back to article Return-to-office mandates had senior employees jumping ship

A study has found that return to office mandates resulted in a noteworthy number of senior employees leaving jobs at Microsoft, Apple, and SpaceX. Penned by researchers from the University of Michigan and University of Chicago, the study [PDF] analyzed resume data via People Data Labs from a variety of tech companies to …

  1. simonlb Silver badge
    WTF?

    Why?

    Remote working is a thing now and makes complete sense if it suits your business. So, unless there is a definite, specific need for someone to physically be at a company premises to do their job, is there any logical reason to mandate other workers to be on-site for a number of days each week/month if it serves no purpose? It wastes their time and costs them money to travel in and provides zero benefit.

    Ok, I can possibly accept large team meeting might benefit (somehow) by everyone being present in person, but unless there's a definite business need it's just a crazy requirement and I'm not surprised in the slightest that staff have jumped ship.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Windows

      A lagre team meeting is, IMO, the definition of a waste of time. Many people bored to death listening to one or two twats monopolizing airtime for no definitive result.

      A good manager would discuss matters with heads of teams, then ask them to discuss with their team, then come back with the results. When all teams have given their say, a new meeting between manager and heads of teams to discuss results and consequences. Then a mail to everyone to officialize the result.

      You waste a lot less time, people are more engaged and more ideas might come out.

      But hey, what do I know ? I don't have a fancy MBA.

      1. parrot
        Pint

        Lager team meeting…

        … is a great reason to work from home. Just blow on the mug before you drink from it so everyone thinks it’s coffee.

      2. Yorick Hunt Silver badge
        Pint

        "A lagre team meeting is, IMO, the definition of a waste of time."

        "A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost."

        Sorry, can't offer a definitive attribution.

        1. fishman

          Joseph Stilwell.

      3. Tom 38

        A lagre team meeting is, IMO, the definition of a waste of time. Many people bored to death listening to one or two twats monopolizing airtime for no definitive result.

        A good manager would discuss matters with heads of teams, then ask them to discuss with their team

        What would you call that occasion where the head of the team discusses it with their team?

        1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

          If that's a large number of people (over something like 6-10 people), I would question whether it is effective management, because either those people don't need managing, or the manager will not have enough time to devote to each reporting employee.

          Also, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why such meetings can't be done remotely, over e.g. Teams, and have to be done in person.

          1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

            'cos Teams is crap, hugely bloated, massively resource intensive, constantly crashing, impossible to use, a security nightmare that wants dictatorial access to your system. I've got to the point now where if a job interview is offered by Teams I tell them No thanks.

            1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

              Yeah, well, I'm using a work laptop on which it is installed, I have no control over installation / uninstallation of software, due to corporate policies (despite being perfectly capable of circumventing such measures if I felt the need). If corporate has decided to give over control of my laptop to Microsoft, so be it. There's no chance of it being installed on my own PC, which doesn't have a camera anyway.

              I'll take having to very occasionally kill and restart Teams (and to be fair, it's not often) over having to travel into an office on expensive, slow, and disgusting public transport to sit in a room to sit through a meeting where perhaps ten percent of it is of any relevance to me, if we're lucky.

        2. spireite Silver badge
          Pint

          Yeah, we had them in the local pub.... A lager team meeting.

      4. dinsdale54

        A friend who did a couple of years working in Japan for a large computer manufacturer described their decision making process exactly like this. Meetings are where decisions are communicated, not made.

        It does put the onus on the manager to ensure they talk to all the relevant people and listen to them but get that right and it's an efficient process.

        A couple of IT projects I worked on for the military were similar. It took a while to understand the culture but it worked well - If you had a good manager.

        1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

          good manager

          There ain't no such critter.

          OK, the above is slightly exaggerated, but the number of manglers vs managers is skewed way out of proportion.

      5. techulture

        I first read this as "a large Teams meeting", because non-physical meetings with many people is really a combination that makes you drift away and do other things.

        Apparently I am an odd one, because even after 15 years within IT I still like having people around me for discussions and having (a limited, reasonable number of) high-bandwidth physical meetings.

        1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

          Apparently I am an odd one, because even after 15 years within IT I still like having people around me for discussions and having (a limited, reasonable number of) high-bandwidth physical meetings.

          I have more than double that time in IT and I appreciate the problem solving capabilities of the coffee machine and the smoke break (though I never smoked, I regularly take a break together with the smoking colleagues).

    2. abend0c4 Silver badge

      Re: Why?

      You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that there is some economic logic to business decisions.

      To the extent that there is research (and there's not enough), business decision making is often/usually contrary to the economic interests of the enterprise - and the bigger the decision, the worse the outcome (M&A is an area particularly poor in value for shareholders, though often makes a fortune for directors).

      The reality is that many significant business decisions are made by people who have personal stakes in the outcome which are unrelated to the interests of the business or are taken by those whose influence and status is unrelated to their actual performance, but determined by their strength of personality.

      It's an uncomfortable reflection on humankind, but shareholders seem to prefer cartoon posturing to actual economic returns - with the consequence that cartoon posturing raises share prices even in the absence of any underlying economic justification. Until it doesn't.

      However, our entire capitalist society is based on the notion that the market is somehow beyond human control, so don't expect those who've worked out how to control it to 'fess up.

      1. yetanotheraoc Silver badge

        Re: Why?

        Cynics of the world unite!

        1. Snake Silver badge

          Re: Cynics

          It's not cynical, I was just about to post along the same thought processes. The return to work demands have nothing to do with 'best for business', it is 'best for management' - and they are NOT equivalent. Managers want their fiefdoms intact, and remote work reduces a manager's self-importance in micromanaging their employees. A "head count" isn't a count if the heads aren't there, right in front of them.

          Plus, add in the need / desire to keep their real estate values, and you've got a drive to make decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with the profit or health of the company, it's all about checking those mental boxes off.

          1. JoeCool Silver badge

            Re: Cynics

            I think "Cynic" is used in the honorific sense, like Free Thinker, Critical thinker, Not a team player (per George Carlin).

      2. UnknownUnknown

        Re: Why?

        So basically personal interests overriding the fiduciary duty all directors have. Isn’t that a criminal offence ?

        1. JoeCool Silver badge

          Re: Why?

          I hope that's sarcasm.

          1. UnknownUnknown

            Re: Why?

            It’s both sarcasm … and a reminder of a directors legal obligations. Shirley that’s what Governance, Internal Audit, External Audit, SOC Compliance and (as appropriate) statutory regulators are for.

            LOL well if your local right wing nut job Government has not cut their legs off and defunded them into irrelevancy and inaction to enforce ….

            1. JoeCool Silver badge

              Re: Why?

              The thing is, there is no Legal obligation for a vaguely defined "shareholder value". That's a fiction created by execs and corps and their propaganda arms, to cover their self-agandizing behaviour. Pick a jurisdiction ( Delaware, London, ... ) and see what sorts of Fiduciary violations are upheld in the courts - the bar is astoundingly low.

              Those functions you mention are for SOX, other SEC compliance, IFRS, civil suits and ... reputational damage from mis-reporting the financials, which would result in investors selling their stock; but critically that's not a Legal obligation, it's the way that capitalism works.

              1. UnknownUnknown

                Re: Why?

                SOC, not SOX.

                https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/trust-solutions/digital-assurance-transparency/soc-reporting.html

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_and_Organization_Controls

                Not everywhere is the USA and has to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

    3. steviebuk Silver badge

      Re: Why?

      But without it, middle managers won't be able to micro manage and won't be able to pretend they are required.

      We were glad we had a manage who was really good, let us work from home as much as we wanted as he knew the work would get done. Also helped he preferred working at home as he got more done.

      The worst companies are the ones that require you have a camera set up so they can make sure you're in your chair a certain percentage of the day.

    4. UnknownUnknown

      Re: Why?

      “Amy Coleman, Corporate Vice President, Human Resources & Corporate Functions at Microsoft told The Register.”

      Nothing to see here. Move along.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why?

      I'm approximiately 10k miles from one of the regions I support, the nearest one still has multiple offices 300 miles apart. Yes apparently when I'm in my designated office I'll be better able to be 'seen' by the offices I support.

      I'm not sure there is much business rational for RTO for many positions.

    6. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

      Re: Why?

      Ok, I can possibly accept large team meeting might benefit (somehow) by everyone being present in person, but unless there's a definite business need it's just a crazy requirement and I'm not surprised in the slightest that staff have jumped ship.

      Nah, physical presence in a large group of people for a meeting, apart from not being productive (because such meetings are always some C-level spouting meaningless business jargon to underlings who don't care), represents an infection risk. Anecdotally, there has been a recent up-tick in covid infection rates (our government no longer collects official figures because sweeping a problem under the carpet makes it go away, right?), and, as a home worker, I have been very glad that I've not been in the firing line for another round of that, thank you very much. I also very much do not miss the constant infection with every cold virus doing the rounds. Now, the main vector is other people's children coughing and sneezing in supermarkets, which is a somewhat more controlled risk.

  2. Jou (Mxyzptlk) Silver badge

    Not surprised!

    With experience there are things you don't have to put up with. IT is among those where old people are considered as experienced and valuable. And that trend is getting stronger and stronger. The ability to see the actual big picture, not just what the marketing is trying to sell as big picture, is valuable. On top those have been there when the IP protocol started to take on, so there is so much accumulated knowledge... As long as they are not a prick character and able to listen, including to those less than half of my their age since they do know things I they don't, plays an important role too.

    1. Azamino

      Re: Not surprised!

      "IT is among those where old people are considered as experienced and valuable"? Which country are you working in, because my experience across the USA and the UK is completely different! Old heads are viewed with suspicion as they don't imbibe the koolaid with the enthusiasm of the youth and that is before considering the HR actions at firms like IBM.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And the wheel continues to spin..

    "... outgoing employees suddenly started finding new stints at Intel, Amazon, Dell, and especially Meta, businesses that didn't yet have a return to office mandate in place."

    And now those businesses do have RTO mandates, and the "new hires" are once again unhappy.

    Corporate stupidity at its finest. One of the aforementioned companies basically said "Oh, you don't _have_ to return to the office. You won't get promoted, your salary will freeze, and you'll migrate to the top of the layoff list, but we wouldn't DREAM of either forcing you back or discriminating against you based on your taking the proffered option. Heavens, no."

    Makes you understand why people are leaving this industry in droves.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And the wheel continues to spin..

      We were given similar threats if we didn't RTO however it fell flat.

      You won't get promoted - internal promotion is so difficult that it is much easier to leave the business and return at a promoted level. Also internal promotion when it does happen is often accompanied by a 0% pay rise and more work (it's an opportunity). Even when a promotion is accompanied by a pay rise it is generally not enough to compensate for the stress and the majority of any pise rise is usually easten up by the current high tax regime.

      You won't get a bonus - Bonuses are now so small that they wouldn't even cover the fuel used to start commuting. And again most gets lost to tax.

      It's hard to threaten when your better off by refusing promotions and bonuses.

      TBH the senior management seem to be backing off a bit now.

  4. that one in the corner Silver badge

    Parsing error at paragraph 5

    I'm no stranger to the implied negative or just a bamboozling sentence structure, but *please* tell me I am not alone in struggling to understand just what the bleep these two paragraphs are actually trying to say:

    > Even with a somewhat middle-of-the-road policy, Microsoft's data shows over a four percent increase in the share of positions held by sub-senior employees immediately after implementing its return to office mandate.

    > It was a similar story at Apple, which saw a near 4 percent rise in sub-senior positions vacating. However, SpaceX experienced an even larger loss of top talent as its sub-senior worker share rose by 15 percent. and the stricter the mandates are, the more likely they are to jump ship.

    Rise in the share of sub-senior positions held at Microsoft? Ok, so we - see the ratio of "not the people we are talking about" go up, therefore - the percentage of seniors has gone down! Got it - but, um, that does NOT automatically mean that the seniors left, it may be more juniors[1] were added? And, btw, that 4% figure? Totally useless in terms of understanding by what % the seniors ratio has changed 'cos we don't have either the initial or final ratio senior:sub-senior!

    Conclusion: *maybe* that says some seniors have left Microsoft, if we squint a bit. Okay, on to Apple:

    > a near 4 percent rise in sub-senior positions vacating.

    WHAT? Now we have to cope with *another* negative?! This time the sub-seniors are leaving, so that means - the seniors are staying? No, wait, we gained a negative but lost a ratio - this is no longer referring to a "share" of positions! Ah ha, that must mean that - aargh, no, we have NO information at all about what the seniors at Apple are doing! So what was the point in even including that sentence?!

    Too late to turn back now, how about SpaceX:

    > even larger loss of top talent as its sub-senior worker share rose by 15 percent

    Ok, we are back on the same ground as with Microsoft, talking about the "share" of "sub-seniors", so what did we figure out that told us about the actions of the seniors? Oh, yes, that was it: we got a great, big, fat "MAYBE" this tells us something!

    > The data implies that return to office mandates could convince senior employees to leave,

    NO IT BLEEPING DOESN'T!

    > "One thing we would like to emphasize is that these estimates are 'causal' in the sense that we account for what would have happened at Microsoft in the absence of an RTO [return to office mandate]," said co-author David Van Dijcke to The Register.

    Uuugghh! "Causal" - beCAUSE we imagined what would happen in an alternate reality. Presumably the same alternate reality where you presented all the data that was relevant and in a fashion that clearly and obviously supported your conclusions!

    > Essentially, the figures show what would have happened at the three tech giants had they not issued their office mandates.

    Oh, right, yes *clearly* that was what that lot meant!

    [1] whoops, clearly I can't say "junior" now, they are "sub-senior"; presumably have all been issued with snorkels?

    1. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Re: Parsing error at paragraph 5

      PS I highly recommend downloading the PDF, reading the abstract (you know, the bit that is supposed to be a quick and easy read, just to see if this paper might be relevant to you) - and then looking for something that is more obviously written in English, like, say, Feynman on Quantum Chromodynamics.

      To paraphrase Prostecnic Vogon Jeltz:

      > "Estimate a reduction in counterfactual tenure"

      > Death's too good for them.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

        They don't seem to have any control for hiring, which doesn't take place at the same rate or have the same composition at different companies.

        The only fair way to do this would have to be to limit things to just the workers who were there on Jan. 1 2020 (pre-pandemic) and see how the composition of "senior" employees among that group changed before and after the RTO mandates.

        Even if you pick out something like "4% of Apple vs 15% of SpaceX" senior people left, if SpaceX went on a massive hiring spree of junior people they could have had fewer senior people left. Or maybe Apple (known to have not gone on a big hiring binge during the pandemic like many tech companies) hired a relatively large number of senior people so even though a lot left the difference in the number leaving was only 4%.

        There are also other factors that could have influenced things, like vesting of stock awards. Apple's stock had quite a run up in previous years so senior people who left might done so because they had became quite wealthy and either retired or decided to become an investor or entrepreneur and RTO didn't enter into their decision at all. SpaceX people who left may have finally got tired of waiting for an IPO that's always rumored but never arrives and RTO was not the reason they left.

        Regardless of the results you'd need to compare far more than three companies. It would be pretty easy to cherry pick three companies to show what you want even if you controlled for all other variables.

        1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

          Re: Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

          There's an even better approach (assuming Microsoft, Apple etc will cooperate). Analyse the reasons for leaving given in the leaving interviews (these mega companies HR teams must do a leaving interview shirley). Add up the number that gave as a reason for leaving "you told me to come back to the office" and voila there's your answer.

          1. Natalie Gritpants Jr

            Re: Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

            Good luck getting that data

          2. blackcat Silver badge

            Re: Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

            An HR dept would never ever do something so logical and sensible.

            They could have a thousand people leave all citing the same reason and when asked they would look at you blankly and say 'we can't see a pattern'.

            1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

              Re: Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

              They could have a thousand people leave all citing the same reason and when asked they would look at you blankly and say 'we can't see a pattern'.

              And they would be correct, that isn't a pattern, that is a sledge hammer.

          3. anonymous cat herder

            Re: Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

            HR's sole purpose is to protect the company from its employees, and legal liability arising as a consequence. Providing that data could give the employees ammunition against the company so HR will never willingly provide it.

        2. Richard 12 Silver badge

          Re: Skimming the paper didn't help, it still sucks

          The vast majority of people don't leave until they're pushed, because it's a big risk.

          That push might be a bad manager, an ongoing too-heavy workload, being required to work from somewhere they don't like, or many other things. It all adds up.

          Once pushed over the edge, they start looking for alternatives and leave as soon as something apparently better turns up. Even if the final tipping point push is quickly reversed - they started looking, they may find.

          And of course: "The CEO did it before, they'll do it again."

    2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

      Re: Parsing error at paragraph 5

      Can you write the article the next time please. At least your post made sense.

  5. yetanotheraoc Silver badge

    Another string for the bow.

    "Overall, the general experience level of Microsoft employees declined. Staff with less than two years of tenure at the tech firm increased, while the amount of employees with tenure above two years saw visible shrinkage, especially among those who had racked up between two and six years at Microsoft."

    Meanwhile, IBM is taking notes.

    It used to be out-sourcing followed by in-sourcing was a favoured way of getting rid of the "wrong sort". The later variant was off-shoring followed by on-shoring. So now we can add remote working followed by return-to-office to the repertoire. You don't get quite the same clean sweep, but four percent is nothing to sniff at. And yes, you don't get a pandemic every year, but you can always hope for one!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jojo left his home in Tucson Arizona

    Get back

    Get back

    Get back to where once performed

  7. KarMann Silver badge
    Gimp

    One wonders whether…

    Additionally, the study finds that the mandate eroded the average experience level among the longest tenured employees by a month or two, a further indication of the number and quality of departing workers.

    …someone savvy in marketing might have been amongst those who left Apple. Say, someone who might have nixed the idea of crushing all the things for the sake of an iPad advert.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: One wonders whether…

      Yes, that was a rare moment of honesty for Apple: "We don't give a shit about anything we don't make." Presumably the people responsible for it are now in a re-education camp somewhere.

  8. Someone Else Silver badge

    Hoo-boy!

    From the article:

    Overall, the general experience level of Microsoft employees declined.

    Just exactly what the world needs now.

  9. captain veg Silver badge

    paradoxically

    "Microsoft, which issued its return to office order in April 2022, required employees to spend at least half the week in the office."

    So, for Microsoft's customers it's all moving to cloud. For Microsoft's employees it's on-prem only.

    -A.

  10. Locomotion69 Bronze badge
    Joke

    Really?

    Microsoft took issue with the study's findings, noting their own stats do not necessarily correspond.

    Copilot says "no".

  11. Just An Engineer

    Its All About the Real Estate

    There are many large companies where the RE is a good size chunk of the overall portfolio. These are the entities that are the loudest about making RTO mandatory. The own large campuses in fairly expensive parts of the country, and not having butts in the seats is not a good look.

    The outfit I work for currently requires 1 week a month in office. Later this year there is a rumor they may require 2 weeks.

    It will reflect on the raise and bonus received at years end, if you decide you do not want to be in office, and may well reflect on employment status in 2025.

    The problem here is, there are more Butts than seats in different parts of the country and they have given up leased space over the last 4 years.

    So there is some real thinking that needs to be done before a full or in some places a partial RTO mandate can be applied.

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: Its All About the Real Estate

      The problem here is, there are more Butts than seats in different parts of the country and they have given up leased space over the last 4 years.

      I see a nice opportunity for malicious compliance (and manglement is not going to enjoy that).

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Its All About the Real Estate

      "The problem here is, there are more Butts than seats in different parts of the country and they have given up leased space over the last 4 years."

      One of the offices I visit, they mandate 3 days in the office per week. Naturally most people chose Tues, Weds and Thurs. Mondays and Fridays are very quiet. Wednesdays especially but sometimes Tues and Thurs, more people turn up than there are seats since the move to a smaller office. I'd imagine there are similar situations in many businesses these days.

  12. Marty McFly Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Forcing RTO is a sign of crappy management

    Butts are warm in seats, therefore productivity must be happening! I think the phrase is "micro-manager", and they are no fun to work for.

    It is no surprise that senior employees, self-starters capable of producing results, are actively leaving those oppressive work cultures.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like