As a headcount reduction measure it usually means that the people that stay are the ones that are not good at what they do, so they can't find another jobs.
The good ones have more opportunities, so they don't take the BS and leave for better working conditions.
An alternative is those that stay are more “under the gun”, whether it be due to having dependents or still needing to make a reputation for themselves. It’s simply a bet that the product/service you are selling will still keep selling* in sufficient amounts.
The larger the organization or more monopoly/monopsony position it has, the more these kind of games can be played.
*if not for money, then sufficient political capital such that you can win the next election. Or maybe you have a goal other than winning the next election.
The current administration doesn’t want a well run government. This has been the end goal of Republicans forever. Besides, any needed replacements will be those who kiss the ring. Loyalty is far more important than competence.
I havent seen any data that shows the people who RTO and "stay" are bad at their job. I think low preformers are going to get RIFed either way if they RTO or not. Those who RTO easily will generally be the employees who are already geographically close to the office, satisfied with their job, and see future career opportunities.
The good ones already have had the opportunity to leave all along, and if they are good enough, they may be able to set up a home based position. Maybe government roles do not need high performers at scale like the private sector does.
>I havent seen any data that shows the people who RTO and "stay" are bad at their job
Who would pay for a study like that? There's little chance it would yield positive results, and would likely just serve to cause embarrassment for the funder of said study.
Pay for a study? It would likely only be possible to do these studies at a company level, where there is enough sample in the headcount. There are plenty of People Analytics teams that exist on large F500's that would tackle a project like this.
> Maybe government roles do not need high performers at scale like the private sector does.
As a taxpayer, I respectfully disagree; as someone who wishes the government was more efficient, I disagree; as someone who complains about poorly thought-through red tape and bureaucracy, I disagree; as someone who cares about enforcing regulations that set minimum floors on the safety of our food, transportation, and drugs, I disagree; as someone who cares about the money poured into basic and applied science research without expectation of profit, I disagree.
what suggests that's the criteria that will be used for any RIF? seems to me that if you are a low performer but toe the party line that you will be safer than someone that is seen as rocking the boat and constantly pushing back.
People that I meet that don't share this kind of feeling and are not impressed at all by the complexity of the mundane are very disappointing to me... sorry, but it's a way I have to judge people very quickly
I used to think this line of thinking was a bit elitist¹, but I find that I also get a bit depressed by people who simply don't look up at birds. It could just be a lack of eyesight, but I find even with people great eyesight, just wont look up, and I perceive it as a general lack of any curiosity about the world around them.
1: and it is elitist to a degree, if you believe these people will never develop the interest. I live in the knowledge that they will, and that we're all late bloomers in some certain respect.
I was once standing at a bus stop when I heard the sound of a large radial engine. Looked up to see a Lockheed Constellation flying overhead! Not a single other person standing at the bus stop or walking past looked up.
This is a global website that operates on the World Wide Web. Even if the main language of the content here is English, what is "foreign" to you might not be foreign to others.
