Nearly two in five (37 percent) managers, directors, and executives believe their organization enacted layoffs in the last year because fewer employees than they expected quit during their RTO. And their beliefs are well-founded: One in four (25 percent) VP and C-suite executives and one in five (18 percent) HR pros admit they hoped for some voluntary turnover during an RTO.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Despite an apparently large interest in remote work, numerous companies made workers return to the office after COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were lifted.
Nearly two in five (37 percent) managers, directors, and executives believe their organization enacted layoffs in the last year because fewer employees than they expected quit during their RTO.
“By using RTO mandates as a workforce reduction tactic, companies are losing talent and morale among their employees,” BambooHR’s report says.
The report notes that 45 percent of people surveyed whose companies have RTO policies said they lost valued workers.
The finding is similar to that of a May study of Apple, Microsoft, and SpaceX that suggested that RTO mandates drove senior talent away.
“The mental and emotional burdens workers face today are real, and the companies who seek employee feedback with the intent to listen and improve are the ones who will win employee loyalty and ultimately customer satisfaction,” Anita Grantham, head of HR at BambooHR, said in a statement.
The original article contains 709 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That much is obvious
Summary:
- A survey by BambooHR found that some US companies implemented return-to-office (RTO) policies in the hopes of getting workers to quit.
- 52% of respondents prefer working remotely, while 39% prefer working in an office.
- 37% of managers believe their organization enacted layoffs because fewer employees than expected quit during RTO.
- 25% of VP and C-suite executives and 18% of HR professionals admit they hoped for some voluntary turnover during RTO.
- 22% of HR professionals said their company has no metrics for measuring a successful RTO.
- 28% of remote workers fear they will be laid off before those working in the office.
- 45% of people surveyed whose companies have RTO policies said they lost valued workers.
- 28% said they would consider leaving their jobs if their employer enacted an RTO mandate.
- The survey found that remote and in-office employees spend an equal amount of time working (76% of a 9-to-5 shift).
- In-office workers spend around one hour more socializing than remote workers, while remote workers spend that time on work-related tasks.
- 32% of managers said one of the main goals of their firm implementing an in-office policy was to track employee working habits.
- 48% of respondents said their work results have improved since returning to the office, and 58% said they have a stronger professional network.
It’s almost as if upper management doesn’t actually give a shit about productivity and workers work better where they feel most comfortable.
In this economy??
Worked for my wife. She quit and found a job that was fully work from home that paid 3x what she was making. The company she left shut down and filed for bankruptcy last year. Last I heard, her old boss was working at Walmart as a cashier.
My sister did that but only netted 30k more not 3x. Still well worth it imo. Of course it’s kinda amazing that more companies aren’t taking this “cheat code” to get cream of the crop “minor league” non major center talent for the discount of amazing wages out in the hinterlands that are 40k or more less than big city prices.
“Only 30k more”…
Bruh.
As a corporate guy, I’ll let y’all in on a secrete: a lot of the bullshit policies that you hear about are meant to piss people off and increase turnover. It’s an attempt to get rid of the bottom of the barrel and keep the people in the middle in a state of fear or discomfort to maintain productivity.
Why ends up happening is you skim the top employees and are left with the bottom of the barrel that performs even worse because they are in a state of fear and discomfort.
skim the top employees and are left with the bottom of the barrel that performs even worse
It’s called the Dead Sea Effect.
It’s always interesting to see what kind of names people come up with for the consequences of stupidity.
Why ends up happening is you skim the top employees and are left with the bottom of the barrel that performs even worse because they are in a state of fear and discomfort.
Sounds like the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result (keeping the best, getting rid of the rest)
That’s not the definition of insanity.
It’s a quote from Far Cry 3
Having been a senior expert in a high demand area for most of my career (and, modesty on the side, pretty good at what I do), I couldn’t agree more.
People really good and senior in expert domains come in two styles:
- The kind that complains that “it’s the same everywhere”, are miserable and never change jobs, who eventually stagnate in terms of professional growth because their professional experience is so narrow (to progress professionally beyond a certain point you really need to work in different places and have different responsabilities so that your knowledge is broad enough and well rounded enough that you start getting the meta part of you job - work processes and stakeholders - that becomes important at the senior levels even outside management).
- The kind that has a well rounded experience, worked in a bunch of places and is comfortable with the whole “getting a new job” process (both interviewing and starting a job in a new place) so can walk out the door and have a new job tommorrow paying the same or better.
Whilst, both kinds generally value stability (though the former overdoes it) as there is comfort in the familiar and people generally also make friends were they work in if they’re there long enough (in fact, large Tech companies heavilly push for “your work is your family” exactly for this reason), the second does have the confidence to know their skills are in demand and hence they can easilly find another job, compared to more junior professionals with less expertise makes more money (also a product of changing jobs once in a while) and usually have more savings, so have more freedom to move (both in financial and mental terms) hence a lower threshold for how much shit they will take: push them and you’ll easilly lose them (and, from my experience, they’re the hardest kind of professional to replace).
I would say that in a company, of everybody it’s the second kind of senior expert who has the more ease of moving and are more comfortable doing so: they have the most pull from the outside, the most savings to cover any financial risk (and, as pointed out somewhere else, people have a higher income growth from moving jobs than staying in the same job, so even amongst senior experts the type #2 tend to earn more) and the most experience with the whole process of finding and starting a new job.
Seen it numerous times since the mid-90’s.
Preferred folks will stay because they’re part of the in-crowd (hard to know what that is, but it’s senior management building their own little fiefdoms).
The performers have options, so are either part of that in-crowd, or have opportunities elsewhere.
