This is also done by a company, envoy, that helps companies understand their office data. So it’s a bit of a conflict of interest.
The greenhouse recruiting study was more interesting. Attrition goes up and companies had a harder time filling the newly vacated roles compared to companies that didn’t force a back to the office.
Personally I think the back the office mandates are a way to do voluntary layoffs without making the execs look bad
Agree re it sometimes being a back door redundancy without penalties to the employer, but also senior management are often lazy and assume that others will not work unless closely monitored. This goes hand in hand with being incompetent enough to believe that they can effectively monitor the employees.
Which is shitty, because they lose all of their best people - the ones who feel secure enough that they could get a remote job elsewhere pretty quickly.
Attrition goes up and companies had a harder time filling the newly vacated roles compared to companies that didn’t force a back to the office.
Work from home as an option is a HUGE boon to the employee so of course offering it weighs heavily upon an employee’s decision to take an offer. I’d give up 10-20% of my salary for 100% wfh, i’d expect more salary for 0% wfh or some other huge benefit like the office being very close to home.
I already turn down jobs because they are located inconveniently in relation to where I live.
This is also done by a company, envoy, that helps companies understand their office data. So it’s a bit of a conflict of interest.
The greenhouse recruiting study was more interesting. Attrition goes up and companies had a harder time filling the newly vacated roles compared to companies that didn’t force a back to the office.
Personally I think the back the office mandates are a way to do voluntary layoffs without making the execs look bad
Agree re it sometimes being a back door redundancy without penalties to the employer, but also senior management are often lazy and assume that others will not work unless closely monitored. This goes hand in hand with being incompetent enough to believe that they can effectively monitor the employees.
Which is shitty, because they lose all of their best people - the ones who feel secure enough that they could get a remote job elsewhere pretty quickly.
Work from home as an option is a HUGE boon to the employee so of course offering it weighs heavily upon an employee’s decision to take an offer. I’d give up 10-20% of my salary for 100% wfh, i’d expect more salary for 0% wfh or some other huge benefit like the office being very close to home.
I already turn down jobs because they are located inconveniently in relation to where I live.