this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
534 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59237 readers
4321 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 166 points 5 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 29 points 5 months ago

Seen it numerous times since the mid-90's.

Preferred folks will stay because they're part of the in-crowd (hard to know what that is, but it's senior management building their own little fiefdoms).

The performers have options, so are either part of that in-crowd, or have opportunities elsewhere.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's because the top ones have better options out there while the ones below, who are worse performing in the first place, often have no option but to stay, ignoring their fear and discomfort.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

More and better options, more experience moving jobs (because beyond a certain point of seniority, expertise can only grow if you've seen a couple different ways of doing things, so you'll find that pretty much all top people have changed jobs at least a couple of times), higher income hence higher savings hence can handle any financial risks much more easilly, and more confidence in their own expertise.

They're better prepared mentally and financially to change jobs AND they're more in demand out there not least because they're a lot rarer and bring a lot more added value.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

skim the top employees and are left with the bottom of the barrel that performs even worse

It's called the Dead Sea Effect.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

It's always interesting to see what kind of names people come up with for the consequences of stupidity.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Having been a senior expert in a high demand area for most of my career (and, modesty on the side, pretty good at what I do), I couldn't agree more.

People really good and senior in expert domains come in two styles:

  • The kind that complains that "it's the same everywhere", are miserable and never change jobs, who eventually stagnate in terms of professional growth because their professional experience is so narrow (to progress professionally beyond a certain point you really need to work in different places and have different responsabilities so that your knowledge is broad enough and well rounded enough that you start getting the meta part of you job - work processes and stakeholders - that becomes important at the senior levels even outside management).
  • The kind that has a well rounded experience, worked in a bunch of places and is comfortable with the whole "getting a new job" process (both interviewing and starting a job in a new place) so can walk out the door and have a new job tommorrow paying the same or better.

Whilst, both kinds generally value stability (though the former overdoes it) as there is comfort in the familiar and people generally also make friends were they work in if they're there long enough (in fact, large Tech companies heavilly push for "your work is your family" exactly for this reason), the second does have the confidence to know their skills are in demand and hence they can easilly find another job, compared to more junior professionals with less expertise makes more money (also a product of changing jobs once in a while) and usually have more savings, so have more freedom to move (both in financial and mental terms) hence a lower threshold for how much shit they will take: push them and you'll easilly lose them (and, from my experience, they're the hardest kind of professional to replace).

I would say that in a company, of everybody it's the second kind of senior expert who has the more ease of moving and are more comfortable doing so: they have the most pull from the outside, the most savings to cover any financial risk (and, as pointed out somewhere else, people have a higher income growth from moving jobs than staying in the same job, so even amongst senior experts the type #2 tend to earn more) and the most experience with the whole process of finding and starting a new job.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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)

[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That's not the definition of insanity.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

It's not, but it's a common phrase and brings up a fair point even if the wrong way.

[–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I know, it's actually much older than that but it still drives me crazy when people say that for some reason.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

"Incompetence" would also fit the bill.