Employers who force staff to return to the office five days a week have been called the “dinosaurs of our age” by one of the world’s leading experts who coined the term “presenteeism”.
Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organisational psychology and health at the University of Manchester’s Alliance Manchester Business School, said employers imposing strict requirements on staff to be in the office risked driving away talented workers, damaging the wellbeing of employees and undermining their financial performance.
My company tried it…and now they have hybrid work schedules after employees with decades of experience left the company for remote work jobs.
Same. Or rather, I should say my previous employer
Here’s hoping Amazon becomes a shell
The Dead Sea Effect is a real thing.
after employees with decades of experience left the company for remote work jobs.
Corporate still won. Those were the most expensive employees, and companies are proving time and time again that they just want output and not quality.
I appreciate your opinion, but they most definitely didn’t. It wasn’t just a few people. It was a lot of people in a relatively short time, and they didn’t always give two weeks notice. The higher ups saw the writing on the wall.
Also, they aren’t 100% profit-driven, because they’re not publicly traded, so they have more incentive to sometimes improve working conditions just for the sake of morale.
Fair enough, I was basing my opinion on what some of the FAANG companies were doing to get rid of veteran staff by giving them the WFH ultimatum.
Yeah thankfully, it’s not complete corporate hell (just partial).
So… Amazon (the latest big name, not the only one)
I’m interviewing next week for a job that wants hybrid for a fully-remote-capable position. I don’t need a job. I hate that company anyway.
I’ll be asking them to justify their decree and asking how they want to pay the 20% surcharge - in the pay or separately - if I nail the interview.
As a rule, I don’t read anything by someone who puts “sir” in their name
Do you believe that people should use job titles they no longer hold?
I don’t think we should be using such terms to address people, generally.
Use your name. Don’t prefix it with “President” or “Sir” or whatever. This was done to establish hierarchy, but we as a society need to recognize that no person is superior to another person. By just using a name (and eliminating the title), you recognize equality amongst people.
Sure, you can have a title that indicates what cog in a org you currently occupy, but it shouldn’t be used in your name.
What if it is put in their name by someone else?
Throughout the rest of the article the professor is just referred to as Cooper.
