• Top talent has options. Others are hesitant to leave where they are comfortable.

    It is hard to tell if the bourgeoisie fail to see what the real impact of moves like killing off WFH are. Or if they do see that impact but it doesn’t matter as much as us worker bees think it does.

    If an engineering company loses their top brass, how long can they go without a real impact to the bottom line? Are the top folks the ones causing expensive change? Or confusing lower level employees? Does having top folks around inspire others to be better or make them feel inadequate and less efficient?

    Maybe losing top performers isn’t permanent and you need to cycle through some of them here and there to make more money.

    I hate all of this but I’ve watched a company seemingly purge their top performers with bad policy change again and again. There is no way they didn’t see a mass resignation coming.

    • There’s a reason why IBM cratered relative to companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the other Silicon Valley type firms, and a very big part of it was culture. IBM had a number of business-related problems, but it also had a reputation for a corporate culture that was completely at odds with what was happening in California.

      I think that a lot of the pressure is being felt because of the massive post-covid layoffs and hiring freezes. People are feeling a bit less mobile these days, and it changes the equation as to whether or not you think where you are is good enough for now, at least through the next vesting period.

      I do suspect that the big tech company who moves first in terms of opening things back up is going to be able to scoop up a lot of top talent by poaching them from their butts-in-seats-no-matter-what companies.