That’s the takeaway from an internal memo sent today that I’ve seen. Take this section: The email also reminds employees that they should be coming into the office three days a week if they aren’t already designed as remote, and that managers can factor their absences into performance reviews. Meta recently issued a similar notice on coming into the office to its workers.
Google is run by a bunch of insecure managers who are incapable of accepting the fact that remote/hybrid works and works well without their overly hands-on approach, and possibly showcases that maybe they’re not that important (atleast compensation wise relative to the actual team they’re incharge of).
From my experience in another tech company it’s not even the direct managers that want people back, it’s all c-suite and up that are trying to force it. Makes it easy to poach talent for any companies offering full remote though
Another element of this is that businesses have less leverage in negotiations with local government to carve out tax breaks and other incentives if their employees don’t go to the office.
The argument for a long time was that they were bringing a ton of business to the area (employees going out to eat and patroning other businesses) so you should send some kickbacks our way.
My previous company is not even in the tech sector, but I was a manager there and I hated our hybrid setup. We all did. Only the ones at the top were forcing it.
I think a lot of this boils down to extroverts’ dependence on external stimuli, especially human interaction, to make them happy and feel self-fulfilled. While not exclusive by any means, it’s extroverts who naturally seek and–arguably–who are good at starting and running businesses. So, there is a bias toward those who are making the call for a return to office–execs–being extroverted by nature. They are confusing consciously or subconsciously the drivers for why workers should return to the office being arguments around productivity rather than their needs and biases.
Google is run by a bunch of insecure managers who are incapable of accepting the fact that remote/hybrid works and works well without their overly hands-on approach, and possibly showcases that maybe they’re not that important (atleast compensation wise relative to the actual team they’re incharge of).
From my experience in another tech company it’s not even the direct managers that want people back, it’s all c-suite and up that are trying to force it. Makes it easy to poach talent for any companies offering full remote though
The C suite who are looking at the expensive leases they’re paying for buildings that aren’t being used, or their friends who own those buildings.
Another element of this is that businesses have less leverage in negotiations with local government to carve out tax breaks and other incentives if their employees don’t go to the office.
The argument for a long time was that they were bringing a ton of business to the area (employees going out to eat and patroning other businesses) so you should send some kickbacks our way.
My previous company is not even in the tech sector, but I was a manager there and I hated our hybrid setup. We all did. Only the ones at the top were forcing it.
I think a lot of this boils down to extroverts’ dependence on external stimuli, especially human interaction, to make them happy and feel self-fulfilled. While not exclusive by any means, it’s extroverts who naturally seek and–arguably–who are good at starting and running businesses. So, there is a bias toward those who are making the call for a return to office–execs–being extroverted by nature. They are confusing consciously or subconsciously the drivers for why workers should return to the office being arguments around productivity rather than their needs and biases.