Returning to the office

[budwom]

Interesting article in TIME this week. A major factor for many being hesitant to return to work is the presence of pets, many of whom were adopted during the pandemic. Some firms being very responsive, others (of course) not so much.

[bundabergdevil]

Yeah, job hopping/talent drain I feel like has only gotten worse since the pandemic. In many industries, it is a TIGHT labor market and people can easily hop for more $$$. There is even less loyalty than there used to be as harder to forge relationships/have the "culture" of a company be a differentiator. Certainly, seeking more money has become the primary driver. (It was always a major factor of course, but now I feel like has an even more excised role now that geographic constraints are more limited than they used to be and the camaraderie in the office doesn't matter as much anymore.)

I’m very pro-job hopping so I like to think things have gotten BETTER on this front.

[duke74]

I’m very pro-job hopping so I like to think things have gotten BETTER on this front.

Being called by the pundits and other commentators "the Great Resignation".

I had one job in my career before mandatory retirement (38 years) so I am very different in outlook. Since "retirement" (yes, I am flunking retirement), I have had 2 fulltime johbs - one at St. John's University as Asst Professor and head of Exec Ed, and now with another accounting firm. But...if I hadn't been forced to retire, I would still have been at Deloitte. Loved it and its people - my colleagues.

[bundabergdevil]

Being called by the pundits and other commentators "the Great Resignation".

I had one job in my career before mandatory retirement (38 years) so I am very different in outlook. Since "retirement" (yes, I am flunking retirement), I have had 2 fulltime johbs - one at St. John's University as Asst Professor and head of Exec Ed, and now with another accounting firm. But...if I hadn't been forced to retire, I would still have been at Deloitte. Loved it and its people - my colleagues.

I guess I'm not so much pro-job hopping as pro-option-to-job-hop-and-always-be-willing-to-take-the-interview. Incentive structures for most employees no longer favor longevity. I have been with companies that awarded tranches of equity bound by vesting schedules but I'm too young to qualify for any of the pension plans my companies once offered. Retirement vehicles like the 401(k) were designed for worker portability and to free up corporate obligations that were tanking them.

One of my employers went through one of the largest corporate merge/spins in U.S. business history. In 48 hours, ~10% of the global workforce of 50,000 was let go (I survived). This all happened just before EOY and people who had been at the company for decades were ushered out without any fanfare (save their transition packages). I'm fine with that; companies have to make decisions in the best interest of their owners, not their employees. But, individuals should actively assess their own options and constantly be looking to maximize their career ROI. However they choose to measure that is fine with me --- for some its pure $, for others its job satisfaction or work life balance. That's all great but I am strongly against any sort of idea of loyalty to an entity that ultimately does not care about you.

[bundabergdevil]

Vanguard will pay its employees $1,000 to get vaccinated...

[duke74]

Vanguard will pay its employees $1,000 to get vaccinated...

And governments are planning incentives. So...those of us who did the right thing and got vaccinated will now see the intransigents be rewarded for being at risk longer. Understand the need for incentives (negative or positive), but seems counterintuitive.

[duke74]

I guess I'm not so much pro-job hopping as pro-option-to-job-hop-and-always-be-willing-to-take-the-interview. Incentive structures for most employees no longer favor longevity. I have been with companies that awarded tranches of equity bound by vesting schedules but I'm too young to qualify for any of the pension plans my companies once offered. Retirement vehicles like the 401(k) were designed for worker portability and to free up corporate obligations that were tanking them.

One of my employers went through one of the largest corporate merge/spins in U.S. business history. In 48 hours, ~10% of the global workforce of 50,000 was let go (I survived). This all happened just before EOY and people who had been at the company for decades were ushered out without any fanfare (save their transition packages). I'm fine with that; companies have to make decisions in the best interest of their owners, not their employees. But, individuals should actively assess their own options and constantly be looking to maximize their career ROI. However they choose to measure that is fine with me --- for some its pure $, for others its job satisfaction or work life balance. That's all great but I am strongly against any sort of idea of loyalty to an entity that ultimately does not care about you.

Understand your position - loyalty should go both ways. I was just giving my perspective (not value judging)

[Bluedog]

And governments are planning incentives. So...those of us who did the right thing and got vaccinated will now see the intransigents be rewarded for being at risk longer. Understand the need for incentives (negative or positive), but seems counterintuitive.

Vanguard is paying everyone who got the vaccine, even "early adopters." But yes agree with you on some of the government incentive programs.

[aimo]

We got 4 hours leave for getting vaccinated. Whoo hoo!

[acdevil]

Understand your position - loyalty should go both ways. I was just giving my perspective (not value judging)

It should … but it doesn’t. The days of employees working their careers for one company are largely gone - much of it due to the lack of loyalty from companies to their employees.

[bundabergdevil]

Understand your position - loyalty should go both ways. I was just giving my perspective (not value judging)

Didn’t take it as value judging at all; just giving my rationale for being somewhat positive on the current job hopping environment.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Interesting article today in the NY Times (I think this link provides the same article without the NYT paywall). It discusses a lot of the advantages and disadvantages of remote workers and what companies are planning to do to manage through these. Those working from home might be somewhat more productive in getting their actual work done since they aren't commuting, but they are also missing out on other interactions that are important. People, particularly those right out of college, would be wise to not be short-sighted - it might be great to save money by working for the super flexible company from your parents basement far from corporate HQ, but you are likely missing out on professional, as well as social, development.

As the article notes, the value of casual interactions cannot be overlooked. This is particularly important for more junior people and new hires. Though the idea suggested in the article of not having in-person meetings because they put those who are remote at a disadvantage seems like a good idea from the perspective of not discriminating against those who are remote, I think that it disadvantages the company as a whole because a well-run in person meeting can have a lot of huge benefits. Though to be fair, yesterday I was on a useless zoom training meeting and because I was not in person, I was able to get a lot of work done while casually listening to what was happening - if I was in person I would have just been wasting time. I remain a strong advocate for having a lot of flexibility but encouraging people to come in at least a few days a week (when it is safe to do so).

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out and there will likely be even more culture differentiation as a result.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...hybrid-office/

[Chicago 1995]

Yeah, job hopping/talent drain I feel like has only gotten worse since the pandemic. In many industries, it is a TIGHT labor market and people can easily hop for more $$$. There is even less loyalty than there used to be as harder to forge relationships/have the "culture" of a company be a differentiator. Certainly, seeking more money has become the primary driver. (It was always a major factor of course, but now I feel like has an even more excised role now that geographic constraints are more limited than they used to be and the camaraderie in the office doesn't matter as much anymore.)

None of the people that left here left for money. They left for fully remote and flexible work arrangements rather than required office time here. Culture is built in a lot of ways, and our decision to force people back to the office seems to have poisoned ours.

[bundabergdevil]

None of the people that left here left for money. They left for fully remote and flexible work arrangements rather than required office time here. Culture is built in a lot of ways, and our decision to force people back to the office seems to have poisoned ours.

You’re at a law firm, right?

[Chicago 1995]

You’re at a law firm, right?

In-house at an insurance company.

[duke74]

Interesting article today in the NY Times (I think this link provides the same article without the NYT paywall). It discusses a lot of the advantages and disadvantages of remote workers and what companies are planning to do to manage through these. Those working from home might be somewhat more productive in getting their actual work done since they aren't commuting, but they are also missing out on other interactions that are important. People, particularly those right out of college, would be wise to not be short-sighted - it might be great to save money by working for the super flexible company from your parents basement far from corporate HQ, but you are likely missing out on professional, as well as social, development.

As the article notes, the value of casual interactions cannot be overlooked. This is particularly important for more junior people and new hires. Though the idea suggested in the article of not having in-person meetings because they put those who are remote at a disadvantage seems like a good idea from the perspective of not discriminating against those who are remote, I think that it disadvantages the company as a whole because a well-run in person meeting can have a lot of huge benefits. Though to be fair, yesterday I was on a useless zoom training meeting and because I was not in person, I was able to get a lot of work done while casually listening to what was happening - if I was in person I would have just been wasting time. I remain a strong advocate for having a lot of flexibility but encouraging people to come in at least a few days a week (when it is safe to do so).

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out and there will likely be even more culture differentiation as a result.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...hybrid-office/

Agree. Here's an article I wrote on LinkedIn on the subject - of course focusing on the public accounting profession - but there are human capital (development, onboarding, bonding) implications for many industries.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/audit...LRqJZrpg%3D%3D

[bundabergdevil]

In-house at an insurance company.

I think if one thing is clear in all this “knowledge workers” can absolutely operate with more flexibility.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Agree. Here's an article I wrote on LinkedIn on the subject - of course focusing on the public accounting profession - but there are human capital (development, onboarding, bonding) implications for many industries.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/audit...LRqJZrpg%3D%3D

Your article is excellent (in many ways better than the NYT article though the POV is slightly different).

As with so many things these days, I think too much focus is being placed on the extremes (not by you - in general). I don't think a five day a week in office model is going to fly for most industries anymore. But I also think that being fully remote with no in-person interaction also is not a good idea. It might seem like it is working, but as you clearly describe in your article, a lot will be lost if this becomes more common. But unfortunately, for many people, the short-term gratification of not having to go into the office will outweigh the long-term benefits of in-person interaction.

Throughout my career, I have generally had the benefit of working in the primary hub for my teams so I was able to have frequent face-to-face interactions. I have always felt bad for those who were in secondary or remote locations and tried to be as inclusive as possible. When possible, I prioritized having a face-to-face meeting early in my relationship with people I would be working closely with from other locations because then our phone calls and e-mails would often be a lot more meaningful and productive. I started my current job last April so other than my interviews have not met anyone I deal with, and I found that this made on-boarding much more difficult, and generally made the job harder to do and less enjoyable. If we had a pre-existing relationship from working together in person, the adjustment to remote likely would not have been as hard.

[gep]

Interesting article today in the NY Times (I think this link provides the same article without the NYT paywall). It discusses a lot of the advantages and disadvantages of remote workers and what companies are planning to do to manage through these. Those working from home might be somewhat more productive in getting their actual work done since they aren't commuting, but they are also missing out on other interactions that are important. People, particularly those right out of college, would be wise to not be short-sighted - it might be great to save money by working for the super flexible company from your parents basement far from corporate HQ, but you are likely missing out on professional, as well as social, development.

As the article notes, the value of casual interactions cannot be overlooked. This is particularly important for more junior people and new hires. Though the idea suggested in the article of not having in-person meetings because they put those who are remote at a disadvantage seems like a good idea from the perspective of not discriminating against those who are remote, I think that it disadvantages the company as a whole because a well-run in person meeting can have a lot of huge benefits. Though to be fair, yesterday I was on a useless zoom training meeting and because I was not in person, I was able to get a lot of work done while casually listening to what was happening - if I was in person I would have just been wasting time. I remain a strong advocate for having a lot of flexibility but encouraging people to come in at least a few days a week (when it is safe to do so).

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out and there will likely be even more culture differentiation as a result.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...hybrid-office/

Interesting to me how this also applies to preschool/early elementary school kids...

[bundabergdevil]

WSJ with an overview of return to office work sitch:
https://apple.news/A3kyRKTFVTlq_xI6c3b7DAA