New incentives could boost satisfaction with in-person work, but few employers are making changes
New incentives could boost satisfaction with in-person work, but few employers are making changes
The COVID-19 pandemic upended the work habits of people around the world, with millions working from home, at least for part of their week.
[...]
Workers have since begun to return to the office in waves, at least for part of the week, and navigating that transition is an ongoing and significant hurdle for employers and workers alike. And many simply cannot fathom a return to the pre-COVID status quo, changing how companies approach their staffing needs.
Retaining employees who don’t want to work in person is an issue for companies, but relatively few employers (13%) have introduced new incentives that would make employees more satisfied with it, according to a newly released poll conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago.
About 3 in 4 human resources representatives say that retaining employees who don’t want to work in the office is a problem — including 19% who call it a “major problem.” Another 54% of HR representatives call it a minor problem. And only about one-third of HR professionals say employees at their workplace are “extremely” or “very” happy about returning to the workplace.
“Once workers discovered that (remote work could be) less expensive and... make their life a little easier, they just wanted to keep doing it, even once the pandemic began fading away,” Marjorie Connelly, senior fellow with NORC’s Public Affairs & Media Research department, told The Associated Press.
[...]
You're viewing a single thread.
So umm…why are employers even interested in having employees return to in-person work, again? 🤨
Gotta put meat in the seats or the megaconglomerate who owns the 17 office buildings downtown might have to rethink a portion of one of their income models. Less demand for high end commercial real estate when the companies they lease to realize/ follow through on the fact 90% of them do not need the 28,000 Sq ft bullying zone they use to oppress and keep motivation and salaries low in order to function.
Plus, the cruelty and waste is the point. Also, there's the miserable middle manager rung of humanity that only lives to make their office coworkers lick their boot by prisoner compliance who are rabid to establish the facade of purpose in their career. They don't care if the planet, all their coworker's families, and their company's bottom line have to suffer for that - if they can't loom over their underlings and slow progress with tons of detrimental comments and stupid suggestions, how will the world know they're 'involved'?
I'm overly grateful my firm is 100% remote. Damn.
Yeah that makes sense. The first point (real estate conglomerates) I get. But like you said, that doesn't explain why the tenants (employers) are pushing for it. Is it really just the cruelty and waste that's driving the employers? Also, are companies/managers really like that? That's awful.
I suppose I'm fortunate we don't (and won't) have a mandatory return to office. However, I still like to go in whenever I can because it's a good walk, our office is beautiful, and our chef makes tasty and healthy lunches. I appreciate that we're keeping things so flexible. I do have more fun on the days more people come in!
Vitriol towards office environments and their overlords aside for a minute, here are a few of the positives the company gets from this:
There is wicked amounts of prestige in having a complex with your name on the marquee of the building. Client confidence skyrockets if you "Have a building" in a major metro.
Less ability for overemployment - you can guarantee the guy unable to get this one job finished at the office isn't selling his spare time to the competition down the road.
More control over employee's personal lives and psyche - if you can DEMAND that Mr. Jones be in the office instead of at his kid's parent day lunch, and you have the building to DEMAND he report to, you've driven home the point to Mr. Jones that you own his life, and he is an accessory of your money making venture first, then a family man second. This can sometimes lead to the creation of unhealthy work-lifers who are extremely profitable to the firm. This is almost impossible to do when they're at home and the oppression is harder to enforce.
It can actually be more cost effective, if you're a large enough firm. Once you pass about 40-50 members, there are instances where you can save on things like data connectivity, equipment costs, and travel to trainings/client meetings. These costs vary wildly by industry, so the fiscal math follows suit. In many cases, it's a cost-saving measure.
There are other factors - tax breaks, stipends from cities to occupy certain districts, nepotism, and social optics, but those are adjunct to the main purpose of getting employees back into a high-rise.
Sunk cost fallacy.
I’m paying for all this damn office real estate, so I should use it.
Management wants something to do.
They don't know how to properly do metrics on their employees and think in person is the only way to manage people. Even execs at tech companies think this despite them rarely being in the office.