On this thread - there's a VC guy I follow on twitter who otherwise sounds like a decent guy, but as the tech job market was collapsing ~9 months ago was literally posting "suits suits suits".
Aka - the old Wall St saying that when the economy turns and labor loses power, casual Fridays go out the window and everyone is back to wearing suits.
So I do think that the debate is all kayfabe. There is no data.
They really see remote/hybrid as just an accommodation like allowing jeans, paying for your lunch, or having yoga classes on site... and look forward to cutting it at any time of their choosing, when they can get away with it.
It’s easier to make blanket rules than do performance mgmt for managers.
If data shows some % of the company has been completely slacking off with WFH (or over employed etc) you could either hold mgmt accountable (but how? Fire all VPs for letting that happen? Fire all line managers?) or just make blanket policies…
That line of management of management is allowing incompetence to fester.
My spouse is at a shop that keeps ratcheting up the RTO days “because people aren’t abiding by the current RTO days”.
This of course is idiotic because the shirkers don’t get punished and everyone ends up worst off. In fact the people already complying are worst effected.
If you can’t count on managers to enforce rules then why have managers or rules?
I agree your question is relevant, but the problem is do directors want to acknowledge that the level below them is incompetent at performance mgmt at a small granularity? Because what does that say about them?
