[xigurat]

As a headcount reduction measure it usually means that the people that stay are the ones that are not good at what they do, so they can't find another jobs.

The good ones have more opportunities, so they don't take the BS and leave for better working conditions.

[sour-taste]

A poorly run government may be an end goal itself for the current administration

[lotsofpulp]

An alternative is those that stay are more “under the gun”, whether it be due to having dependents or still needing to make a reputation for themselves. It’s simply a bet that the product/service you are selling will still keep selling* in sufficient amounts.

The larger the organization or more monopoly/monopsony position it has, the more these kind of games can be played.

*if not for money, then sufficient political capital such that you can win the next election. Or maybe you have a goal other than winning the next election.

[scarface_74]

The current administration doesn’t want a well run government. This has been the end goal of Republicans forever. Besides, any needed replacements will be those who kiss the ring. Loyalty is far more important than competence.

[ct0]

I havent seen any data that shows the people who RTO and "stay" are bad at their job. I think low preformers are going to get RIFed either way if they RTO or not. Those who RTO easily will generally be the employees who are already geographically close to the office, satisfied with their job, and see future career opportunities.

The good ones already have had the opportunity to leave all along, and if they are good enough, they may be able to set up a home based position. Maybe government roles do not need high performers at scale like the private sector does.

[mikewarot]

>I havent seen any data that shows the people who RTO and "stay" are bad at their job

Who would pay for a study like that? There's little chance it would yield positive results, and would likely just serve to cause embarrassment for the funder of said study.

[snozolli]

There's barely any scientific evidence for anything related to hiring and firing. It's all confirmation bias and indoctrination.

[ct0]

Pay for a study? It would likely only be possible to do these studies at a company level, where there is enough sample in the headcount. There are plenty of People Analytics teams that exist on large F500's that would tackle a project like this.

[nxobject]

> Maybe government roles do not need high performers at scale like the private sector does.

As a taxpayer, I respectfully disagree; as someone who wishes the government was more efficient, I disagree; as someone who complains about poorly thought-through red tape and bureaucracy, I disagree; as someone who cares about enforcing regulations that set minimum floors on the safety of our food, transportation, and drugs, I disagree; as someone who cares about the money poured into basic and applied science research without expectation of profit, I disagree.

[dylan604]

> I think low preformers are going to get RIFed

what suggests that's the criteria that will be used for any RIF? seems to me that if you are a low performer but toe the party line that you will be safer than someone that is seen as rocking the boat and constantly pushing back.

[scarface_74]

I mean do you really need a “study” for this?

If you are good at your job and you are forced to return to office, you have other choices and you get another job.

If you don’t have other choices because you aren’t good at your job, you return to the office.

It’s the ultimate “Dead Sea Effect”.

https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-...

> I think low preformers are going to get RIFed

Has the Trump administration ever made competence a requirement for employment? He wants RFK to be the head of health and human services