[lurking_swe]

isn’t it trivial for management to see a higher bar, and enforce it? If expectations are not met, just fire them. The solution is simple IMO.

Are the managers competent? Do they know how to evaluate if work/goals are being met without counting how many hours the employee is online?

[nizmow]

I suspect this will become increasingly common with companies that allow remote work. Atlassian is a large Australian tech employer that is full remote, and this is definitely the case there - performance reviews twice yearly and a very high attrition rate.

[frollogaston]

I can certainly see a company that wants to be remote-first making it work. Probably not one that has already invested tons of money and time in offices filled with well-established employees.

[frollogaston]

Letting people work at a slow pace for a while, PIPing them, then ultimately firing, is very expensive. An unproductive teammate not only doesn't get stuff done but also brings down the rest of the team.

Edit: Some companies also don't like the morale effects of sink-or-swim, though Amazon is fine with it I've heard.

[lurking_swe]

i agree it’s expensive. but that can happen in person in the office too, right? The risk of a bad hire is high regardless i think.

[frollogaston]

They aren't exactly bad hires. Lots of previously solid employees were going kinda AWOL sometimes while remote. Even if someone wants to be responsive, after seeing enough pings go unanswered all day, they might follow suit.

They could redefine the job requirements to be remote-first, but that'd require a lot of firing and hiring.