should.
(Emphasis mine) I'm saying this without malice, so please don't take it that way: But who are you to decide what the appropriate amount of extracurricular interaction between co-workers is? You have a system that works for you, and that's perfectly fine. There are quite a few of my colleagues that I've never seen outside of the office. A bunch of them that are all but guaranteed to show up at a team/company instigated happy hour. And a small handful that I consider friends. Hell, I spent my weekend in a boat fishing with a former co-worker that I now consider a good friend.
I'm not saying your method is wrong, I'm saying that it's not the only one available, and not the only one that's appropriate.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say you are in HIGH danger zone of befriending or being close at all with any female.
I'd say if that's your personal experience then you're doing things wrong. If that's not your personal experience, and your just repeating anecdotes you've heard, you should stop. I have the same non-zero chance of getting drug into HR for something one of my women co-workers took offense to as I do of the men.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just too easy for something to go wrong at work and jeopardize your job, especially in today's victimhood environment...especially if you're talking women here and you are a guy.
This is the most hilariously amazing bullshit I think I've ever heard.
Actually right now I've got a friend visiting for a week, and she'll be joined by another mutual friend who will stay for a few days. I met both of them at work years ago. If I'd followed your advice I'd be missing out on some awesome friendships.
not going drinking with co-workers outside of a job sanctioned event, and even then, not staying long or getting tipsy.
I've definitely got smashed with co workers before. Korean BBQ and soju is a whole thing. Also just the pub. I like the pub.
But I guess some people mix the two more than they should
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.
I go to work for one thing....money.
Life's too short to waste that much of it on merely money.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway..does anyone actually see the culture thing as anything that's real? Valuable? Does it make you more money? The company more money?
I think there is value in having a place people like to work, where heading into the office is less of a grind because of the environment, the scenery, the "expectation" to try to make work fun. As I recall, much of the work culture stuff was amplified around the time we started hearing about places like Google having chefs, game rooms, and other fun perks. It was further amplified by the many "best place to work" surveys and awards.
I think it can also help to encourage finding great talent and part of talent includes "fit". So, I'd say there are certainly benefits to a work culture thing. From the few anecdotes I have seen, converting the "culture building" portion of the budget into pay would not mean much to the paycheck, at least not directly. A great workplace aims to increase the bottom line, which in turn increases ability to pay. That's the theory, anyways.
As you allude, it can go too far.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway..does anyone actually see the culture thing as anything that's real? Valuable? Does it make you more money? The company more money?
Culture, in the context you put it: Rah rah meetings, corporate slogans, culture consultants, that sort of thing are bullshit. How the company actually conducts itself: WFH policies, attendance policies, benefits offerings, how bosses interact with their underlings, things like that are absolutely valuable. That, in my mind, is the "company culture", and it boils down to how they treat their employees. A happy, fulfilled, employee is a more productive employee, and far more likely to stick with a company.
Re: (Score:2)
But sadly, the general definition(s) of "Company Culture" is not defined by their HR policies...that you l
Re:Who knew? (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember even my very first retail job as a teenager in the 90's and even then in the orientation video they had the line "we don't use the term workers or employees you are all 'team member's' and even my 15 year old self was groaning. Especially in a large corporation it feels so forced and inauthentic.
Just call me a worker, that's what we are, let's not blow smoke up each others asses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Culture, in the context you put it: Rah rah meetings, corporate slogans, culture consultants, that sort of thing are bullshit. How the company actually conducts itself: WFH policies, attendance policies, benefits offerings, how bosses interact with their underlings, things like that are absolutely valuable. That, in my mind, is the "company culture", and it boils down to how they treat their employees.
But sadly, the general definition(s) of "Company Culture" is not defined by their HR policies...that you list.
When they hand out their new employee folder of materials...have your induction/indoctrination meetings, etc....they don't really mention HR topics as "culture"...it is more along what I was describing.
Both of those things are part of the culture.
"Company culture" is just a way of describing the experience of working there.
For one example, if you were talking to a friend thinking of applying there, but who also hates those rah rah meetings, you would tell them right? You'd describe that as their culture so your friend knows what they are getting into.
On the other hand, if management can and often does use flex scheduling and in a sane and reasonable way, say let you come in late or leave early every day
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
the managers, execs and even the C level admins are out there, not just watching but taking part with everybody else.
That's your answer, right there.
Re: (Score:2)
You point out an example of incredibly superficial and forced attempt to create good company culture and then declare company culture worthless. If they're doing rah-rah meetings they're doing it wrong, all they're doing is cramming a bunch of pro company patriotism down everyone's throats with stuff like that.
Company culture is the company's personality and how employees interact with each other and management, no rah-rah meetings necessary.
I did find your term "rah-rah meeting" funny though. I've never he
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who has been in the tech industry since the late 90s, which seems to overlap a lot with the "company culture" thing (or at least have started a lot of it) I feel like a fair amount of it came from the days when you'd have little startups of mostly friends and enthusiasts doing something relatively new and interesting (or at least something better) that led to a little more camaraderie and connection than your typical standard corporate office job. At the time it was probably genuine. I was never in a particularly small company but I remember having some fun with coworkers both in and out of work stuff. Although it certainly wan't completely new even in the 90s - if you look back at some of the stories of Atari and Apple in the 70s and 80s it could be pretty nuts too. But I think it still stands - a small company of enthusiasts doing things they love together and making a company out of it vs. a company trying to generate culture from the top-down.
As time moved on, that was extended as the companies got bigger and bigger and the higher ups realized the benefits of that kind of "free" loyalty. The tech industry went more mainstream and companies in other sectors started trying to figure out how to leverage that, with varying degrees of success and cynicism (the "company pizza party" or "travel alarm clock with the company logo" tropes didn't come from nothing). The main difference I've noticed is how much of it is now company-led. Way back in the day we definitely had a "company culture" but it felt more organic. There weren't direct company-sponsored activities or company-encouraged things. Sure, there were some things the company covered or paid for, but it was more along the lines of "Managers have a company credit card, be semi-reasonable, go have fun" with stuff the employees did on their own together because they liked each other's company rather than "Here's the company-provided pool table and ping-pong sets and fridge of beer, also there's a mandatory team bowling event tomorrow" sort of thing. I got to know my coworkers and had fun with them on my own rather than feeling like the company was trying really hard to force it. Although I have had plenty of fun more recently as well with "company culture" stuff and made some genuine work/team friends, but the culture is something I recognize as just as empty and meaningless as any company mission statement or belief statement or whatnot.
Re: Who knew? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is company "culture"?
It's what they can use to attract zoomer employees. Who are fresh out of college and dorm life and as a result have built no social connections on the outside. And then oay them less.
It also provides some friction when people make a decision as to whether to leave. Risking the loss of an entire circle of friends, free pop and foosball tables can be a powerful motivator to stay. Perhaps this is a part of why it's the older "top talent" that leaves more easily.
Re: (Score:3)
Co-workers, in general, are not your friends...they are just co-workers....
If you depend on work for your friendships and not people on the outside of work, you're in trouble.
Jobs change...people change jobs...
There's the old saying:
"Friends help you move....
Re: (Score:3)
Ugh...I just don't get it with the whole company "culture" and the importance some people put on it.
Company culture is the unspoken rules about how to behave and what to expect. Rah-rah meetings, company outings, or whatever management says, have *nothing* to do with it.
Company culture is what the employees see and hear, accumulated over many years. It guides everyone on how to behave, what to consider, what other people would consider, etc. It is just like "culture" in other context, e.g. a city's culture, it is the common context that helps people understand each other, both what other people wanted
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Interesting)
Culture can actually be very important, but it all depends on the people at the top to back it up.
I worked for Perot Systems back when Perot Sr. was still in charge. He was *huge* on ethics and always doing right by the customer, and you could tell by the way people worked.
We had cases (such as during hurricane Katrina) where very junior NOC people stuck their necks out and made multi-million dollar decisions on the spot, because it was potentially life or death (hospital customers). They didn't CYA because they knew Ross would *personally* have their backs so long as they did the right thing. I've never worked anywhere else like that, and really, really miss it. Unfortunately, Ross was sort of one-of-a-kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh...I just don't get it with the whole company "culture" and the importance some people put on it.
Back in my early days of working when I was W2 direct....a number of companies went all out on the "culture"....we had rah-rah meetings, hell had company outings to promote whatever the latest culture motto that year was.
They spent money on consultants to come out with new mottos and branding....and such.
And, just what does that gain or give you as an employer or employee other than wasting a ton of money on consultants ever year or so?
What is company "culture"?
I mean, you go in....work to get paid and leave.
WTF culture is involved in that.?
It's not like your employer really cares about you....they want work from you.
I'm old enough to remember when companies were a bit more "caring" of their employees...and still the culture thing was bull shit.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the paid days off on day trips for team building....we went bowling, tubing down river all day, laser tag...etc.
But it didn't really. mean squat as far as work went...
Again it was fun...but I can't perceive it did fuck all for work or productivity....and hell, I'd rather have had more raises than the money spent on this crap.
So, I really don't get it.
Work is work....I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't need a paycheck, and the more $$ the better.
I went contracting 1099....and just got away from all that crap...strictly business.
Anyway..does anyone actually see the culture thing as anything that's real? Valuable? Does it make you more money? The company more money?
I just don't get it....yet I see it mentioned quite frequently, especially nowadays with the WFH topic.
I've worked at companies where they literally shifted from "company culture" to "company family" and the execs would literally get all teary-eyed talking at all-hands meetings about the family, like we were in the mob or some shit. But you could always see the fakeness of it all. The design behind it. It's absurd, but as people pulled away from families, since we have to spend so god damned many hours at the office, the office tried desperately to replace the family, and make you, the individual employee, t
Re: (Score:3)
When my grandpa started to work (which was shortly before WW2), he was 14. He worked at the same company until he retired. There was no team building and no "friendship" between the social levels. And there sure was no "corporate culture". Sure, he and his coworkers, they bonded. Simply because if you work with someone for years, decades even, you start to bond. But my grandpa was always "Herr (myname)" to his boss and the boss was always "Herr Direktor". There was no buddy-buddy, there was no first-name ba
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are describing is *fake* culture.
When a company cultivates a real culture based on deeply-held principles, the result is amazing. And, unfortunately, extremely rare.
Culture matters - work quality/employee treatment (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen this at multiple companies...and people I discussed this with relate the same experiences at their companies.
This is not something isolate, it is quite prevalent.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because, once you have more money than you can spend, what are you supposed to do with it? You reinvest it. And what's the most "fail-safe" investment that's not just parking your money in a bank? Real estate.
The people at the top knew perfectly well what would happen if they mandated WFH. It's just that they were watching their investment value plummet. So whether it's their real estate or the company, one of them had to take a big hit anyway.
Re: Who knew? (Score:2)
Real estate.
Same mistake Sears made. All that land and those buildings they owned made their balance sheet look better than it was. Particularly with inflating real estate prices. Until they realized that they weren't actually selling diddly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
This is why WFH was a net positive to every company who introduced it and stuck with it.
Managers hate it because they now have to be accountable for the amount of time they spend yapping to each other and being non-productive.
Re: (Score:2)
I think these "leavers" would have left these businesses in any case. The "leavers" were only in it for the $$$ and the benefits; they had no "commitment" to these companies. Their attitude of "my way or the highway" is now being proven by their self-chosen departures.
IMHO - There are two types of employees that stick it out when the company has to make difficult decisions: (1) those employees that are commited to making the company a success; and, (2) those employees that are in no position to make a job m
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think these "leavers" would have left these businesses in any case. The "leavers" were only in it for the $$$ and the benefits; they had no "commitment" to these companies. Their attitude of "my way or the highway" is now being proven by their self-chosen departures.
That is a boatload of assumptions about people with whom you have probably never had a conversation. I have spoken people who left Dell during the recent shift. A few of them have over a dozen years with Dell. This was the major reason: when they hired, the understanding was they would be mostly remote. Because of this they built their lives not anywhere near a Dell office. Being forced to go into the office means long commutes which might involve flights. Or they could quit as is their right. Somehow you determined that decision selfish.
IMHO - There are two types of employees that stick it out when the company has to make difficult decisions: (1) those employees that are commited to making the company a success; and, (2) those employees that are in no position to make a job move. And in my experience this also applies during times of job reductions & realignments, announced or otherwise.
I see in your thought processes are completely binary. There appears to be no room for other viewpoints. The people I know were there during the low points of Dell; they were there when Dell went private. Without knowing their circumstances, you questioned their loyalty. For them, this last change was simply a bridge too far. The main factor you seem to ignore is that no one owes a company their loyalty especially when company does not show any loyalty to their employees.
Got em' by the balls. Ermmm. Not. (Score:2)
Typical, isn't it? The company thought they had employees at their mercy, by the balls (or whatever reproductive system you have installed by OEM down there) and could rule their life as they saw fit. Not really. People DO have a choice. Sure - it's not an easy one once you have dependants but with a fair amount of planning and support from your spouse, you can easily change things yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
At the end of the day, these CEOs are fundamentally unprofessional by making decisions without the needed data to back it up
Can’t we just replace them with a LLM and get the same performance for a fraction of the cost?
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, now, be fair. Not everybody made the decision to force return-to-office without the needed data to back it up. In a lot of cases, such as where I work, they did gather data on relative productivity during the pandemic. And then they ignored that data and just did what they wanted in the first place, under some other tissue-thin idiotic rationale they made up on the spot.
Because the not-so-secret secret is, the executive class doesn't really care about productivity. They didn't really come up through the ranks based on merit, though they may have expensively purchased educational credentials that they point at when they're claiming otherwise. No, in the vast preponderance of cases, they were born rich, and they reached their position of authority through a combination of in-group favoritism and ruthless back-biting.
And they like to have a bunch of people around the office, because it stokes their ego, and because the more the actual workers get done without the benefit of their presence, the clearer it becomes how unnecessary they are.
the PHB and some managers need people in the offic (Score:2)
the PHB and some managers need people in the office so they can look good.
Re: (Score:2)
the PHB and some managers need people in the office so they can look good.
Actually, so they can try and justify their largely useless and parasitic positions.
Re:the PHB and some managers need people in the of (Score:5, Informative)
Intended effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting those expensive senior employees to resign and leave themselves, thus saving on severance and bad PR of a layoff, is exactly the point of the RTO mandates. It is naive to think that it is some kind of "misunderstandings" of the executives.
Re:Intended effect (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end they'll hire subcontractors in India who won't be in the office either.
This will prove your point 100%.
Re:Intended effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting high salaries off the books is good, getting good talent off the roster is bad. Sending that talent to your competition is worse.
Unless the company was diving into the red, it would appear back-to-office mandates were a bad idea regardless of the motivation.
And all us here unedumacated morans here on Slashdot predicted that such policies would result in the most valuable employees leaving... Because they were the ones most able to. Not seeing that is a significant failure of management.
Re:Intended effect (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't care, they're paid to improve stock values in the short term. They will jump out of the window of the corporation they set on fire and float gently to the ground using their golden parachute, and either retire or repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting high salaries off the books is good, getting good talent off the roster is bad. Sending that talent to your competition is worse.
Unless the company was diving into the red, it would appear back-to-office mandates were a bad idea regardless of the motivation.
And all us here unedumacated morans here on Slashdot predicted that such policies would result in the most valuable employees leaving... Because they were the ones most able to. Not seeing that is a significant failure of management.
You seem to be suffering from what I refer to as "seventies-itis." You seem to believe that knowledgeable workers have value. Value is not dictated by knowledge in the modern business world. Value is dictated by bottom-line profits. And *ANYTHING* that increases profits in the current quarter, even if you only did it by cutting out most of your knowledgeable workers, is a good thing. Back in the seventies, management sort of recognized that knowledge actually is long-term more profitable if kept in-house. N
Re:Intended effect (Score:4)
Re: Intended effect (Score:2)
The point is that these top expensive personnel who leave are valuable to the company. They provide the knowledge and skills need to not just make the company run, but to let it compete.
By driving them to competitors because of mandates, they are harming their own bottom line because these folks will now be working for companies often in *direct competition* with their previous employers.
The CEOs thought these people would just leave, trueâ¦and did not care where they went. That was a mistake.
Re: Intended effect (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'm not replaceable, but I also know it took me almost 2 years to develop the relationships within the company to get any traction on actually being successful in my role. I've been doing this job for different companies for 20 years. That means I was paid almost half a million dollars to just get 'ready' to add value to the company.
Losing me is expensive even if replacing me is easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm not replaceable = I know I am replaceable. Grrrr.
Re:Intended effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting those expensive senior employees to resign and leave themselves, thus saving on severance and bad PR of a layoff, is exactly the point of the RTO mandates. It is naive to think that it is some kind of "misunderstandings" of the executives.
Sorry but that is nonsense. Okay it may have happened in one or two stupid cases, but the reality is companies rarely want to get rid of their best and most capable talent all the while demoralising everyone who is left.
You're giving management too much credit here. You think they are playing 4D chess, the reality is they are just following the latest trend they saw on TikTok I mean Linked In, I mean doing what a consultant told them to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean doing what a consultant told them to do
Ah! There it is. You could probably get the executive suite to mandate literal shit sandwiches for the rank and file if a highly paid consultant pushed it. "Consultant" is a euphemism for "outsourcing our ability to think." In which case, why do we need highly-paid executives? They just hire a consultant and do what those guys say. I can do that, for half the price.
Re:Intended effect (Score:5, Interesting)
The best revenge is to leave super positive feedback on Glassdoors and add a muuuuch higher salary for your positions.
Next time they interview a candidate they will be livid that the company is lowballing them.
Good luck hiring my replacement.
Re: (Score:3)
That's evil.
I like it!
Re: (Score:2)
Getting those expensive senior employees to resign and leave themselves, thus saving on severance and bad PR of a layoff, is exactly the point of the RTO mandates. It is naive to think that it is some kind of "misunderstandings" of the executives.
Came here to say exactly that. I guess my data points are limited, but I'm personally aware of two large scale fortune 100 companies in my area that just went through a round of "early retirement offerings" for that very specific reason. And yes, the departures were painful, but that trade off was anticipated and, obviously, selected as the preferred option over continue to pay those higher salaries. There was no sugar coating the rationale. The options were made specifically to reduce the higher salari
No one values the "company's culture" (Score:5, Interesting)
Most companies that I have worked for have actively opposed any sort of positive company culture, instead treating all line workers like part-time help. I still remember the person, from corporate, coming to my branch office. The message that she brought to the technicians was "You don't work for us, you work for yourself, we just happen to be your current customer." The message given was, that you are just another vendor. There was no "relationship" with the employees. That "relationship," coupled with management by metric, drove out anyone who had any prospect of a job elsewhere. The people that remained were those who could not find work anywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. At the end of the day it's your workplace. I want to get in, do my job, get paid and get out. I couldn't care less of the social aspect of it. In fact, being too close socially to your work colleagues can put you at a disadvantage. Why bother? Building the company culture is what I believe is HR attempt at justifying their job when not dealing with recruitment.
Re: (Score:3)
As an example, I promoted "complete call, every call" (keep in mind, this was in copier repair). This is what the company said they wanted. However, they began tracking the number of service calls per day and really pushing for more. The reality is that something
WFH is great for employees (Score:3, Interesting)
But it doesn't always work for productivity. Yes , someone is going to tell me how they now work much harder at home than they did in the office because of no commuter, but for every one of these diligent types there are far more slackers who consider WFH as a paid holiday a lot of the time.
Here in the UK public service telephone helplines have gone down the toilet since the employees worked from home , and a knock on effect of that is councils suddenly realised that perhaps they don't need so many of these people after all and my local one sacked hundreds and replaced them with AI.
And thats before we get to jobs being outsourced abroad even more than they were in the past. If you're not in the office you're not in the office - doesn't matter if you're next door or across the ocean for a lot of roles.
Re: (Score:2)
Your theory that there are "far more slackers" is interesting, but not supported by data. Your anecdote isn't really related.
You're right that in theory this could support outsourcing abroad, and having coworkers in quite a few time zones, I'm actually pretty hyped about this having good potential in the future. That said, time zones are sometimes important...
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the UK public service telephone helplines have gone down the toilet since the employees worked from home , and a knock on effect of that is councils suddenly realised that perhaps they don't need so many of these people after all and my local one sacked hundreds and replaced them with AI.
And thats before we get to jobs being outsourced abroad even more than they were in the past. If you're not in the office you're not in the office - doesn't matter if you're next door or across the ocean for a lot of roles.
First, phone support workers are not exactly "top tech talent", which is the point of the article.
Second, you're suggesting that these workers' jobs wouldn't have been replaced by AI anyway (or outsourced until they were later replaced by AI).
It seems to me that phone support workers are one of the best candidates for working from home, because how can a worker "slack off" at home when there are absolutely solid metrics about the work being done (calls answered, call length, recordings of the call)? All
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"First, phone support workers are not exactly "top tech talent", which is the point of the article. "
So? If you're unable to make the mental leap then I'm not going to explain it to you. As for top tech talent , probably a lot of that is self descriptions.
"Second, you're suggesting that these workers' jobs wouldn't have been replaced by AI anyway "
Eventually yes, but in offices you can make personal connections and make the boss believe you're more useful than you actually are. Its called politics but I wou
Re: (Score:2)
Yup my wife did 311 / suicide hotline for a few years and in that time I think she had to "go in" maybe twice in that timespan, once to just pick up the headset and laptop. Everything was remote. She got "promoted" to handling calls up to three states over which is sorta silly since she had no isea of the geography of those areas so it turned into "let me google that for you while putting on the official position that in fact that is not what I am doing".
To be fair a lot of elderly callers needed exactly t
Briliant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That only works if the other companies arn't bringing people back to the office too.
Re:Briliant (Score:5, Interesting)
The one flaw that I see with this logic is that the IT job market sucks right now, mostly because the Big Tech executives are starting to believe their own marketing hype and think that their AI products can replace actual developers. Because of that, they're laying people off by the thousands.
The lack of job opportunities might be the one thing left keeping top IT talent from fleeing companies who are forcing them to return to their tiny cubicles.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have the top talent taking a vacation for a year or two getting bored while the companies are laying off thousands. This is how you create the next wave of startups.
Re:Briliant (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't seen what you're seeing.
I'm 57, supposedly well past the prime age threshold for software developers. I had to change jobs in 2020, and again in 2023, due to massive layoffs at the companies I worked for in those years. In both years, I had no trouble finding a new job. Further, I skipped all those stupid job listings that required a detailed application before they would even consider interviewing you, and opted only for those that offered "quick apply" with a resume. Still, I had plenty of options, had multiple interviews, and ultimately chose from multiple good options.
The key is, I've kept pace with technology, constantly educating myself. I'm not one of those 20-year veterans who is still doing Classic ASP or Ruby on Rails because that's all he's ever known. If you keep yourself relevant, there are plenty of opportunities.
Life/Work Balance (Score:2)
Apparently it's more important to people than loyalty to company culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Few companies have a culture worth trading other benefits for.
In 30+ years of work, I was at 1-2 companies with a healthy positive everyone wanted to be there culture. The rest were pure corporate shit.
The more energy a company spends talking about how great their culture is, the shittier it is. Good companies are just good. They don't have to toot their horn about their fake culture every 5 seconds.
None of these mega corps have a positive culture so that's not the problem here.
Re: (Score:2)
Few companies have a culture worth trading other benefits for.
In 30+ years of work, I was at 1-2 companies with a healthy positive everyone wanted to be there culture. The rest were pure corporate shit.
The more energy a company spends talking about how great their culture is, the shittier it is. Good companies are just good. They don't have to toot their horn about their fake culture every 5 seconds.
None of these mega corps have a positive culture so that's not the problem here.
All depends on what you are working at. Which is why I look at these "The best will not work anywhere but at home." chantfests as just wishful thinking.
Even in the world of tech talent, it's pretty awkward to come up with proof that the top talent is in positions that can work only from home.
Because tech talent that has no other choice than to be at a workplace is inferior to those who refuse to go to a workplace, nah, ain't buying it.
Working with classified materials? You are at a workplace. Worki
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely totally agree with your entire post about how to have a career and that it requires networking with others in person and so on.
The "only wfh" people are definitely missing out on that aspect of having a career. They have a job and will always have a job. Huge difference. But frankly, anyone that socially awkward is probably better off with a job at home than demonstrating their awkwardness at work on a daily basis. They also are safe from their social ineptitude getting them in trouble with
Agreegree (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The "Behind the Bastards" podcast had a series on Jack Welch and his transformation of GE from "this is your lifetime job and family and we take care of you" to exactly what you describe and how that mindset really took hold in the 80's "corporate raider" mentality.
Part One: Jack Welch Is Why You Got Laid Off [youtube.com]
Correlation or Causation? (Score:3)
Working in the tech industry, I kind of wonder if some of this is correlation rather than causation. I'm sure there were some high performers who were frustrated with work for whom return-to-office was what pushed them over the edge to look for a new job. But there was also a really hot job market in 2022 and early 2023.
I left the company I had been at for 10 years in 2022. It had nothing to do with return-to-office, but that was going on at that time at that company. I had a lot of friends who left and none of them mentioned return-to-office as being the reason. Everyone talked about frustrations with career progression and how much more they were being offered to go elsewhere.
Where I ended up is a company that is very unfriendly to WFH, even during the pandemic, yet had very few people leave in the last 5 years because they pay super well. I know stories about WFH are popular on Slashdot and I know that for some people, this really is a hill to die on, but I think most people see WFH as part of a compensation package.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that odd, because I also am in IT and after the pandemic I would say at least 80% of those I know in the IT field WFH is extremely important to them now. In those 80% I would say at least 50% are willing to even take a slight pay cut to get almost 100% WFH. Before the pandemic we were at maybe 1 to 2 days a week working from home. After 98% WFH and they are sticking with it for now. Anyone I have spoken with in the IT field in a place that is nearly 100% WFH (1 to 2 times a month going in) not ju
Re: (Score:3)
Good people are still in very high demand. I still have headhunters writing me poems, hoping that I'll at least talk to them.
Tough to replace? (Score:2)
Considering these companies are still functioning without any issues, that term does not mean what you think it means.
Also, this is good way to cut costs. Clearly their high flying salaries and perks weren't justified if things are still working.
Re: (Score:3)
Large corporations are like oil tankers. They keep moving forward by pure inertia for a long, long while even after the engine is cut off.
What makes middle managers mediocre (Score:3)
Why can't employers figure out why employees don't want to come into the office? Its not just because of manager eyeball. Given the story is talking about CA based employees, one reason obviously has to be The Commute. Just subsidize car service for their indispensable team leads (assuming this is an established, successful technology development company).
Frankly, I still think its inevitable that most industries would eventually evolve into hybrid attendance schedules. If middle management is so freaking important to productivity, upper management should be able to devise metrics to demonstrate this. I still suspect there are intangible team psychology factors and task knowledge conveyance which requires a level of local accessibility, but its not 5 days a week. (And in my Frankenstein world, I'd only require the "new" hires to come in 5 days a week for maybe a year. Even better for hybrid schedules to be at a supervisor's "discretion".)
IBM tried forced overtime. Some simply refused. (Score:3)
After that I continued to work 40 hours and would not falsify my time card records for IBM, either, as most folks did. The sent out "reminders" of the policy to me once every so often and I never squawked or gave them any more fuck-off emails about it, but they also never took any further actions against me. I'm guessing they cared more about the critical deadlines I was meeting and wanted the code to ship instead of pounding the table to get their way.
They know that... (Score:2)
Executives don't care if they lose top talent. They don't care about talent at all. They don't care if the product is a mess or the workforce is miserable. They care about the stock price.
All you need to do to juice the stock price is lay off people, cut cost, boost sales, announce some new initiative or partnership, etc. Expend a small amount of effort where it's easy to make it look like you're making more money. Often they will intentionally waste money or avoid sales once they have got their 2% YOY grow
Prediction (Score:2)
Work-from-home (WFH) companies will improve employee communication/coordination techniques via experience and start eating their butt-in-chair (BIC) competitors for lunch. The BIC's will then panic and rush to WFH, doing it wrong because they don't have experience, and shrink.
Most BIC meetings I'm in are for blowhards to have to place to blow hard. I will agree meetings can be a place to iron out the more tricky aspects, but the unproductive parts often cancel out that benefit. Time is wasted on minutia tha
Re: (Score:3)
Show me one productive meeting and I show you 10 that could have been an email instead.
where to (Score:2)
Where did those SpaceX employees go? Some other rocket company closer to their suburban home?
Hypocrisy of outsourcing vs WFH (Score:3)
We have 20 years of outsourcing. Now all of a sudden WFH is a problem?
Execs have pushed "unvalued" work off shore for a few decades now. Now all of a sudden the tools and processes that enabled that remote work is applied to the local workforce and companies is a problem?
I'm easily 3x + more productive from home. Yet my pay rate is remaining relatively flat. My company wants me in the office. At the same time they complain that I'm not producing the same output. So I return to home and it goes up and then I'm violating the WFH ratio.
If anything I'm likely to move away from the city to reduce cost of living. If my company still wants me great. If not I'll find something else. Even a pay cut will still be a net increase after the move. It's actually shaping up to be a 2x impact on my income.
Note: I've already moved out of the core of the city during covid. And that halved my cost of living. I'm about to move further to do the same again. ( Note: The recent spike in cost of living needs to be offset. )
Now who would have guessed (Score:3)
I (as well as anyone with half a brain) has said so from the get go. That people who have the skills, have the projects to point to, have the certifications and have the bite will just flip them off and move on. What stays is the dregs, the bottom feeders who know that they can't jump ship because they have nothing to show for, haven't improved their skills since they were hired and know that nobody would hire them, so they have to bite the bullet.
We've been preaching this for what now? 2 years?
Maybe I should start consulting these dimwits hiding behind fancy three letter titles starting with C in something other than security. Apparently I'm superior to their knowledge in business administration as well. Likely because I never studied BA and thus evaded the mandatory lobotomy in the third semester.
Seen both sides (Score:3)
I've worked on both sides of this. As an Engineer that wants to work from home, and as a Director responsible for multiple teams of software developers, and a lot of tight deadlines.
Here's the truth that I have from decades of first hand experience:
1) It's easy to see how productive a team member is being. If you use how many hours a salaried employee doing a creative job sits at their desk as any kind of performance metric, then you are a terrible manager. Many managers at least partially understand this but do it anyway.
2) HR departments generally have a lot of power in a company, and are run by people who have been brainwashed to think that all employees are essentially the same, and people work better in a social environment where everyone is communicating together all the time.
3) Being social may even work for most departments (e.g. sales, customer support etc) but one thing i know from decades of experience is that engineering groups should not be considered even slightly the same. Despite that, HR does, because when your sociology degree has only taught you one thing, you apply it to everything.
4) Most CEOs are at least equally as clueless about employees as their HR Director, so tend to just trust them implicitly. These "no working from home" rules often actually originate from some clueless moron in HR but inevitably quickly gain backing from on high.
Re: (Score:3)
engineering groups should not be considered even slightly the same.
If they had any inkling about how long it takes a technical person to get their head back into "technical stuff" after they've been interrupted they'd send every one of them home with a laptop and a good pair of noise cancelling headphones instantly.
Tough to replace? (Score:3)
Blaming the wrong cause (Score:3)
Here's my theory. Mind you, it's just my opinion, so I won't bring any data.
During the pandemic, the tech market boomed. There was huge growth and I saw some companies doubling or even tripling in size. Almost everyone I know changed jobs due to better offers in other companies. Many of them more than once. Heck, I did it too!
But since things started to settle down, growth became slower and revenues didn't reach the mark, executives started to blame WFH as the main cause for worse results. These executives will do anything to hide the fact that:
1) They were waaaay over-optimistic (there were definitely monetary incentives for that);
2) That HR was shit in recruiting and hired droves of underskilled people and;
3) Their managers are very bad and not really capable of remotely run their teams and projects.
Since they need now to justify their actions to shareholders and cut back costs, they will use RTO policies in order to appear in control and force many workers leave the companies by themselves. They don't care as long as they can save some face and continue to amass the huge annual bonuses they feel so entitled to.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh believe me, they know. It's all about those "job perks".
Like, say, an office with a door. That means you're important. Without having to pay you more, which is the crucial part. Or even a corner office, that means you're REALLY important.
This doesn't work in a WFH environment. Here, I have a corner office if I want it, because I say so. Not because I have been working myself to my grave for nothing.
Job perks in WFH means the company has to cough up dough. And they hate that.