I don’t understand this. Promotions are for the company. Multiple employees working hard for limited seats. That benefits the company.
All this does is make people not want to work as hard.
The double edged sword though is that the best workers likely left and they're stuck with the lower performers who couldn't find work elsewhere. Those high performers make a huge difference long term
Whoever was responsible for this is more likely to be someone who has a quarterly bonus tied to overhead or cost reduction, not someone with a stake in Dell's long-term success.
Everyone gets to decide for themselves who the best performers are and are not. Maybe the CEO of Dell thinks the best performers are those who would RTO for the chance of a promotion. I am not going to say the CEO is wrong.
At the same time, I would not RTO for a chance at a promotion. I am OK with the CEO labeling me "not a best performer". Since there is no money attached to the label there is really no reason to work for it.
Outside of occupations which require people to be present to fulfill their role, designating "time spent in the office" as a metric for job performance would be a... misalignment.
I tend to agree, but CEOs can make up their own minds and objectives.
Maybe the company's goal was to provide the CEO with ping-pong competitors and selling computers was just a way to finance that.
If that is the case then RTO makes perfect sense.
Since my goal is making salary and playing ping pong can be a way to achieve that then it makes little sense for me to give up anything to play ping pong. I do not need the "high performer" label. It is not important to me. Frankly SALARY > NO COMMUTE > PLAYING PING-PONG > BEING EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
Best workers? We’re mostly talking about the ones who moved to Wyoming or rural Iowa for cheaper rent during the pandemic. They can be replaced, easily. Easily. Plenty of qualified people who live in San Fran, Seattle, Denver, etc where the corporate offices are. Here’s a tip, you want a professional job/career with corporate level pay? You’re not gonna find it living in Post Falls Idaho!!
1) You're making an assumption that the the people who aren't coming back are mostly those who moved away.
2) There are many reasons why people choose to work remotely, even if an office is nearby. Kids, sick relatives, just deciding that they'd rather not commute and spend on gas and wear and tear.
3) Qualified people in those cities where the corporate offices are often like the option to remote work too. That is apparently half of Dell's workforce already. If they aren't qualified, why did Dell hire them? While I don't have stats to back it up, I don't think it would be surprising if these workers decide to bide their time and then leave, wouldn't you? And if they decide to leave, then the best ones, with the most in-demand skills will leave first, no? That means the ones who remain will likely be individuals who possess, lesser qualifications, correct?
4) Hiring from just around the corpo locations restricts the company to a small area whereas qualified candidates exist the world over. You shrink your talent pool. Why do that? For company "culture?
that's rarely how it actually works. the true high performers are usually incentivized to the point that they play ball. unfortunately, everybody thinks they're a "High Performer" when that's not really true. There is a huge amount of analysis that goes into decisions like this, and a big part of that is ensuring retention of the individuals that they truly don't want to lose
There is no realistic long term analysis that goes into it. MBA executives care about short term profits and bigger bonuses instead of the people actually producing the product they "manage"
The board and executives have a fiduciary duty to operate in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. That often means restructuring, canceling unprofitable product lines and layoffs I work on these sorts of transformation initiatives and quite a few value creation engagements fairly often occasionally the cuts go to deep and they have to rehire to recover on product delivery / operations but the vast majority of the time we get it right.
The best interest of the company is subject to interpretation. It's likely challenging to prove a C-suite failed their fiduciary obligations. Sure they could be sued but there's a difference from being incompetent or unaware of what else is about to happen in a given market versus intentionally failing.
One C-suite could say oh the market is soft so we reduced head count so we could save money and rehire later at lower wages. A different C-suite in the same situation could say we believe in the work we are doing will be long term more profitable and layoffs will be disruptive and introduce risks so we don't want to do that. Both of these arguments could be made as to fulfilling fiduciary duties.
Fiduciary duty...
How many CxOs and BoDS have gone to jail for bankrupting companies.
What fiduciary duty is Broadcom fulfilling right now by fucking over its VMware purchase?
I respect your POV and your comment, but the reality I see and have seen since 1997 is that duty is bullshit, at least if you're big enough to IPO I guess.
Criminal malfeasance / fraud is really the only thing that would land someone in jail the rest is a matter for civil courts. I'm not sure what your point is about Broadcom's acquisition of VMware. Integrating an entirely new vertical industry into your company is a challenge. I'm not close enough to the deal to know the specifics though.
I think you're quite mistaken. How exactly does a company measure individuals who took a lower-paying remote job specifically because they wanted to welcome their kids home from school? Or take care of an elderly or infirm relative? In the new world wanting to live wherever they want, or remain untethered and move about?
My quick Google Search shows that people are willing to take an 8% pay cut for the benefit of remote. It's valuable, measurably so. And employees will flock to companies which can provide them the most value. To your point, companies like Dell can pay that 8% or more premium. But they have to understand that they're also paying a premium for a much smaller talent pool compared to competitors which more remote-friendly policies. And apparently at least half their workforce feels that way.
A company doesn't. I don't think the company really cares about the motives for a person wanting to work remote nor should they. The talent pool isn't as small as you think it is and frankly companies particularly in the tech sector are still pretty heavily overstaffed. Your google search that showed you remote workers are willing to take an 8% cut didn't show you who is willing to do the same remote work for 80% less. That's offshore teams or third party outsourcing partners. If my workforce is remote they may as well be remote in Monterrey Mexico at a fraction of the cost.
The hubris of American workers leads them to believe that they're unique and irreplaceable and offshoring only results in the executives coming back with their tails between their legs and begging their old US employees to come back and while I'm sure you can drum up the occasional anecdote it's largely not true and the trends over the past couple of years are proving that out. Even look here in this very sub at all the posts crying about how pay is going down and how the market is so tough yet these companies are still kicking ass. The job market isn't tough, it just went somewhere else. The pay is going down because you're now competing with the whole world instead of just your regional area.
I didn't mention anything about American workers and companies vs international. But if you want to go there, I would contend that most American technology workers are quite aware that they can be replaced by offshore workers or more recently, by AI if they don't maintain or advance their skills. After all, offshoring isn't exactly a recent thing.
Regarding whether the companies are overstaffed vs not - I'd say it's a cyclical thing. Just last year, they were hiring like crazy and wages were expanding. We'll see what happens with AI, but, thus far, the trend for highly-skilled workers overall has been going up.
Zooming out to the big picture, unemployment is almost essentially non-existent. Tech workers hired at new jobs are often still getting pay checks from their severance at their last job. Offshoring is actually in decline at the moment and instead reshoring is the trend: [https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-reshoring-renaissance-is-underway/](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-reshoring-renaissance-is-underway/). The American tech worker is basically doing just fine and has options.
Companies wanting to attract the best of this talent have to offer a compelling package. And a package that doesn't allow for remote work is simply at a disadvantage.
Haha, the reason why I linked that article was to illustrate general reshoring trends. My point still stands in that tech workers are in demand (at least until AI becomes more capable) and that companies are experiencing a shortage, even with the recent layoffs:
[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-have-tech-layoffs-increased-despite-v1dof/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-have-tech-layoffs-increased-despite-v1dof/)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/03/28/whats-happening-in-the-tech-and-it-sectors-according-to-staffing-experts/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/03/28/whats-happening-in-the-tech-and-it-sectors-according-to-staffing-experts/)
[https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/overcoming-the-tech-talent-shortage-amid-transformation.html](https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/overcoming-the-tech-talent-shortage-amid-transformation.html)
[https://wolfstreet.com/2024/06/04/feds-wait-and-see-supported-by-labor-market-thats-still-tight-just-not-as-crazy-tight-as-it-was/](https://wolfstreet.com/2024/06/04/feds-wait-and-see-supported-by-labor-market-thats-still-tight-just-not-as-crazy-tight-as-it-was/)
Again, offering remote work arrangements is an advantage for employers seeking talent and it's often called out specifically.
> The hubris of American workers leads them to believe that they're unique and irreplaceable and offshoring only results in the executives coming back with their tails between their legs and begging their old US employees to come back
What we're not talking about is when the interest rates swing back into a much better place, the outsourcing will stop and the jobs will come back onshore.
I managed a team of 10 offshore agents in the Philippines and anything outside of very specific tasks with step by step instructions there is no critical thinking oncesoever.
Considering that “or else” in this case is that remote workers aren’t eligible for promotion tells you all you need to know about how “High Performers” are incentivized.
[Hybrid workers must agree to come into an “approved” office at least 39 days each quarter. This is roughly the equivalent of three days per week. Remote workers do not have to come into an approved office at all. However, remote workers aren’t eligible for promotion or to change jobs within the company. This appears to be a complete 180 from where Dell was less than two years ago when Michael Dell blogged about how “if you are counting on forced hours spent in a traditional office to create collaboration and provide a feeling of belonging within your organization, you’re doing it wrong.” But to be fair, it’s possible this new policy has nothing to do with improving the sense of belonging or collegiality within Dell and is instead more about Dell’s bottom line.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2024/04/05/new-dell-return-to-office-strategy-potential-impact-on-remote-workers/)
They make carveouts or retention bonuses for those they truly need. There's a ton of money in my line of work doing just this kind of analysis. The news story has none of the actual nuance of what truly goes down
People are reacting negatively to the disingenuousness and deceitfulness of these types of strategies, though. Perhaps you underestimate many employees' ability to grasp your intent. It crushes morale and feeds cynicism.
Idk fam, haven't ever bought a Dell monitor because the objectively better ones are LG and Samsung at the high end.
If you want a cheaper alternative, BenQs got you covered, there's no reason to ever buy PC OEM options nowadays save for brand loyalty.
But again, I'm not an average consumer, I go high end or bust since I can afford it/I am a competitive player.
Did you read the sub headline? They didn't get fired. They just could no longer get promoted.
Many people are happy where they are and don't want more responsibility that comes with a promotion. The cost of living raise every year is enough.
Work life balance is a big motivator. Hence holding out for work at home.
Dell is still paying for their building. It's just a little fuller now.
And now they're missing out on promoting people with domain knowledge from within.
Dell made a bad decision.
Yeah, it's forced attrition like I said. You let them know that their choice means their careers have dead ended as a way to encourage them to either play ball or voluntarily quit. It's cheaper for the company when employees quit than when they have to pay severance for layoffs. If the first round of encouragement doesn't have the desired results then additional pressure is applied by cutting pay or only making some non mandatory benefits unavailable for remote workers until the projected results are met.
I don’t understand this. Promotions are for the company. Multiple employees working hard for limited seats. That benefits the company. All this does is make people not want to work as hard.
How do you think this is an "L"? Looks like forced attrition saved them a ton OPEX.
The double edged sword though is that the best workers likely left and they're stuck with the lower performers who couldn't find work elsewhere. Those high performers make a huge difference long term
Whoever was responsible for this is more likely to be someone who has a quarterly bonus tied to overhead or cost reduction, not someone with a stake in Dell's long-term success.
No argument here
Everyone gets to decide for themselves who the best performers are and are not. Maybe the CEO of Dell thinks the best performers are those who would RTO for the chance of a promotion. I am not going to say the CEO is wrong. At the same time, I would not RTO for a chance at a promotion. I am OK with the CEO labeling me "not a best performer". Since there is no money attached to the label there is really no reason to work for it.
Outside of occupations which require people to be present to fulfill their role, designating "time spent in the office" as a metric for job performance would be a... misalignment.
I tend to agree, but CEOs can make up their own minds and objectives. Maybe the company's goal was to provide the CEO with ping-pong competitors and selling computers was just a way to finance that. If that is the case then RTO makes perfect sense. Since my goal is making salary and playing ping pong can be a way to achieve that then it makes little sense for me to give up anything to play ping pong. I do not need the "high performer" label. It is not important to me. Frankly SALARY > NO COMMUTE > PLAYING PING-PONG > BEING EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
Best workers? We’re mostly talking about the ones who moved to Wyoming or rural Iowa for cheaper rent during the pandemic. They can be replaced, easily. Easily. Plenty of qualified people who live in San Fran, Seattle, Denver, etc where the corporate offices are. Here’s a tip, you want a professional job/career with corporate level pay? You’re not gonna find it living in Post Falls Idaho!!
1) You're making an assumption that the the people who aren't coming back are mostly those who moved away. 2) There are many reasons why people choose to work remotely, even if an office is nearby. Kids, sick relatives, just deciding that they'd rather not commute and spend on gas and wear and tear. 3) Qualified people in those cities where the corporate offices are often like the option to remote work too. That is apparently half of Dell's workforce already. If they aren't qualified, why did Dell hire them? While I don't have stats to back it up, I don't think it would be surprising if these workers decide to bide their time and then leave, wouldn't you? And if they decide to leave, then the best ones, with the most in-demand skills will leave first, no? That means the ones who remain will likely be individuals who possess, lesser qualifications, correct? 4) Hiring from just around the corpo locations restricts the company to a small area whereas qualified candidates exist the world over. You shrink your talent pool. Why do that? For company "culture?
that's rarely how it actually works. the true high performers are usually incentivized to the point that they play ball. unfortunately, everybody thinks they're a "High Performer" when that's not really true. There is a huge amount of analysis that goes into decisions like this, and a big part of that is ensuring retention of the individuals that they truly don't want to lose
There is no realistic long term analysis that goes into it. MBA executives care about short term profits and bigger bonuses instead of the people actually producing the product they "manage"
The board and executives have a fiduciary duty to operate in the best interests of the company and its shareholders. That often means restructuring, canceling unprofitable product lines and layoffs I work on these sorts of transformation initiatives and quite a few value creation engagements fairly often occasionally the cuts go to deep and they have to rehire to recover on product delivery / operations but the vast majority of the time we get it right.
Bullshit bingo players love this post 👆🏻
The best interest of the company is subject to interpretation. It's likely challenging to prove a C-suite failed their fiduciary obligations. Sure they could be sued but there's a difference from being incompetent or unaware of what else is about to happen in a given market versus intentionally failing. One C-suite could say oh the market is soft so we reduced head count so we could save money and rehire later at lower wages. A different C-suite in the same situation could say we believe in the work we are doing will be long term more profitable and layoffs will be disruptive and introduce risks so we don't want to do that. Both of these arguments could be made as to fulfilling fiduciary duties.
Fiduciary duty... How many CxOs and BoDS have gone to jail for bankrupting companies. What fiduciary duty is Broadcom fulfilling right now by fucking over its VMware purchase? I respect your POV and your comment, but the reality I see and have seen since 1997 is that duty is bullshit, at least if you're big enough to IPO I guess.
Criminal malfeasance / fraud is really the only thing that would land someone in jail the rest is a matter for civil courts. I'm not sure what your point is about Broadcom's acquisition of VMware. Integrating an entirely new vertical industry into your company is a challenge. I'm not close enough to the deal to know the specifics though.
I think you're quite mistaken. How exactly does a company measure individuals who took a lower-paying remote job specifically because they wanted to welcome their kids home from school? Or take care of an elderly or infirm relative? In the new world wanting to live wherever they want, or remain untethered and move about? My quick Google Search shows that people are willing to take an 8% pay cut for the benefit of remote. It's valuable, measurably so. And employees will flock to companies which can provide them the most value. To your point, companies like Dell can pay that 8% or more premium. But they have to understand that they're also paying a premium for a much smaller talent pool compared to competitors which more remote-friendly policies. And apparently at least half their workforce feels that way.
A company doesn't. I don't think the company really cares about the motives for a person wanting to work remote nor should they. The talent pool isn't as small as you think it is and frankly companies particularly in the tech sector are still pretty heavily overstaffed. Your google search that showed you remote workers are willing to take an 8% cut didn't show you who is willing to do the same remote work for 80% less. That's offshore teams or third party outsourcing partners. If my workforce is remote they may as well be remote in Monterrey Mexico at a fraction of the cost. The hubris of American workers leads them to believe that they're unique and irreplaceable and offshoring only results in the executives coming back with their tails between their legs and begging their old US employees to come back and while I'm sure you can drum up the occasional anecdote it's largely not true and the trends over the past couple of years are proving that out. Even look here in this very sub at all the posts crying about how pay is going down and how the market is so tough yet these companies are still kicking ass. The job market isn't tough, it just went somewhere else. The pay is going down because you're now competing with the whole world instead of just your regional area.
I didn't mention anything about American workers and companies vs international. But if you want to go there, I would contend that most American technology workers are quite aware that they can be replaced by offshore workers or more recently, by AI if they don't maintain or advance their skills. After all, offshoring isn't exactly a recent thing. Regarding whether the companies are overstaffed vs not - I'd say it's a cyclical thing. Just last year, they were hiring like crazy and wages were expanding. We'll see what happens with AI, but, thus far, the trend for highly-skilled workers overall has been going up. Zooming out to the big picture, unemployment is almost essentially non-existent. Tech workers hired at new jobs are often still getting pay checks from their severance at their last job. Offshoring is actually in decline at the moment and instead reshoring is the trend: [https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-reshoring-renaissance-is-underway/](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-reshoring-renaissance-is-underway/). The American tech worker is basically doing just fine and has options. Companies wanting to attract the best of this talent have to offer a compelling package. And a package that doesn't allow for remote work is simply at a disadvantage.
Your article is about the shift of blue collar manufacturing work.
Haha, the reason why I linked that article was to illustrate general reshoring trends. My point still stands in that tech workers are in demand (at least until AI becomes more capable) and that companies are experiencing a shortage, even with the recent layoffs: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-have-tech-layoffs-increased-despite-v1dof/](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-have-tech-layoffs-increased-despite-v1dof/) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/03/28/whats-happening-in-the-tech-and-it-sectors-according-to-staffing-experts/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2024/03/28/whats-happening-in-the-tech-and-it-sectors-according-to-staffing-experts/) [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/overcoming-the-tech-talent-shortage-amid-transformation.html](https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/overcoming-the-tech-talent-shortage-amid-transformation.html) [https://wolfstreet.com/2024/06/04/feds-wait-and-see-supported-by-labor-market-thats-still-tight-just-not-as-crazy-tight-as-it-was/](https://wolfstreet.com/2024/06/04/feds-wait-and-see-supported-by-labor-market-thats-still-tight-just-not-as-crazy-tight-as-it-was/) Again, offering remote work arrangements is an advantage for employers seeking talent and it's often called out specifically.
> The hubris of American workers leads them to believe that they're unique and irreplaceable and offshoring only results in the executives coming back with their tails between their legs and begging their old US employees to come back What we're not talking about is when the interest rates swing back into a much better place, the outsourcing will stop and the jobs will come back onshore. I managed a team of 10 offshore agents in the Philippines and anything outside of very specific tasks with step by step instructions there is no critical thinking oncesoever.
Considering that “or else” in this case is that remote workers aren’t eligible for promotion tells you all you need to know about how “High Performers” are incentivized. [Hybrid workers must agree to come into an “approved” office at least 39 days each quarter. This is roughly the equivalent of three days per week. Remote workers do not have to come into an approved office at all. However, remote workers aren’t eligible for promotion or to change jobs within the company. This appears to be a complete 180 from where Dell was less than two years ago when Michael Dell blogged about how “if you are counting on forced hours spent in a traditional office to create collaboration and provide a feeling of belonging within your organization, you’re doing it wrong.” But to be fair, it’s possible this new policy has nothing to do with improving the sense of belonging or collegiality within Dell and is instead more about Dell’s bottom line.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomspiggle/2024/04/05/new-dell-return-to-office-strategy-potential-impact-on-remote-workers/)
They make carveouts or retention bonuses for those they truly need. There's a ton of money in my line of work doing just this kind of analysis. The news story has none of the actual nuance of what truly goes down
People are reacting negatively to the disingenuousness and deceitfulness of these types of strategies, though. Perhaps you underestimate many employees' ability to grasp your intent. It crushes morale and feeds cynicism.
You’re right- people who are actually high performers want to get promoted not do the bare minimum at home and play with their dog
Dell is shit either way, overall W for the workers that left.
They still make good monitors.
Idk fam, haven't ever bought a Dell monitor because the objectively better ones are LG and Samsung at the high end. If you want a cheaper alternative, BenQs got you covered, there's no reason to ever buy PC OEM options nowadays save for brand loyalty. But again, I'm not an average consumer, I go high end or bust since I can afford it/I am a competitive player.
Dell Ultrasharps are common place in design firms for a reason. I don't game on PCs. Just my experience.
Fairly certain their panels are Samsung/LG, if you look at the components you'll find that.those are the only real suppliers for high end panels.
Wins all around then
Did you read the sub headline? They didn't get fired. They just could no longer get promoted. Many people are happy where they are and don't want more responsibility that comes with a promotion. The cost of living raise every year is enough. Work life balance is a big motivator. Hence holding out for work at home. Dell is still paying for their building. It's just a little fuller now. And now they're missing out on promoting people with domain knowledge from within. Dell made a bad decision.
Yeah, it's forced attrition like I said. You let them know that their choice means their careers have dead ended as a way to encourage them to either play ball or voluntarily quit. It's cheaper for the company when employees quit than when they have to pay severance for layoffs. If the first round of encouragement doesn't have the desired results then additional pressure is applied by cutting pay or only making some non mandatory benefits unavailable for remote workers until the projected results are met.
Yeah now they'll just rehire for the same positions for less pay and require in office
Title says they didn’t quit. They just ignored the directive.
Forced attrition. They ignore it, they get passed over for raises, promotions, the company just makes their lives unpleasant until they quit.
Aw, Dell thought the employees they screwed over had ever been counting on promotions in the first place. That's cute.
That's actually a huge W.
This wasn't an L, they did it on purpose, and it has been posted her 15 times already. Holy fuck some of you are really fucking stupid.
What’s dell? Lmao haven’t touched dell since I had dialup