The main thing I don’t get is that the top talent at your company are the ones that can easily find another job instead of putting up with your BS. The people that aren’t competent enough to leave on a whim are the ones you’re going to be keeping.
I don’t think being fickle and being competent are necessarily linked.
Some of the best workers i’ve met over the years are making way less than some of the worst workers i’ve met, just because the ones who could talk the talk and play the bullshit made way more money and swap jobs way more often.
The highest paid company hoppers are undoubtably the first ones to go, that doesn’t mean they are the most important, talented people though.
If bad people are aware that they’re bad, they’re strongly incentivized to not risk their livelihoods by voluntarily ending their employment.
If people are clinging to a job tightly even as working condition deteriorates, it’s an indicator that they don’t think they’ll fare well on the job market.
The disconnect has more to do with perception of their own value. Good people who underestimate themselves awill be inclined to stay. Bad people who know they’re bad will be more inclined to stay.
Bad people who think they’re good, and good people who know they’re good will be the most likely to leave.
So, the strategy of intentionally tanking your conditions to prune bad people actually only successfully prunes bad people who think they’re good.
On the other hand, you loose good people who know they’re good, entrenches the bad people who know they’re bad, and demoralized the shit out of good people who don’t realize they’re good.
How are “bad people who think they are good” likely to leave, wouldn’t they find it hard to switch jobs because they are bad? that is, they thought they could easily switch jobs, but find out in interviews that it’s not easy, thus they are forced to stay?
Yeah, but you’re thinking about when the company picks people to fire. Forcing people back to the office decreases worker satisfaction across the board, and workers will respond individually. I’d argue that those highest paid will be most willing to suffer the inconvenience of commuting, regardless of their talent, so the “make working here annoying” plan will tend to retain higher paid employees while losing lower paid people through attrition. Likewise, workers are more likely to tolerate the annoyances if they don’t have any other options. Good people can more easily job-hop, so this strategy is also likely to retain the lower-performing employees while the top performers go elsewhere, not considering pay rate. Total labor costs will decline, because there’s fewer people working, but it’s not an efficient selection process.
Long story short: pissing on your employees results in a smaller, lower quality workforce.
I agree on performance, but I’m well paid and would tolerate almost zero unjustified inconvenience. I can afford to take a cut, but in reality would probably earn even more elsewhere.
More experienced folk are also more likely to go freelance, since they have the skills, experience and contacts. Perm roles only make sense when they bring stability and benefits. I expect to see this a lot more, if RTO continues.
Yep. One of my friends works in sales and has worked from home for 3 1/2 of her 4 years with her current company. She’s in the top 10 performers out of 250-ish people in her division and her company is going to lose her if they stick to the demand that people return to the office. She’s waiting to see what happens, but she’s already had recruiters put out feelers once the tentative plan got out, and there are other top performers ready to jump ship too.
Have you ever had a middle manager above you who constantly has to interfere as if to prove how necessary they are?
This is similar. It’s not always about the amount/quality of your work or even about the money; sometimes it’s just about control. Those who don’t actually do much (again, managers and CEOs, etc) want desperate people they can rule over.
Even better, the competent ones ask for more money
Seriously the actions of all these big companies shows they don’t really give a shit about retaining top talent. Unfortunately, for big name companies, they’ll always have an inflow of talented new grads who are willing to give up their dignity to get their name on their resumes, and it’s cheaper (in the short term, which is all shareholders care about) to churn and burn them then to invest in long term talent
We are all freely interchangeable widgets in their calculations. They don’t have time to consider that some people might be better than the job than others.
They’re betting that some will leave, most will stay, and even if the some that leave are the best, most of their money is made by the vast majority of people behind them.
They’re looking at trends, not individuals. Individuals don’t matter to them.
They’re looking at trends, not individuals. Individuals don’t matter to them.
Exactly.
They’re going to learn better, but it’s going to be an expensive process.
The irony is that the average worker already knows better.
“Name two people at your workplace who, if they quit, everything will go to shit.”
We can all do it. Only the CEO can’t. And many of us would name differet people at the same workplace, and still be correct. But the CEO rarely knows that, or more likely can only name two, themselves, when their real risk is closer to 200.
I put up with hellish demands and a nightmare commute because I thought working at Important Company was a privilege. And to so degree it was. But I don’t put up with bullshit anymore and that was a lesson I had to learn on my own, the hard way.
yup - early on in my career, working at a specific FAANG company was my life’s greatest ambition, now I don’t think there’s any amount of money they might feasibly offer me that would make me work there lol - Once you have enough income to be comfortable, work life balance is worth more than anything
Better yet if the workers unionized they could end up with a strike or no workers at all. If these were the good ol days they may even wake up without their kneecaps.
It’s because the people making these decisions aren’t incrntivised to think about the long term effect for the company. All they need to worry about is if it makes line go up in the short-term so they can get a fat bonus then use how much line went up to get a job somewhere else before the shit hits the fan. Rinse and repeat.
The main thing I don’t get is that the top talent at your company are the ones that can easily find another job instead of putting up with your BS. The people that aren’t competent enough to leave on a whim are the ones you’re going to be keeping.
I don’t think being fickle and being competent are necessarily linked.
Some of the best workers i’ve met over the years are making way less than some of the worst workers i’ve met, just because the ones who could talk the talk and play the bullshit made way more money and swap jobs way more often.
The highest paid company hoppers are undoubtably the first ones to go, that doesn’t mean they are the most important, talented people though.
If bad people are aware that they’re bad, they’re strongly incentivized to not risk their livelihoods by voluntarily ending their employment.
If people are clinging to a job tightly even as working condition deteriorates, it’s an indicator that they don’t think they’ll fare well on the job market.
The disconnect has more to do with perception of their own value. Good people who underestimate themselves awill be inclined to stay. Bad people who know they’re bad will be more inclined to stay.
Bad people who think they’re good, and good people who know they’re good will be the most likely to leave.
So, the strategy of intentionally tanking your conditions to prune bad people actually only successfully prunes bad people who think they’re good.
On the other hand, you loose good people who know they’re good, entrenches the bad people who know they’re bad, and demoralized the shit out of good people who don’t realize they’re good.
How are “bad people who think they are good” likely to leave, wouldn’t they find it hard to switch jobs because they are bad? that is, they thought they could easily switch jobs, but find out in interviews that it’s not easy, thus they are forced to stay?
They just quit, as a result of some offense, thinking they’ll pick up a new better job in no time.
Yeah, but you’re thinking about when the company picks people to fire. Forcing people back to the office decreases worker satisfaction across the board, and workers will respond individually. I’d argue that those highest paid will be most willing to suffer the inconvenience of commuting, regardless of their talent, so the “make working here annoying” plan will tend to retain higher paid employees while losing lower paid people through attrition. Likewise, workers are more likely to tolerate the annoyances if they don’t have any other options. Good people can more easily job-hop, so this strategy is also likely to retain the lower-performing employees while the top performers go elsewhere, not considering pay rate. Total labor costs will decline, because there’s fewer people working, but it’s not an efficient selection process.
Long story short: pissing on your employees results in a smaller, lower quality workforce.
I agree on performance, but I’m well paid and would tolerate almost zero unjustified inconvenience. I can afford to take a cut, but in reality would probably earn even more elsewhere.
More experienced folk are also more likely to go freelance, since they have the skills, experience and contacts. Perm roles only make sense when they bring stability and benefits. I expect to see this a lot more, if RTO continues.
Quiting when management makes a “fuck you” policy isn’t fickleness, it’s common sense, for those who can.
Job mobility and talent are strongly measurably connected.
“Fuck you” policies lose top talent.
It’s not an interesting discussion. Grab your popcorn and wait for the “find out” phase to come around.
And if you own stock, focus on mid-cap for awhile, beacuse the large-cap players are doubling down on “fuck around”.
Yep. One of my friends works in sales and has worked from home for 3 1/2 of her 4 years with her current company. She’s in the top 10 performers out of 250-ish people in her division and her company is going to lose her if they stick to the demand that people return to the office. She’s waiting to see what happens, but she’s already had recruiters put out feelers once the tentative plan got out, and there are other top performers ready to jump ship too.
Have you ever had a middle manager above you who constantly has to interfere as if to prove how necessary they are?
This is similar. It’s not always about the amount/quality of your work or even about the money; sometimes it’s just about control. Those who don’t actually do much (again, managers and CEOs, etc) want desperate people they can rule over.
They don’t see workers as people, they’re a commodity like everything else.
Even better, the competent ones ask for more money
Seriously the actions of all these big companies shows they don’t really give a shit about retaining top talent. Unfortunately, for big name companies, they’ll always have an inflow of talented new grads who are willing to give up their dignity to get their name on their resumes, and it’s cheaper (in the short term, which is all shareholders care about) to churn and burn them then to invest in long term talent
We are all freely interchangeable widgets in their calculations. They don’t have time to consider that some people might be better than the job than others.
Because profit is in the tail.
They’re betting that some will leave, most will stay, and even if the some that leave are the best, most of their money is made by the vast majority of people behind them.
They’re looking at trends, not individuals. Individuals don’t matter to them.
Exactly.
They’re going to learn better, but it’s going to be an expensive process.
The irony is that the average worker already knows better.
“Name two people at your workplace who, if they quit, everything will go to shit.”
We can all do it. Only the CEO can’t. And many of us would name differet people at the same workplace, and still be correct. But the CEO rarely knows that, or more likely can only name two, themselves, when their real risk is closer to 200.
I’m way better than the job!
I put up with hellish demands and a nightmare commute because I thought working at Important Company was a privilege. And to so degree it was. But I don’t put up with bullshit anymore and that was a lesson I had to learn on my own, the hard way.
yup - early on in my career, working at a specific FAANG company was my life’s greatest ambition, now I don’t think there’s any amount of money they might feasibly offer me that would make me work there lol - Once you have enough income to be comfortable, work life balance is worth more than anything
Better yet if the workers unionized they could end up with a strike or no workers at all. If these were the good ol days they may even wake up without their kneecaps.
Because CEOs are dumb
It’s because the people making these decisions aren’t incrntivised to think about the long term effect for the company. All they need to worry about is if it makes line go up in the short-term so they can get a fat bonus then use how much line went up to get a job somewhere else before the shit hits the fan. Rinse and repeat.