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.
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.
That’s because the top ones have better options out there while the ones below, who are worse performing in the first place, often have no option but to stay, ignoring their 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.
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.
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.
Joke’s on them, I quit my 11-year job with a company enacting RTO and it fucked them over because I had no backups and very little cross training my entire time there. Ex-employees have told me things went to shit after I left. Good. 😂
Offer to come back as a consultant for 2x your previous pay
With work-from-home as a non-negotiable condition.
As a contractor, your client isn’t allowed to dictate your work methods. It’s one of the things the IRS looks at when identifying misclassified employees.
Funnily enough I heard that internally they were talking about asking to have me come back as a contractor (with insane pay) but I was so much enjoying my time away from such a toxic company that nothing could make me return. I took a 7-month staycation after quitting just to unfuck how much they fucked up my brain, self-worth, and anxiety
5x pay. Independent LLCs have all sorts of expenses, including taxes/marketing/accounting/etc.
Health insurance…
So much this. Health insurance is the primary reason I have a salaried position.
Yeah, I love my teammates but when I leave I’m gonna do like zero “knowledge transfer”. Not my fault you haven’t expanded my team in 5 years or that you keep giving us more and more responsibilities from roles you removed because they were “obsolete” or that you spread us so thin we can’t naturally transfer knowledge as we go.
Really dumb, because it means your most talented employees will quit (because they can get a better offer elsewhere). This isn’t like a targeted layoff.
Other than short term, greed most executives are extremely stupid.
It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that their incentives aren’t the same as the long term wellbeing of the company.
Happy cake day
If you can replace one talented high-wage employee with 3 college hires then do this a couple times statistically you’re still going to retain some talented employees because not all can leave. Those that remain will train the others ou of necessity either directly by management or indirectly by a fear of missing timelines/ego/being the local expert/etc.
Management knows this and actively encourages this behavior because by the time the talented employee burns out and self-destructs, at least one trainee will be competent enough to keep things moving.
It really depends a lot on how junior those “talented” employees are.
The senior types won’t let themselves burn out and self-destruct, it’s only the gifted juniors (who are way less productive than the seniors and lack the senior’s capability to enhance other people’s productivity, no matter how amazing their raw talent is) who will fall for that shit.
Put gifted juniors through the meat grinder a couple of times and the ones who are left recognize that shit a mile away and either avoid ending up in such work environments, refuse to take that shit and exercise informal control around them to stop it if they can or simply leave.
It’s not by chance that the Tech companies with the worst work environments (such as Google) are heavilly focused on straight-out-of-uni graduates with high grades as “talent” - their meat-grinder environment can’t retain people beyond a certain seniority unless they’re moved out of the meat-grinder parts - and this then gets reflected on the quality of what they produced (“messy” barelly begins to describe how badly designed and architectured the software that comes out of Google is).
As a college grad, I’m pretty sure they aren’t replacing anyone. They’re just dumping the work on other employees and telling us we need another 5 years of experience to hire us.
That much is obvious
Some company heads are psychopaths, popular deep-seated belief confirms
