I’ve seen that theory a lot, but I just don’t think it’s actually all that common. Layoffs are layoffs, but the common thing about layoffs is they are usually calculated to cut the worst performing employees and go up from there.
A forced RTO policy is going to be unpredictable in who stays and who goes
The thing is, these decisions are made at a level that doesn’t much care for the distinction. Mid-level managers know who the good workers are, and in regular layoffs they’d be making decisions about who to lay off. But even before that happens, top-level executives have decided how many to lay off, and it’s not much of a concern to them who specifically goes.
Same with RTO constructive layoffs. They estimate a certain percentage will quit, reducing their cost base. There’s not much more thought than that.
How to do lay off people without having to fork out severance pay.
I’ve seen that theory a lot, but I just don’t think it’s actually all that common. Layoffs are layoffs, but the common thing about layoffs is they are usually calculated to cut the worst performing employees and go up from there.
A forced RTO policy is going to be unpredictable in who stays and who goes
Even worse, mandatory RTO selects for employees who have no choice but to stay. The talent will bail out.
also it guarantees that everyone starts using working hours to apply for jobs instead of doing their work.
The thing is, these decisions are made at a level that doesn’t much care for the distinction. Mid-level managers know who the good workers are, and in regular layoffs they’d be making decisions about who to lay off. But even before that happens, top-level executives have decided how many to lay off, and it’s not much of a concern to them who specifically goes.
Same with RTO constructive layoffs. They estimate a certain percentage will quit, reducing their cost base. There’s not much more thought than that.