Experts warn that rigid in-person work policies may drive away top talent

[cguy]

I think you are maybe reading too much into “top talent” and defining it as the “the toppest of top talent” which we all know there is only very limited space for.

I defined what I meant by it earlier - skills that would be very hard for the company to replace, even given a high budget. This is definitely, not “the toppest of top talent”.

And yes if we are going to only look at that then sure, I can mostly agree with you but I don’t think that’s what this article was referring to.

Not everyone wants to live and work in America either, but many would be happy to work remotely for American companies…which does mean you would by default cut out a lot of the top talent you refer to through an “in office” only policy so even by your metric the article would then be quite correct.

Disagree. This is what foreign offices are for.

There are a great many incredible peope who simply won’t compromise on this stuff for all the money in the world. While it drives many people, it doesn’t drive all of them.

Money is just one component. Leadership, scale, interest, control, and influence are also a big parts of it. I'm not saying that people aren't very talented if they work remotely, just that they are far more readily replaceable.

Therefore to unilaterally ascertain that top talent can’t possibly be remote only individuals is frankly flawed and ridiculous as a statement.

Doesn't follow.

My executive are all people from exactly the businesses you speak of and were simply no longer interested in that rat race.

"Rat race" is a very simplistic and reductionist way to refer to the current centers of innovation and industry.

By your logic people who removed themselves from those businesses must have suddenly lost all their talent.

Instead they just leveraged what they learnt there to do their own thing.

If they're working in a remote capacity, then they are no longer leveraging those talents, correct. "All their talent" presents a false dichotomy.

During covid it was evident to our top talent (myself included) that we were not functioning optimally (across the tech industry), regardless of how many cameras, zoom meetings, always on drop-in video sessions, always on shared desktops, 1-on-1's, etc. we had. The high momentum, high energy, curiosity centered, excitement culture that made our company so strong just wasn't working properly anymore. It took a while to restore when things got back, but in no uncertain terms, the type of work that sets apart most principal/distinguished/fellow engineers from those who aren't, is severely compromised by remote work.

 

[SauRoNZA]

During covid it was evident to our top talent (myself included) that we were not functioning optimally (across the tech industry), regardless of how many cameras, zoom meetings, always on drop-in video sessions, always on shared desktops, 1-on-1's, etc. we had. The high momentum, high energy, curiosity centered, excitement culture that made our company so strong just wasn't working properly anymore. It took a while to restore when things got back, but in no uncertain terms, the type of work that sets apart most principal/distinguished/fellow engineers from those who aren't, is severely compromised by remote work.

Believe it or not I’m also not fully for 100% remote work and we faced all the same problems.

However we pivoted to a primarily remote work force, with a quarterly approach to “forced” in person events for everyone and of course management automatically have more frequent directly personal encounters and events in between.

It has struck a very good medium between performance, productivity and work/life balance.

My argument is just against permanent in office culture as the default standard and the only means harness talent.

And it’s this very policy that has drawn the top talent to us, but also kept the top talent with us when we didn’t have the Fortune 500 means to pay outrageously.

It obviously doesn’t apply to every industry, but also being in fintech it works well.

 

[ShaunSA]

Their company. Their rules

 

[zerocool2009]

Lol! Top talent here we go again

Today 3 top talent guys resigned, and getting replaced with new top talent

 

[Jings]

Lol! Top talent here we go again

Today 3 top talent guys resigned, and getting replaced with new top talent

How much does skilled employee high turnover cost the company?

 

[zerocool2009]

How much does skilled employee high turnover cost the company?

Its funny. Its not my business. As some employees are worried to save the company rental.

Its a huge international firm. So who worries about staff turnover. If you don’t like or enjoy the job, get something else. And especially if you want to tell managenent how nice WFH is. You can seek another job from home permanently.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Its funny. Its not my business. As some employees are worried to save the company rental.

Its a huge international firm. So who worries about staff turnover. If you don’t like or enjoy the job, get something else. And especially if you want to tell managenent how nice WFH is. You can seek another job from home permanently.

Some big multinationals got into trouble with that attitude. Institutional knowledge leaves with those guys. You end up with a lot of rotating short term talented people with no idea about what the company is doing floundering around rediscovering what those that left knew and having to remake valuable contacts in the industry.

Your HR turnover is a sign of how good your company is to work for. Your company gets a reputation when it has a high HR turnover and top talent starts avoiding it. Don't underestimate top talent's ability to see your company doesn't care about them.

Top talent will work for a don't care company - for plenty bucks. That will affect your bottom line, They also won't be as diligent due to your stinking attitude. Which will further affect your bottom line.