RTO Consequences Will Increase Until Morale Improves
Carrots remain scarce for RTO, but the sticks continue to materialize
Not content with the mere holding back of career advancement, some employers are turning to higher caliber sticks to force employees back to the office in the name of collaboration (even if it's a different c-word they're after: control.)
Being of a generation schooled in the socratic method of getting to an answer, let's ask some questions (really, if statements) about where firing people who don't come into the office - regardless of actual performance, mind you - might end up for employers.
Firing RTO Non-Conformists: A Net Negative
If employers fire underperformers who don't come into the office, there's likely a net benefit to the company. If employers fire high performers - or even "solid citizens" - who don't come into the office, there is undoubtedly a net detriment to the company. It comes down to: are there more WFH underperformers or WFH solid citizens/high performers at a given company?
If the company has been managed well to this point (which if WFH is a fireable offense, that could be a leap) there should not be a lot of underperformers, whether in the office or working remotely. Businesses tend to go through cycles where the proverbial wheat is separated from the chaff and handled accordingly (layoffs, individual PIPs, etc.)
Thus, just looking at RTO compliance and firing those in violation of it will tend to have the net effect of driving good performers out of the company, which will ultimately hurt the company.
Tantrum Drive
The shortsightedness of a move like this feels like a showdown with a toddler. They ask for candy, but it’s 10:30 in the morning and you’re not going to get them hopped up on sugar this early. They look at you and in that 1-2 seconds time slows down and the interaction has two potential results.
The toddler can accept the decision and move on to whatever activity they were in the middle of when a sudden urge for processed sugar entered their little brains, or they can dig in and head down Tantrum Drive.
Because they’re toddlers and those little brains simply aren’t developed enough to allow reason the lion’s share of the thought process it deserves, they choose option two. If that toddler is my daughter, you’re told that as a parent you’re “not being kind” in refusing to give them what they want. If you’re my son, big crocodile tears well up in your toddler’s eyes and they dramatically (think Jim Harbaugh not getting his way dramatic) throw themselves onto their back on the floor and begin to roll around and cry.
And that’s how firing employees for refusing RTO mandates feels - a toddler’s tantrum. The initial RTO mandate came down from on high, with the consequences laid out: come in the office, or risk losing out on promos and raises. Not fair (nothing in life is), but transparent.
That showdown occurred this year when employers watched a lot of their workers come back into the office. Not everyone, but a good chunk. That wasn’t good enough, though, and instead of heading back to the activity they were in the middle of doing (running the business), they began to head down Tantrum Drive. Now not coming in the office will get you fired, regardless of the fact that it’s clearly a situation where the nose is being cut off to spite the face.
Forced Attrition?
One theory thrown out has been that of forced attrition (h/t Alex Geller for the link) - essentially, companies know their ranks are bloated but want to save face by not doing layoffs and instead are going to make a workplace so untenable people will self-select out of it.
This doesn’t make sense for a couple of reasons from my humble perspective.
Firstly, companies aren’t squeamish about layoffs - especially public companies. It shows shareholders that bottom-line metrics are being considered and they act as excellent distractions away from top-line stagnation. Companies are absolutely awful at layoffs but continue to utilize them, so I don’t think it’s to avoid layoffs.
Secondly, companies are grasping for control in a hybrid work era, and forced attrition essentially gives up the control they crave. Layoffs allow companies to choose who they want to let go (the chaff) while retaining who they want (the wheat.) Forced attrition cedes that choice.
Thirdly, the people who will jump ship first will logically be the better performers, because that’s who will get jobs first. The Great Resignation had its moment; JPow and team have gotten us to a place where wage growth is tamer and the job market is cooler so people can’t just up and leave their job without something else lined up (all in the name of the economy so it’s ok!) That means the best talent will have the best chance of getting another job and would be the first out the door in a forced attrition environment.
Combining all of those factors makes me think that forced RTO falls more under “tantrum” territory than forced attrition.
Grab Bag Sections
As mentioned in the intro, I’m going to experiment with some quick sections at the end of posts.
WTF NYC: With RTO, I am forced to ride the rails of the chronically underfunded and dysfunctional infrastructure provided by New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority. And boy do I have notes.
This week, I’ve noticed that the subway has simply given up on air conditioning. The temp goes below 80 and I’m getting cars without A/C almost 25% of the time. Glad fares went up in August for this.
DALL-E Nightmare Fuel of the Week: Our AI overlords are supposed to rule over us with computerized efficiency and the empathy to match, but they can’t make a picture not look like a ketamine-fueled nightmare. I think we’re ok for a bit.
Quote of the Week: I keep a stack of notecards with quotes on them from the numerous books I read (yes, I can read.) Some inspiring, some just interesting. Instead of letting them collect dust, they can live on here.
“Making the simple complicated is commonplace. Making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creativity.” - Charles Mingus
See you next week!