"It’s easier to manage a team that’s happy.”

The study (PDF), published this month by University of Chicago and University of Michigan researchers and reported by The Washington Post on Sunday, says:

In this paper, we provide causal evidence that RTO mandates at three large tech companies—Microsoft, SpaceX, and Apple—had a negative effect on the tenure and seniority of their respective workforce. In particular, we find the strongest negative effects at the top of the respective distributions, implying a more pronounced exodus of relatively senior personnel.

Dell, Amazon, Google, Meta, and JPMorgan Chase have tracked employee badge swipes to ensure employees are coming into the office as often as expected. Dell also started tracking VPN usage this week and has told workers who work remotely full time that they can’t get a promotion.

Some company leaders are adamant that remote work can disrupt a company’s ability to innovate. However, there’s research suggesting that RTO mandates aren’t beneficial to companies. A survey of 18,000 Americans released in March pointed to flexible work schedules helping mental health. And an analysis of 457 S&P 500 companies in February found RTO policies hurt employee morale and don’t increase company value.

  • Encrypt-KeeperEnglish
    30•6 months ago

    I’m not sure if this was actually some kind of sinister plot, rather than incompetence and ego. You’re not the first to suggest that this is a way to lay people off without “having to pay severance”, but what really throws a wrench into that idea is that in most states they didn’t “have” to pay severance in the first place. That’s really more reliant on the employment offer or contract. There really wasn’t anything stopping these companies from just laying people off the normal way. The only other justification I’ve seen is that it’s a way to “avoid bad press”. But clearly it doesn’t because we all still know this is happening and we’re all still just as unhappy about it. If anything, it’s better for a company to just lay people off and spin it as a “cost saving measure” to appease shareholders, than make it look like top talent is leaving of their own volition. The latter makes the company look bad to both the general population and its shareholders.

    • Snot FlickermanEnglish
      15•6 months ago

      …and you don’t usually get into senior positions without stuff like severance being in the employment offer or contract.

      The latter makes the company look bad to both the general population and its shareholders.

      Tesla is a car company that is valued way more than any other car company despite the fact that it makes a fraction of the number of cars and has horrendous build quality.

      You think the market is fucking rational, here? I’ve got news for you, guy, regular people’s view of this means fuck-all to these people and the only thing that matters to them is the stock price.

      The market absolutely props up “irrational decisions” and cutting employees to cut costs has been a bellwether for increasing stock price for forty fucking years now.

      • Encrypt-KeeperEnglish
        21•6 months ago

        You think the market is fucking rational, here? I’ve got news for you, guy, regular people’s view of this means fuck-all to these people and the only thing that matters to them is the stock price.

        The market absolutely props up “irrational decisions” and cutting employees to cut costs has been a bellwether for increasing stock price for forty fucking years now.

        That’s my exact point. I don’t think this is some conspiracy to secretly lay off people. I think this is just a more straightforward case of C-levels blundering around with decisions that make sense only to them.

        I think they absolutely thought RTO would be a benefit in some way, and after being proven wrong they just save face with corporate buzzwords.

        • Snot FlickermanEnglish
          8•6 months ago

          I don’t disagree that the C-suite often makes boneheaded decisions not based in rationality or evidence, but…

          Constructive dismissal and finding new, unique, and legally convoluted ways to get rid of people without having to pay as much to get rid of them has been something these companies have spent literally billions on studying over 60 years. I’m old enough to remember when they re-named it “Downsizing.”

          There’s a reason they all turn to McKinsey. This is literally one of the few things where they follow the data.

          I would be more receptive to this idea if getting rid of senior staff to cut costs hadn’t been the name of the game for six decades or more by now. I feel like this is one issue you can bank on with major companies, they love it when senior employees leave of their own volition.

    • @[email protected]English
      -23•6 months ago

      in most states they didn’t “have” to pay severance in the first place. That’s really more reliant on the employment offer or contract

      99% of the world lives outside America.

      Deep breaths. You’ll be fine, but it may be a bit traumatic to learn.

      • Encrypt-KeeperEnglish
        31•6 months ago

        100% of the companies this article is about are American companies. The top talent the article describes live in the United States.

        0% of the countries that aren’t America are relevant to this article, my comment, and this thread. Including yours.