They hinted that this was a way to downsize, and it doesn't seem implausible. There's no severance pay if you quit.
If your goal is to ensure that you're getting rid of your top talent, it's a fine strategy.
Using RTO to increase attrition is an absolutely brain dead strategy.
It’s not that simple. For folks who prefer remote, remote is a benefit. For folks who prefer an in office work style, remote being an option is an “anti” benefit since it totally kills the value of in person work.
You’re going to lose top talent either way. The last org I worked at went remote and lost a bunch of high performers to places that were in office.
I ended up leaving for unrelated reasons. It seems like things ended up totally stabilizing and now they are in a happy state of remote culture, but it absolutely cost them along the way.
Or take the permanent desk and remote into all meetings anyways.
I actually do want to go in the office 1-4 times a month + 2 full weeks at the middle and end of the year. People being nearby means that when we think in person is important we actually get to coordinate it.
I don't have "benches" or anything, there's literally a full dusk with multiple monitors and a nice chair any time I want it (more or less), the office is not meaningfully less comfy than pre-pandemic for me.
I will admit that I value "cheaper locales" less because my family is here and nowhere else but this is not true for many of my current and former coworkers and many of them love the setup as well.
It's a benefit to everyone, whether or not they use it.
I don't support "return to the office" mandates, but the reasoning is sound: the value of an office is not realized unless most people attend.
If it was an expense they'd be able to ditch (soon or eventually), you'd think they'd be forcing people to do remote. Not doubling down on RTO. You don't say "if you don't return, I have no justification for this huge waste of cash"...
From everything I've seen, at least 80% of the time it's almost entirely about emotion, and mostly control.
Managers who never learned how to actually manage in any way besides "if your butt's in the seat, I guess you're working, otherwise, you're slacking off and stealing from the company!" are desperate to get people back where they can act like they manage them.
Managers who (overlapping with the first) have bought fully into the narrative that the manager/subordinate relationship is an adversarial one, and believe that every employee is constantly going to be trying to find every way they can to avoid working, cannot imagine employees being more productive at home without draconian surveillance.
People at all levels who worked in offices all their lives, sacrificing so much that they could have had if remote work was an option, see others enjoying remote work now (even some just starting their careers!), and are resentful. "If I had to do it, you have to do it!" Or they just see it and genuinely don't believe it's possible to work properly anywhere but an office.
People are not fully rational creatures. If you look at the decisions managers and execs make and say, "But it's so clear that this is worse for the company; why would they do that?", or, worse, "They must know something I don't know, and this is actually better" (and I've seen many people express both sentiments about the RTO push), you're making the mistake of believing that everything they do is motivated by cold hard logic and numbers.
This is the start of the Dead Sea Effect as described in http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d...
(posted many times) https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=brucefwebster.com
The most interesting discussion is likely https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23166786 from May 13, 2020 with 127 points and 128 comments)
Usually, you're not going to fire your top talent over corporate policy for the plebs. You're going to bend the rules.
If the company isn't bending for you, you might not be top talent - and more like just slightly above average talent - in which case, yeah, the company doesn't really care about you.
And if you really are top talent, you're not concerned if your company doesn't bend. You can go anywhere. Who cares?
...anyone who isn't an ice-cold sociopath? Your job is often a big part of your identity, particularly in the games biz which is so passion driven.
Leaving behind a project you grew, kickass tech you had a hand in, and friends you made is a major life trauma, even if you're doing it voluntarily to chase something new.
I'd argue this is unhealthy and a recipe for disaster. But different things work for different folks.
> Leaving behind a project you grew, kickass tech you had a hand in, and friends you made is a major life trauma, even if you're doing it voluntarily to chase something new.
There's kickass people at most good companies. The idea you can't make work friends & work on cool stuff unless at your current job in your current role seems limiting.
I never said that. If you work on cool stuff with great people it is healthy to reflect on the pain and loss of that chapter ending. Yes, "there are more fish in the sea." Heartbreak is still heartbreak.
I recommend it. Love hurts, but sometimes it's a good hurt.
How attached to them should you get?
Losing a job means you lose your friends, your work, your brand, your routine, maybe the commute you chose your house for. Maybe you'll have to move your family. Your kids lose their friends. Your wife loses hers. Maybe you lose them in the somewhat likely divorce. Maybe you're upside down on the house you bought in that town and now you lose all your savings to move. Maybe it was a layoff, maybe you can't even afford child support. Maybe you're deported.
If we're stooping to personal insults, are you a child with zero real life experience?
Iirc, 1 in 4000 men take their lives in a layoff. In a year like this, shut your fucking mouth about how "fragile" other people are, you absolute twit.
However, it is still just work! It's not my company, it's not my identity, and it gives me no value as a human being. You are not your success. My colleagues are not my friends, though we can hang out and have fun. My accomplishments at work are not my value as a person, though they give me satisfaction.
Work is work, don't buy what they're selling, and put down the cool-aid.
I think the term "key person" is probably more helpful - you can be a key person (and thus your employer might go out of their way to retain you) without necessarily being "top talent" by virtue of eg being uniquely qualified, in a position where it would be disruptive/expensive to replace you, etc.