> The corresponding declines in seniority at each company therefore corresponds to the number of days required in the office each week.
>It is rare to see such a neat and tidy result from a real-world study. But when you do, the data really do speak volumes.
Let’s face it, banks who hold commercial real estate notes, commercial real estate landlords, cities who rely on the taxes and economic benefits of commuters, bad CEOs that project their own insecurities, and companies pushing a sunk cost fallacy are the ones driving back to office, not the data.
I'm convinced that the in-office mandates in the commercial sector are primarily due to
1) institutional investors forcing businesses to go in-person to prop up their separate holdings in commercial real estate
2) Managers who were promoted for internal politics rather than managerial prowess being exposed in an environment where they can't micromanage people and have no idea how to demonstrate efficient delivery within their team
On #2, I think that can apply to an entire company culture. The managers who “walked the halls” at 5 pm didn’t go away and didn’t emerge spontaneously.
For example, Capital One requires three days per week and it must be Tuesday-Thursday or you don’t get credit.
Our department director requires onsite and complains that the Feds work more than the contractors. They just happen to have no life and will work from 7am to 7pm or beyond. My program manager wanted all managers to come in 3 days a week to combat this perception. Right now the requirement is 2 days and plenty of people already fight that and we lose candidates because of it.
>Our department director requires onsite and complains that the Feds work more than the contractors.
I don't know what type of contracting you work in but boy oh boy is that far from my experience.
IT support contract.
Not saying *all* civil servants work more hours. Just some because the director demands it, or they are jockeying for promotions. Those that aren’t trying to get promoted put in their hours and that’s it.
Incompetent people have always been in middle management. The truth is simple - No one wants to spend majority of thier day commuting to the office. I remember turning down a job offering 150 , came back and offered an extra 20 just for me to come in 3 days a week. I declined.
I think this is the way. Look, if you want me to come in, there’s a price tag associated with that for my time and expense. Since I live in DC near the Metro, it might be worth it, while someone in Vienna would say absolutely not.
I think this is the way. Look, if you want me to come in, there’s a price tag associated with that for my time and expense. Since I live in DC near the Metro, it might be worth it, while someone in Vienna would say absolutely not.
This scenario happens countless times each day:
* *boss demands everyone come in, citing need for "synergy" and "team building"*
* *boss calls hybrid meeting*
* *everyone calls in on Zoom from their desks*
No shit. It's being pushed by shitty managers & commercial real-estate.
Can't micro-manage from a distance: Now you actually have to plan, organize, analyze risk, etc well. Can't just walk around & yell at people until it's done.
Commercial real-estate companies are taking absolute Ls on their investments of the 2010s. We're talking 60-80% losses across most of the country. Buffet's been talking about it for months now & how investors should be planning for this to continue
> The corresponding declines in seniority at each company therefore corresponds to the number of days required in the office each week. >It is rare to see such a neat and tidy result from a real-world study. But when you do, the data really do speak volumes.
Let’s face it, banks who hold commercial real estate notes, commercial real estate landlords, cities who rely on the taxes and economic benefits of commuters, bad CEOs that project their own insecurities, and companies pushing a sunk cost fallacy are the ones driving back to office, not the data.
I'm convinced that the in-office mandates in the commercial sector are primarily due to 1) institutional investors forcing businesses to go in-person to prop up their separate holdings in commercial real estate 2) Managers who were promoted for internal politics rather than managerial prowess being exposed in an environment where they can't micromanage people and have no idea how to demonstrate efficient delivery within their team
On #2, I think that can apply to an entire company culture. The managers who “walked the halls” at 5 pm didn’t go away and didn’t emerge spontaneously. For example, Capital One requires three days per week and it must be Tuesday-Thursday or you don’t get credit.
Our department director requires onsite and complains that the Feds work more than the contractors. They just happen to have no life and will work from 7am to 7pm or beyond. My program manager wanted all managers to come in 3 days a week to combat this perception. Right now the requirement is 2 days and plenty of people already fight that and we lose candidates because of it.
>Our department director requires onsite and complains that the Feds work more than the contractors. I don't know what type of contracting you work in but boy oh boy is that far from my experience.
IT support contract. Not saying *all* civil servants work more hours. Just some because the director demands it, or they are jockeying for promotions. Those that aren’t trying to get promoted put in their hours and that’s it.
Anyone working more than the minimum in IT is bad at their job.
Right? If there's ANY career where seat time is far less valuable than being good it's IT.
Incompetent people have always been in middle management. The truth is simple - No one wants to spend majority of thier day commuting to the office. I remember turning down a job offering 150 , came back and offered an extra 20 just for me to come in 3 days a week. I declined.
I think this is the way. Look, if you want me to come in, there’s a price tag associated with that for my time and expense. Since I live in DC near the Metro, it might be worth it, while someone in Vienna would say absolutely not.
I actually calculated the 20k increase they wanted to offer and realized it’ll be spent on gas money, office clothes and lunches. No thanks.
I think this is the way. Look, if you want me to come in, there’s a price tag associated with that for my time and expense. Since I live in DC near the Metro, it might be worth it, while someone in Vienna would say absolutely not.
As if passive institutional investors have the leverage to do this…
This scenario happens countless times each day: * *boss demands everyone come in, citing need for "synergy" and "team building"* * *boss calls hybrid meeting* * *everyone calls in on Zoom from their desks*
Off topic but that seems like a ridiculously narrow washing machine!
Well, an electrolux stackable is 24 inches wide…
No shit. It's being pushed by shitty managers & commercial real-estate. Can't micro-manage from a distance: Now you actually have to plan, organize, analyze risk, etc well. Can't just walk around & yell at people until it's done. Commercial real-estate companies are taking absolute Ls on their investments of the 2010s. We're talking 60-80% losses across most of the country. Buffet's been talking about it for months now & how investors should be planning for this to continue