Cabinet Secretary Ann Patterson wrote in a memo … that in-person work carried its own benefits that must be considered, including “enhanced collaboration, cohesion, and communication, better opportunities for mentorship, particularly for workers newer to the workforce, and improved supervision and accountability.”
Improved supervision and accountability.
Why hire people you don't trust to do the job? Why not evaluate them on their results and timeliness instead of staring over their shoulder? Do they have no other way of justifying their jobs?
It's not about that; it's about middle management's feels.
It's not about that; it's about middle management's manglement's feels.
AI is a nice tool, but it is by no means advanced enough to replace humans.
In other words: "We need to justify all the offices the state owns and the numerous middle managers who have proved to be useless during the remote work era."
Or, possibly more accurately: "We need to do something for our rich masters donors who are losing money on their commercial property investments."
My company currently has a 100% telework option, even allowing living wherever the hell you want. They've found a direct correlation between how many days people come in the office and how long people stay at the company before leaving. They've also found an absolutely huge disparity between the attrition rate of people hired before and after COVID. Since my company's entire purpose is to be the repository of scientific knowledge for the Air/Space Force, keeping people around is key to our success.
That said, I think it might be an overcorrection that could be better addressed with better mentoring and social integration of remote workers, but we don't have time to figure out new ways of doing business if people keep leaving before we figure it out.
I work for a similar company. It's been remote only for years because they realize that a larger talent pool is better. Most people have also been here for over a decade at this point.
They only have a B&M office because the executive assistant doesn't want to work from home.
Why hire people you don't trust to do the job? Why not evaluate them on their results and timeliness instead of staring over their shoulder? Do they have no other way of justifying their jobs?
It's not about that; it's about middle management's feels.
FTFY
Why hire people at all if AI can do it?
because an ai cannot
Can ai knot?
god I hope so
Don't worry, piglet's VERY clever https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMxcAaR0oHU
AI is a nice tool, but it is by no means advanced enough to replace humans.
In other words: "We need to justify all the offices the state owns and the numerous middle managers who have proved to be useless during the remote work era."
Or, possibly more accurately: "We need to do something for our rich
mastersdonors who are losing money on their commercial property investments."My company currently has a 100% telework option, even allowing living wherever the hell you want. They've found a direct correlation between how many days people come in the office and how long people stay at the company before leaving. They've also found an absolutely huge disparity between the attrition rate of people hired before and after COVID. Since my company's entire purpose is to be the repository of scientific knowledge for the Air/Space Force, keeping people around is key to our success.
That said, I think it might be an overcorrection that could be better addressed with better mentoring and social integration of remote workers, but we don't have time to figure out new ways of doing business if people keep leaving before we figure it out.
I work for a similar company. It's been remote only for years because they realize that a larger talent pool is better. Most people have also been here for over a decade at this point.
They only have a B&M office because the executive assistant doesn't want to work from home.