Comment

Comment on The reason CEOs want workers to Return To Office is because they want you to quit

just_change_it@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

I don’t think being fickle and being competent are necessarily linked.

Some of the best workers i’ve met over the years are making way less than some of the worst workers i’ve met, just because the ones who could talk the talk and play the bullshit made way more money and swap jobs way more often.

The highest paid company hoppers are undoubtably the first ones to go, that doesn’t mean they are the most important, talented people though.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Windex007@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
If bad people are aware that they’re bad, they’re strongly incentivized to not risk their livelihoods by voluntarily ending their employment.

If people are clinging to a job tightly even as working condition deteriorates, it’s an indicator that they don’t think they’ll fare well on the job market.

The disconnect has more to do with perception of their own value. Good people who underestimate themselves awill be inclined to stay. Bad people who know they’re bad will be more inclined to stay.

Bad people who think they’re good, and good people who know they’re good will be the most likely to leave.

So, the strategy of intentionally tanking your conditions to prune bad people actually only successfully prunes bad people who think they’re good.

On the other hand, you loose good people who know they’re good, entrenches the bad people who know they’re bad, and demoralized the shit out of good people who don’t realize they’re good.

source
- flakpanzer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  How are “bad people who think they are good” likely to leave, wouldn’t they find it hard to switch jobs because they are bad? that is, they thought they could easily switch jobs, but find out in interviews that it’s not easy, thus they are forced to stay?
  
  source
  - Windex007@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    They just quit, as a result of some offense, thinking they’ll pick up a new better job in no time.
    
    source
tburkhol@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yeah, but you’re thinking about when the company picks people to fire. Forcing people back to the office decreases worker satisfaction across the board, and workers will respond individually. I’d argue that those highest paid will be most willing to suffer the inconvenience of commuting, regardless of their talent, so the “make working here annoying” plan will tend to retain higher paid employees while losing lower paid people through attrition. Likewise, workers are more likely to tolerate the annoyances if they don’t have any other options. Good people can more easily job-hop, so this strategy is also likely to retain the lower-performing employees while the top performers go elsewhere, not considering pay rate. Total labor costs will decline, because there’s fewer people working, but it’s not an efficient selection process.

Long story short: pissing on your employees results in a smaller, lower quality workforce.

source
- SCB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  I’d argue that those highest paid will be most willing to suffer the inconvenience of commuting, regardless of their talent
  
  I’m not sure this is accurate. Most of the highly paid people I know (myself included), feel quite empowered by the current job market and can basically pick jobs at their leisure.
  
  source
MajorHavoc@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

I don’t think being fickle and being competent are necessarily linked.

Quiting when management makes a “fuck you” policy isn’t fickleness, it’s common sense, for those who can.

Job mobility and talent are strongly measurably connected.

“Fuck you” policies lose top talent.

It’s not an interesting discussion. Grab your popcorn and wait for the “find out” phase to come around.

And if you own stock, focus on mid-cap for awhile, beacuse the large-cap players are doubling down on “fuck around”.

source