[blindhippo]

I've noticed that middle management and up don't really see humans or even differentiate between them except during compensation assessment (and even then, barely). It's all just a numbers/headcount game to them. Every human is equivalent in their given role when it comes to planning/org structure.

In bigger companies, this management layer is more concerned about creating domains of influence or "kingdoms" then they are in actually delivering value for the company. Not sure if this is just normal human organizational behavior, or something has gone off the rails in corporate culture - but it is what it is.

It's happening at my company as well, and particularly in my own org. I'm one of the people leaving for better opportunities away from politics and silly RTO mandates lacking any semblance of data grounding.

[area51org]

> Every human is equivalent in their given role when it comes to planning/org structure.

It's the Burger King approach to management: all employees are just generic worker bees, and you can just go down to Burger King and order a Whopper, some fries, and maybe six engineers. Problem solved!

Anyone who bothers to think things through can see the huge, obvious flaw: people are not all the same and that these are human beings, not robots or drones.

This flawed point of view, that you can just think of employees as widgets, fails again and again and again, and yet MBA schools apparently keep teaching it, and/or people keep trying to use it.

And in this case, the failed RTO initiatives: really, I would love for one of these CEOs to explain to me what the point is. You don't think people are productive from home? Based on what, your gut feelings or conjecture? Because the opposite is true. People in offices waste a ton of time—just watch them. They stand around and bullshit. They get up and look for people to talk to (about non-work things). They make disruptive noise. What they don't do a lot of is actually get work done. Meanwhile, you're paying for their office space and electricity and everything else it takes to keep an office running.

So what's the purpose of RTO? If I didn't know better, I would say it's 1- an attempt to justify sunk costs of office leases, and 2- a huge power trip.

Doesn't matter: it will ultimately fail because offices are counterproductive to actually getting work things accomplished.

[taylodl]

We have the metrics to show our productivity soared when we were sent home a little over three years ago. It's only been improving.

It's funny - before the pandemic hit we'd already gone through a RIF. As things started booming back we've been hiring from all over the country. We now have teams that are wholly comprised of people from all over. There's no path forward to do an RTO at this point, and our productivity numbers are simply too high to warrant it.

My understanding is as our leases expire, we're not going to renew many of them. Where people are still in the office, and we have some of those folks and have had them all through the pandemic, we'll consolidate facilities in the same region.

[ethbr1]

> Anyone who bothers to think things through can see the huge, obvious flaw: people are not all the same and that these are human beings, not robots or drones.

Part of the problem with accepting this is that it cuts against the MBA ethos: that a good manager is a good manager in any industry, because specialized knowledge is not required.

Which, might be true for extremely high performing managers, who will seek out and rapidly learn any specialized knowledge needed...

... but is very much not true for the bulk of managers, who lack that amount of initiative and capability, and thus need more seasoning time and domain knowledge.

[outworlder]

> In bigger companies, this management layer is more concerned about creating domains of influence or "kingdoms" then they are in actually delivering value for the company.

This. I have seen teams completely devastated in reorgs that did absolutely nothing but strengthen some manager's position. You don't have to fire anyone, just moving key people and reassigning ownership is sufficient.

[SoftTalker]

I don't think it's "corporate culture" as much as "large org power games" as I've seen the very same thing happen in academia and administration at large schools.

[area51org]

Absolutely. They'll talk about "culture" and how you need to have an office in order to have it, ignoring the fact that most larger companies have multiple offices—so, what, each office has its own culture or something?

More to the point, though: what do they mean by corporate culture, and why do they believe that people need to be in the same room in order to maintain it?

I'll bet anything there is no real definition of "corporate culture". If there is, it has nothing to do with where the employees are at any given moment. Yes, I'm saying that "corporate culture" is just a meaningless buzzword thrown around by people who hope you don't stop to wonder what it is they actually mean.

[wrs]

In my experience, each office does have its own culture to a surprising extent. Maintaining a common corporate culture across different offices is a very hard problem. Probably even harder than doing it in a pure remote company. (And I think corporate culture is as meaningful a term as anything-else culture: shared values and expectations, behavioral norms, jargon, inside jokes…)

[arethuza]

"don't really see humans"

Didn't you mean "resources" there? ;-)

[darrylb42]

You mean FTE? Full Time Equivalent.

[arethuza]

Good point - "resources" are useful while FTEs are things to be cut?

[mlinhares]

It's the incentives, you'd be promoted because you built a large org so you had an incentive to just continue to grow the org itself so you could go up the chain, even if you weren't making anything productive as all these businesses were flush with cash.

[jonny_eh]

At interviews managers are asked "how many reports did you have?" not "how much value did you deliver to the company?"

[innagadadavida]

s/human/bis Bis - butts in seat.