4 ms·

For something to "backfire" you first have to account for why it was done. This article assumes performance and retention are the only considerations. It does n

by CivBase 7mo ago

For something to "backfire" you first have to account for why it was done. This article assumes performance and retention are the only considerations. It does not account for things like commercial real estate value, a buesiness's ability to monitor and control its employees, or excuses for layoffs.

_bypa 7mo ago
The article does say: > The better path is to raise the bar on management, not badge swipes. Real estate may play a role, but terrible management practices are also definitely a factor. And if every other company is doing it, it's safe to copy their behaviour and not stick your neck out.
matchbok3 7mo ago
What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly?
- angiolillo 7mo ago
  > What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly? By "excuses for layoffs" I suspect what they meant was that there was an pre-existing desire to reduce headcount and RTO was used under the expectation that some percentage of employees would quit voluntarily so that the company can avoid going through the relatively more costly process of laying them off. Of course the downside of this approach is that the company has less control over which employees leave, which may result in them losing the employees who have the best alternatives.
  - matchbok3 7mo ago
    Gotcha. There was definite over hiring that happened during covid so some of this was a return to normal I think.
- CivBase 7mo ago
  > What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? I don't see any reason to get into a discussion about how much an employer should or shouldn't be able to monitor and control their employees. Some businesses are simply more trusting of their employees and allow a great deal of independence, while others aren't. Those that aren't will naturally face greater barriers to monitoring and controlling employees who are working remotely. > What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly? It's no secret that when the return-to-office movement began, many businesses used it as a means of achieving a headcount reduction. Employees who could not (or would not) return to the office were let go. Parting ways with difficult employees looks much better to investors than layoffs.
- thewebguyd 7mo ago
  > Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? There's a difference between visibility into work progress and just mass surveillance of all activity. The only metric that actually matters is the delivery of value. Monitoring isn't an effective way to lead. It only reinforces employees to optimize for "looking busy" rather than being effective. If you have to audit your employees daily actions to know if they are doing their job, you've failed as a manager at defining their role or hiring the right people. A good manager defines the what and the when, and leaves the how to the professional being paid to do it.
  - matchbok3 7mo ago
    I mean, maybe. But a company that spends all of it's time "surveilling" their employees rather than adding value will go out of business. So I'm not sure what the point really is when people bring this up when talking about WFH. If someone doesn't want to be surveilled at work they can quit, right?
    - DHPersonal 7mo ago
      Why continue the cycle of finding a job and quitting it for solvable problems instead of staying and solving the problem?
    - asadotzler 7mo ago
      Not really. Workers produce the thing the company sells. Those workers are mostly trapped so they deal with whatever nonsense management is up to. Management, mostly useless, maintains its control and viability by asserting that workers need policing and they're the ones to do it. If the policing is relatively easy with WFH, they'll do that. If it's much harder, or less demonstrative of their fake value, screw that, they'll just pass that burden on to workers with RTO mandates.
      - matchbok3 7mo ago
        If management is useless then it should be trivial for you to replace them. I wish you luck!
- cdrnsf 7mo ago
  Why is the company hiring people it doesn't trust? That sounds like a process failure.
  - CivBase 7mo ago
    Because they're cheap.
- surgical_fire 7mo ago
  If you deliver all tasks in a timely manner, is productive and helpful in a team setting, contribute to discussions and initiatives beyond your immediate assignments... What exactly should I monitor? How many minutes per day your butt is in a seat? If you did a school run and woked a bit more after hours to compensate? If you had a headache and took a short nap after lunchtime? How does monitoring you contribute to anything?
  - matchbok3 7mo ago
    I agree. I don't really think "monitoring" is the reason for RTO. I think quality of work and collaboration is.
themafia 7mo ago
> commercial real estate value It's a little bit funny that 100% online businesses bought the most expensive and lavish real estate available. It's tragic they think their workers should throw good labor after bad investment to make a white collar feel justified.

by CivBase 7mo ago

_bypa 7mo ago

The article does say: > The better path is to raise the bar on management, not badge swipes. Real estate may play a role, but terrible management practices are also definitely a factor. And if every other company is doing it, it's safe to copy their behaviour and not stick your neck out.

matchbok3 7mo ago

What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly?

angiolillo 7mo ago
> What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly? By "excuses for layoffs" I suspect what they meant was that there was an pre-existing desire to reduce headcount and RTO was used under the expectation that some percentage of employees would quit voluntarily so that the company can avoid going through the relatively more costly process of laying them off. Of course the downside of this approach is that the company has less control over which employees leave, which may result in them losing the employees who have the best alternatives.
- matchbok3 7mo ago
  Gotcha. There was definite over hiring that happened during covid so some of this was a return to normal I think.
CivBase 7mo ago
> What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? I don't see any reason to get into a discussion about how much an employer should or shouldn't be able to monitor and control their employees. Some businesses are simply more trusting of their employees and allow a great deal of independence, while others aren't. Those that aren't will naturally face greater barriers to monitoring and controlling employees who are working remotely. > What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly? It's no secret that when the return-to-office movement began, many businesses used it as a means of achieving a headcount reduction. Employees who could not (or would not) return to the office were let go. Parting ways with difficult employees looks much better to investors than layoffs.
thewebguyd 7mo ago
> Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? There's a difference between visibility into work progress and just mass surveillance of all activity. The only metric that actually matters is the delivery of value. Monitoring isn't an effective way to lead. It only reinforces employees to optimize for "looking busy" rather than being effective. If you have to audit your employees daily actions to know if they are doing their job, you've failed as a manager at defining their role or hiring the right people. A good manager defines the what and the when, and leaves the how to the professional being paid to do it.
- matchbok3 7mo ago
  I mean, maybe. But a company that spends all of it's time "surveilling" their employees rather than adding value will go out of business. So I'm not sure what the point really is when people bring this up when talking about WFH. If someone doesn't want to be surveilled at work they can quit, right?
  - DHPersonal 7mo ago
    Why continue the cycle of finding a job and quitting it for solvable problems instead of staying and solving the problem?
  - asadotzler 7mo ago
    Not really. Workers produce the thing the company sells. Those workers are mostly trapped so they deal with whatever nonsense management is up to. Management, mostly useless, maintains its control and viability by asserting that workers need policing and they're the ones to do it. If the policing is relatively easy with WFH, they'll do that. If it's much harder, or less demonstrative of their fake value, screw that, they'll just pass that burden on to workers with RTO mandates.
    - matchbok3 7mo ago
      If management is useless then it should be trivial for you to replace them. I wish you luck!
cdrnsf 7mo ago
Why is the company hiring people it doesn't trust? That sounds like a process failure.
- CivBase 7mo ago
  Because they're cheap.
surgical_fire 7mo ago
If you deliver all tasks in a timely manner, is productive and helpful in a team setting, contribute to discussions and initiatives beyond your immediate assignments... What exactly should I monitor? How many minutes per day your butt is in a seat? If you did a school run and woked a bit more after hours to compensate? If you had a headache and took a short nap after lunchtime? How does monitoring you contribute to anything?
- matchbok3 7mo ago
  I agree. I don't really think "monitoring" is the reason for RTO. I think quality of work and collaboration is.

themafia 7mo ago

> commercial real estate value It's a little bit funny that 100% online businesses bought the most expensive and lavish real estate available. It's tragic they think their workers should throw good labor after bad investment to make a white collar feel justified.