You give your top talent what they want. The problem is that they hired a consultant to find out what that was. The consultant, knowing on which side his bread was buttered, told the board what they wanted to hear, which is, after all, why they hired a consultant instead of just asking.
It’s a balancing act though. A lot of top talent is going to leave either way, so over focusing on them hurts everyone else. Mandatory return to office was a lot more costly than most companies hoped for though. It was essentially a lay-off, but it left companies with pretty much only the bad employees compared to a more traditional approach.
We can’t claim to know it left them with “bad” employees. I think there’s vanishingly little evidence that recruiters actually go after the “good” employees effectively – I’m pretty skeptical that a pro recruiter actually gets you better employees, they just make the process of getting employees way less stressful. We also have no reason to assume that a good or bad employee is correlated in any way with caring about not returning to office – it’s possible very bad employees are just as likely to quit as very good ones. How do you even tell good from bad, anyway?
What this “return to office” stuff definitely DOES do is preferentially retain the most obedient/desperate employees. Which may be part of the goal, along with low-key downsizing.
Every place I worked there were employees that I’m not sure how they had a job. Those people aren’t being contacted by recruiters, and they aren’t leaving voluntarily. Layoffs are a companies chance to remove some of these people.
Problem is that post-pandemic market is ripe for a layoff. Companies purposely over-hired during the pandemic and then in the past couple years the layoffs achieved 2 things: 1) Thin the staff to show shareholders a higher short term profit in an age where they cant get cheap loans and show they’re undertaking new risky ventures (interest rate is high from the fight against inflation), and 2) They can use the layoffs to undermine the leverage of employees to create a “hard pull” back to office policy. It makes laying off people much easier when they “volunteer”
What happened at my last job. The absolute moron head of HR told the engineers with 5-20 years experience how “we are all lucky to have jobs, and we would be flipping burgers at McDonalds if it were not for him”.
Most of us left, he didn’t even give us counter offer and said how we will all be begging him for our jobs back. He was dismissed by the Japanese management a few months later and told to never return.
That’s exactly what the consultants are for and hiring them is an easy, low-cost (in the grand scheme of things) way of shifting responsibility aka “I don’t want to do any decision making that may and will be detrimental to the company so I will hire an “expert” to do it for me”.
You give your top talent what they want. The problem is that they hired a consultant to find out what that was. The consultant, knowing on which side his bread was buttered, told the board what they wanted to hear, which is, after all, why they hired a consultant instead of just asking.
It’s a balancing act though. A lot of top talent is going to leave either way, so over focusing on them hurts everyone else. Mandatory return to office was a lot more costly than most companies hoped for though. It was essentially a lay-off, but it left companies with pretty much only the bad employees compared to a more traditional approach.
We can’t claim to know it left them with “bad” employees. I think there’s vanishingly little evidence that recruiters actually go after the “good” employees effectively – I’m pretty skeptical that a pro recruiter actually gets you better employees, they just make the process of getting employees way less stressful. We also have no reason to assume that a good or bad employee is correlated in any way with caring about not returning to office – it’s possible very bad employees are just as likely to quit as very good ones. How do you even tell good from bad, anyway?
What this “return to office” stuff definitely DOES do is preferentially retain the most obedient/desperate employees. Which may be part of the goal, along with low-key downsizing.
I feel like im always explaining to recruiters what it sounds like the role they sent to me is actually looking for.
Every place I worked there were employees that I’m not sure how they had a job. Those people aren’t being contacted by recruiters, and they aren’t leaving voluntarily. Layoffs are a companies chance to remove some of these people.
Problem is that post-pandemic market is ripe for a layoff. Companies purposely over-hired during the pandemic and then in the past couple years the layoffs achieved 2 things: 1) Thin the staff to show shareholders a higher short term profit in an age where they cant get cheap loans and show they’re undertaking new risky ventures (interest rate is high from the fight against inflation), and 2) They can use the layoffs to undermine the leverage of employees to create a “hard pull” back to office policy. It makes laying off people much easier when they “volunteer”
The problem with the hard pull is that the employees that had options left. Those are generally the better employees.
What happened at my last job. The absolute moron head of HR told the engineers with 5-20 years experience how “we are all lucky to have jobs, and we would be flipping burgers at McDonalds if it were not for him”.
Most of us left, he didn’t even give us counter offer and said how we will all be begging him for our jobs back. He was dismissed by the Japanese management a few months later and told to never return.
Also, when it goes south, they can pin the blame on the consultant instead of themselves.
That’s exactly what the consultants are for and hiring them is an easy, low-cost (in the grand scheme of things) way of shifting responsibility aka “I don’t want to do any decision making that may and will be detrimental to the company so I will hire an “expert” to do it for me”.