I remain absolutely convinced that some companies' RTO mandates were just intended to increase voluntary attrition and circumvent constructive dismissal laws.
I remain absolutely convinced that some companies' RTO mandates were just intended to increase voluntary attrition and circumvent constructive dismissal laws.
It's not even that much of a circumvention if you know your rights. My wife was told to RTO and she just didn't show up. When they let her go, she got unemployment because of constructive dismissal.
It's not even that much of a circumvention if you know your rights. My wife was told to RTO and she just didn't show up. When they let her go, she got unemployment because of constructive dismissal.
Likely. Large companies count on "voluntary attrition": people departing because they want to for other jobs. At the beginning of the pandemic, voluntary attrition tanked. There were some early...
Likely. Large companies count on "voluntary attrition": people departing because they want to for other jobs. At the beginning of the pandemic, voluntary attrition tanked. There were some early layoffs in 2020, as a result.
We're seeing that again, with the spike in interest rates. The RTO demands have come about the same time as the layoffs.
Though it's important to keep in mind layoffs are broadly down in the US. Tech and media companies are the exception. Tech companies' head count exploded during COVID.
Though it's important to keep in mind layoffs are broadly down in the US. Tech and media companies are the exception. Tech companies' head count exploded during COVID.
I think that's a reasonable assumption, but not a smart play for the companies who actually use RTO as a tool for voluntary attrition. The downside of this method vs layoffs is that you have zero...
I think that's a reasonable assumption, but not a smart play for the companies who actually use RTO as a tool for voluntary attrition. The downside of this method vs layoffs is that you have zero control over who leaves. Maybe some companies don't care and just want overall numbers to decrease, but it's a stupid move from a talent management perspective.
A little bit of both can also be the case. What I have seen over and over again is that there is just a huge disconnect with upper management and the lower functioning of the companies. I have...
Maybe some companies don't care and just want overall numbers to decrease, but it's a stupid move from a talent management perspective.
A little bit of both can also be the case. What I have seen over and over again is that there is just a huge disconnect with upper management and the lower functioning of the companies. I have heard people higher up the totem pole talk confidently about talent management, while in the same talk confidently talk about measures that are going to be detrimental to retaining talent management.
If I dial up my cynicism a bit more and also give upper management a bit more credit. I'd even say that they want talented people, but without all the hassle that comes with truly talented people. What I mean by that is that talented people often also have an opinion, will voice it, etc. So you want talented people, but not have them stick around long enough to start making waves.
I'm glad I don't work for a company with that attitude. Our company seems to value longevity. It's not uncommon for people to be here for 15-20+ years. I'm coming up on 14 years myself.
I'm glad I don't work for a company with that attitude. Our company seems to value longevity. It's not uncommon for people to be here for 15-20+ years. I'm coming up on 14 years myself.
At my current job I don't work from home, but often times my boss works while traveling. My days are much less stressful while he is not in the office. There are less pop-ins and I am afforded the...
At my current job I don't work from home, but often times my boss works while traveling.
My days are much less stressful while he is not in the office. There are less pop-ins and I am afforded the ability to prioritize my tasks as I see fit without "urgent" requests that disrupt my workflow.
What I lose when he is out of the office is opportunity. I don't get to be a part of any brainstorming sessions or hear about upcoming changes that I can influence.
I think workers should have the flexibility to choose where they work. I know that working in the office leads to a better relationship with my boss, but working from home would make me feel less stressed and happier.
I've had that exact arrangement for two years now and it's been great. I go into the office when I feel like it (typically once a week) and otherwise work from home. I'm better rested and can take...
I've had that exact arrangement for two years now and it's been great. I go into the office when I feel like it (typically once a week) and otherwise work from home. I'm better rested and can take breaks in line with my own body's timetable, but I still got the chance to make connections with other teams that have come in handy during emergencies. 100% ideal arrangement as far as I'm concerned.
While I don't disagree with the overall premise of what you are saying, I don't think that what you quite confidently link as evidence is strong. The study is about a Chinese company, which to me...
While I don't disagree with the overall premise of what you are saying, I don't think that what you quite confidently link as evidence is strong. The study is about a Chinese company, which to me immediately raises questions about fundamental differences in overall culture and work culture.
Furthermore, even it was a US based company, I'd say a sample size of one company is very low. Company cultures can also differ quite a lot between them.
Yeah definitive sources focusing on career outcomes were harder to find than sources about productivity growth. There are tons of opinion pieces about how being in person is better for career...
Yeah definitive sources focusing on career outcomes were harder to find than sources about productivity growth. There are tons of opinion pieces about how being in person is better for career outcomes though.
Career outcomes are definitely linked with how well someone networks with coworkers and bosses, and you can’t deny that you lose the social aspect of work when you work from home.
For long term stints at a single company I think that you are generally right. Though it still likely depends very much on the company culture, type of work and general attitude towards working...
For long term stints at a single company I think that you are generally right. Though it still likely depends very much on the company culture, type of work and general attitude towards working from home.
If we disregard job hopping for a moment networking does help. But based on personal experience, so anecdotal, I very much feel like that can be covered by one at max two days in the office.
I know a lot of people also dislike the hybrid model. But here a lot of companies seem to focus on actually being hybrid in a best of both worlds model that I personally don't mind. One day in the week I'll be in the office, my team will be in the office and other related teams are also in the office. The office day is specifically intended to be one to have meetings, socialize and generally connect.
The rest of the days are mostly intended for productive work. Any meetings on those are expected to be digital. People are allowed to come to the office on other days but can't require other people to come.
Anyway, to get back to my point, for most parts of networking I found these days to be more than adequate.
I didn't explicitly say it in my original comment, but I do think hybrid systems are probably ideal for job satisfaction and career advancement. Ultimately, I think people should be able to make...
I didn't explicitly say it in my original comment, but I do think hybrid systems are probably ideal for job satisfaction and career advancement.
Ultimately, I think people should be able to make their own decision on where they want to work so they can decide what tradeoffs they want to make.
You really don't think that if you worked for a company that valued in in-office presence in any way, that showing up and participating in in-office/face-to-face discussions wouldn't give you a...
You really don't think that if you worked for a company that valued in in-office presence in any way, that showing up and participating in in-office/face-to-face discussions wouldn't give you a leg-up when it comes to things like promotions?
I would imagine that to some extent, negative impacts on career outcomes can be mitigated by taking advantage of the flexibility granted by working from home. Point in case, I’m using some of the...
I would imagine that to some extent, negative impacts on career outcomes can be mitigated by taking advantage of the flexibility granted by working from home.
Point in case, I’m using some of the time freed up to earn a degree and work toward setting up secondary revenue streams among other things. Prior to remote work this would’ve been much more impractical, at minimum cutting into sleep and reducing overall well-being.
I work from home 100% of the time now, but I don't think I would be doing what I'm doing now—which pays a lot better—if I hadn't been working in person back when I changed career paths. I also...
I work from home 100% of the time now, but I don't think I would be doing what I'm doing now—which pays a lot better—if I hadn't been working in person back when I changed career paths.
I also miss casually BSing with my coworkers. Not for productivity, mind you, but just for the socializing.
That said, I don't think there's any way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I wouldn't be able to do my job any better if I was doing it in the office. In fact, it might be a little bit worse, insofar as I can't type anymore and dictating needs to be done in a very quiet environment.
I remain absolutely convinced that some companies' RTO mandates were just intended to increase voluntary attrition and circumvent constructive dismissal laws.
It's not even that much of a circumvention if you know your rights. My wife was told to RTO and she just didn't show up. When they let her go, she got unemployment because of constructive dismissal.
Likely. Large companies count on "voluntary attrition": people departing because they want to for other jobs. At the beginning of the pandemic, voluntary attrition tanked. There were some early layoffs in 2020, as a result.
We're seeing that again, with the spike in interest rates. The RTO demands have come about the same time as the layoffs.
Though it's important to keep in mind layoffs are broadly down in the US. Tech and media companies are the exception. Tech companies' head count exploded during COVID.
I think that's a reasonable assumption, but not a smart play for the companies who actually use RTO as a tool for voluntary attrition. The downside of this method vs layoffs is that you have zero control over who leaves. Maybe some companies don't care and just want overall numbers to decrease, but it's a stupid move from a talent management perspective.
A little bit of both can also be the case. What I have seen over and over again is that there is just a huge disconnect with upper management and the lower functioning of the companies. I have heard people higher up the totem pole talk confidently about talent management, while in the same talk confidently talk about measures that are going to be detrimental to retaining talent management.
If I dial up my cynicism a bit more and also give upper management a bit more credit. I'd even say that they want talented people, but without all the hassle that comes with truly talented people. What I mean by that is that talented people often also have an opinion, will voice it, etc. So you want talented people, but not have them stick around long enough to start making waves.
I'm glad I don't work for a company with that attitude. Our company seems to value longevity. It's not uncommon for people to be here for 15-20+ years. I'm coming up on 14 years myself.
I'm not familiar with this phrasing. Is it a typo that I can't untangle?
Thanks for the explanation.
I believe it may be similar to, "Don't call me sir/ma'am, I work for a living."
So many states are right to work and it there aren’t any meaningful protections against that.
At my current job I don't work from home, but often times my boss works while traveling.
My days are much less stressful while he is not in the office. There are less pop-ins and I am afforded the ability to prioritize my tasks as I see fit without "urgent" requests that disrupt my workflow.
What I lose when he is out of the office is opportunity. I don't get to be a part of any brainstorming sessions or hear about upcoming changes that I can influence.
Working from home can be better for mental health, but worse for career outcomes.
I think workers should have the flexibility to choose where they work. I know that working in the office leads to a better relationship with my boss, but working from home would make me feel less stressed and happier.
I've had that exact arrangement for two years now and it's been great. I go into the office when I feel like it (typically once a week) and otherwise work from home. I'm better rested and can take breaks in line with my own body's timetable, but I still got the chance to make connections with other teams that have come in handy during emergencies. 100% ideal arrangement as far as I'm concerned.
While I don't disagree with the overall premise of what you are saying, I don't think that what you quite confidently link as evidence is strong. The study is about a Chinese company, which to me immediately raises questions about fundamental differences in overall culture and work culture.
Furthermore, even it was a US based company, I'd say a sample size of one company is very low. Company cultures can also differ quite a lot between them.
Yeah definitive sources focusing on career outcomes were harder to find than sources about productivity growth. There are tons of opinion pieces about how being in person is better for career outcomes though.
Career outcomes are definitely linked with how well someone networks with coworkers and bosses, and you can’t deny that you lose the social aspect of work when you work from home.
For long term stints at a single company I think that you are generally right. Though it still likely depends very much on the company culture, type of work and general attitude towards working from home.
If we disregard job hopping for a moment networking does help. But based on personal experience, so anecdotal, I very much feel like that can be covered by one at max two days in the office.
I know a lot of people also dislike the hybrid model. But here a lot of companies seem to focus on actually being hybrid in a best of both worlds model that I personally don't mind. One day in the week I'll be in the office, my team will be in the office and other related teams are also in the office. The office day is specifically intended to be one to have meetings, socialize and generally connect.
The rest of the days are mostly intended for productive work. Any meetings on those are expected to be digital. People are allowed to come to the office on other days but can't require other people to come.
Anyway, to get back to my point, for most parts of networking I found these days to be more than adequate.
I didn't explicitly say it in my original comment, but I do think hybrid systems are probably ideal for job satisfaction and career advancement.
Ultimately, I think people should be able to make their own decision on where they want to work so they can decide what tradeoffs they want to make.
You really don't think that if you worked for a company that valued in in-office presence in any way, that showing up and participating in in-office/face-to-face discussions wouldn't give you a leg-up when it comes to things like promotions?
That's not really what I said though, is it?
I would imagine that to some extent, negative impacts on career outcomes can be mitigated by taking advantage of the flexibility granted by working from home.
Point in case, I’m using some of the time freed up to earn a degree and work toward setting up secondary revenue streams among other things. Prior to remote work this would’ve been much more impractical, at minimum cutting into sleep and reducing overall well-being.
I work from home 100% of the time now, but I don't think I would be doing what I'm doing now—which pays a lot better—if I hadn't been working in person back when I changed career paths.
I also miss casually BSing with my coworkers. Not for productivity, mind you, but just for the socializing.
That said, I don't think there's any way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I wouldn't be able to do my job any better if I was doing it in the office. In fact, it might be a little bit worse, insofar as I can't type anymore and dictating needs to be done in a very quiet environment.