I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don’t want to send traffic to Reddit.
What do you think?
I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don’t mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven’t seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back.
If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there’s no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven’t seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees (“we’ve seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home” or “project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination” wouldn’t make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team)
Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like “we value the power of working together”. Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space?
On the side of employees, I often see arguments like “these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don’t want to look stupid by leaving them empty”. But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can’t believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.
I read some research paper not too long ago that showed how a majority of managers promoted from within are bad at their jobs because they got all their experience in other jobs along the way to management that are not even remotely similar to the tasks required for management, thus they don’t actually develop skills that make for good managers.
Like just because you flipped burgers really good at McDonald’s doesn’t mean you would be good at managing other burger flippers.
There is a concept, known as the Peter Principle, that says people will rise to the level of their incompetence. Basically, anyone who is good at a job gets promoted. That keeps happening until they finally end up in a job where they are not good. And that is where they will stay.
Makes sense, but you see the opposite all the time. Someone who has little experience, but has a fresh degree or an MBA in management. They might have learned some management concepts, possibly even supervised people in the past… but they have no idea how the organization truly functions, they don’t know what their team is really doing and if one of their team members or an SME is gone they have no idea what to do other than bark orders at the other team members because they have never done the work themselves.
In an ideal world, you would find someone who was excelling at the vasious jobs they would be managing and then put them into a management training program or pay for their schooling.
Oh for sure. The last decade, most of the jobs I’ve had tell me they want to eventually make me a manager; but then they never actually train me how to manage so I never take the position.
It’s called the Peter Principle.
Exactly. There are many managers out there that have picked up a few management skills, put in to a management role over jobs that they have no clue about. Theyre frequently a big dick and create hostile company culture.