Roblox CEO David Baszucki said virtual workspaces are not as "engaging, collaborative, and productive as physical spaces," and it "needed to get back to working in person."
Many companies are doing this. They’re OK with the attrition. Acceptable losses as far as they’re concerned. I suppose it’s their right. I hope those that quit over it find better jobs.
It’s a weird tactic though. As a manager in a large organization, I’d be worried about who would leave in that situation. The top performers always have options. A handful might stick around, but the ones that will definitely stick around are the ones with less options and/or the ones too lazy to update their resume.
My own experience in IT with companies which were even just starting to talk about layoffs is that the people who can much more easilly find new jobs - typically the better ones and the ones with hard to find or in more demand expertises - are the ones who leave first, often preemptivelly (though it does depend on their chances to get compensation for being dismissed and how much, so for example in certail legal jurisdictions were compensation depends on years employed there, you might seen the best of the newer employes just take off whilst the ones with many years there hold on for compensation because it’s worth it for them).
In fact if you’re going to do cuts you better have the list of positions which are going to be cut already planned because in that period of uncertaintly between knowing there will be layoffs and knowing who is going to be kicked out is when those people who can easilly find another job will leave, if only because that removes the uncertainy of if and when they’ll stop getting paid, reduces the risk of a gap between jobs and even lets you take your time when searching for a new job and thus get a better one (if you’re kicked out whilst still having bills to pay being selective about your new job is sometimes not possible).
Even were such effects only impact a small number of employees, it’s never the least useful ones that leave preemptivelly.
In this specific case with an ultimatum of the “do this thing that’s going to be worse fo you because I say so, or else” kind, that’s just going to give more reason for the ones who can leave more easilly to leave.
Yep, and once you get people looking at the greener grass elsewhere, you’ve started the slow roll of attrition of your top talent even they don’t leave right away
Indeed: when people in a company start thinking about change, maybe have a look around and find out they could be better of elsewhere than in their current position, at least some of those will leave and that will be the ones “who could be better of elsewhere” rather than the ones that “have the best job they could get with their qualifications” - in other words and from a pure business consideration point of view, it just increases the likelihood of losing the “beter value for money” employees.
That’s ok once they realize their mistakes they will hire them back for even more money than they used to make, after offering them their job back for less money than they used to make first.
I see it in my own job. It’s a tough situation. I get where companies are coming from and where workers are coming from too. I’m back in the office and it sucks. I can maybe go somewhere else and lose seniority and everything but gain flexibility. It’s just another perk now you have to weigh all-in with pay and other compensation. Smart employers will recognize it’s something people value now and want to attract top talent with flexible work scenarios.
Many companies are doing this. They’re OK with the attrition. Acceptable losses as far as they’re concerned. I suppose it’s their right. I hope those that quit over it find better jobs.
It’s a weird tactic though. As a manager in a large organization, I’d be worried about who would leave in that situation. The top performers always have options. A handful might stick around, but the ones that will definitely stick around are the ones with less options and/or the ones too lazy to update their resume.
Exactly.
My own experience in IT with companies which were even just starting to talk about layoffs is that the people who can much more easilly find new jobs - typically the better ones and the ones with hard to find or in more demand expertises - are the ones who leave first, often preemptivelly (though it does depend on their chances to get compensation for being dismissed and how much, so for example in certail legal jurisdictions were compensation depends on years employed there, you might seen the best of the newer employes just take off whilst the ones with many years there hold on for compensation because it’s worth it for them).
In fact if you’re going to do cuts you better have the list of positions which are going to be cut already planned because in that period of uncertaintly between knowing there will be layoffs and knowing who is going to be kicked out is when those people who can easilly find another job will leave, if only because that removes the uncertainy of if and when they’ll stop getting paid, reduces the risk of a gap between jobs and even lets you take your time when searching for a new job and thus get a better one (if you’re kicked out whilst still having bills to pay being selective about your new job is sometimes not possible).
Even were such effects only impact a small number of employees, it’s never the least useful ones that leave preemptivelly.
In this specific case with an ultimatum of the “do this thing that’s going to be worse fo you because I say so, or else” kind, that’s just going to give more reason for the ones who can leave more easilly to leave.
Yep, and once you get people looking at the greener grass elsewhere, you’ve started the slow roll of attrition of your top talent even they don’t leave right away
Indeed: when people in a company start thinking about change, maybe have a look around and find out they could be better of elsewhere than in their current position, at least some of those will leave and that will be the ones “who could be better of elsewhere” rather than the ones that “have the best job they could get with their qualifications” - in other words and from a pure business consideration point of view, it just increases the likelihood of losing the “beter value for money” employees.
That’s ok once they realize their mistakes they will hire them back for even more money than they used to make, after offering them their job back for less money than they used to make first.
Great way to lose talent, not sure you understand the impact that has when you lose higher ranking resources (that aren’t meaningless mid managers)
I see it in my own job. It’s a tough situation. I get where companies are coming from and where workers are coming from too. I’m back in the office and it sucks. I can maybe go somewhere else and lose seniority and everything but gain flexibility. It’s just another perk now you have to weigh all-in with pay and other compensation. Smart employers will recognize it’s something people value now and want to attract top talent with flexible work scenarios.