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.
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
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.
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.
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).
That much is obvious
Some company heads are psychopaths, popular deep-seated belief confirms
