|
|
|
|
|
|
by idontknowtech
704 days ago
|
|
|
Idiotic decision by that employer. Who cares where the employee is, if they're a top performer? I'm convinced the back to office mandates come from people who thrive in office environments. Those people succeed, get promoted, become leadership, and then assume everyone else works just like they do. It's absolutely not the case. That's without going into the many, many studies of office environments which provide empirics disproving common myths about office work, such as the oft-repeated lie that open offices encourage collaboration. Those facts just don't compute for people who love working in those spaces, so they ignore them and repeat happy lies instead. |
|
|
There are two ways of working, remote or in person. Hybrid is a swan song of bullshit where you get the worst of both worlds and few of the advantages. So organizations need to make sweeping changes one way or another: either restructure towards remote-first or return to pre-covid paradigms by not only getting people back to the office, but also teams back in the same office. Both require some pretty sweeping changes to get there, and it's understandable (if maybe not defensible) that a majority of established organizations don't want to reinvent themselves.
At the end of the day, if in-person is the final vision, yes you should be fired if you don't comply with it. Almost everyone is replaceable, including even the top levels of management. Keeping employees who are actively hostile to (remember, not just disagreeing, but actively disregarding) a core organizational standard doesn't help anything --- regardless of their performance.
All that being said, I find it amazing that companies were presented the opportunity to use a new remote paradigm on a silver platter and decided to scoff at it rather than embracing all of its advantages, but maybe that's why I'm not making those decisions.