Is RTO a Mandate or a Perk?
Uneven enforcement of what is supposed to be a rule can breed resentment amongst your workforce.
One of my favorite sources for white-collar workplace trends comes from your waspy uncle’s favorite source for financial news. The Wall Street Journal put out another article on RTO about how it’s being unevenly enforced and driving a bit of a potential teacher’s pet phenomenon within the workplace. We tackled this on the newsletter when Starbucks’s new CEO Brian Niccol was technically a remote employee despite his insane compensation and a mandate for the Seattle coffee overroaster’s rank and file.
It seems this “rules for thee and not for me” attitude has, unlike Reagan’s economic policies of the ‘80s, trickled down to more junior leadership and even some highly favored junior employees. This sows division within the corporate structure and becomes a distraction from the ultimate raison d’etre of these companies: productivity that translates into shareholder value.
RTO For Some
Before getting into the Journal article, I need to shout out Ray Smith over at WSJ. When I open the app and find out he wrote another article on RTO, I’m like a cat who smelled the catnip container getting opened - I drop everything and give the piece a read. Smith’s reporting has provided a lot of good reactionary LinkedIn content and even posts on this very newsletter, so thank you for staying on this beat, Ray. And in the wildly off-chance you’re reading this, I owe you a drink or three.
Enough love for MSM journos - the article had a lot of good insights from employees burned by RTO mandates at companies where it appeared to be selectively enforced. Some star employees get to remain remote or hybrid while others have to subject themselves to a soul-sucking commute just to get micromanaged in a dystopian open office plan. It’s no surprise, then, that this can build resentment - a fatal flaw when trying to create a productive professional team.
And the thing is, dear reader, is that I have advocated in the past for a tiered RTO structure based on things like performance. When RTO was inevitable at my company, I harangued anyone who would listen that if we had to have a mandate it should be based on teams hitting their numbers. Let those teams who make targets quarter after quarter have the autonomy of a high-performing team; clearly they must be doing something right.
And for those who would complain? It’s like when a pitcher gets irrationally angry when an opposing player pimps a home run - the best way to not get angry about it is to not give up a home run. The same attitude can be applied to misbalanced RTO amongst teams at the same company: instead of getting upset about another team getting hybrid privileges, hit your numbers and enter the same echelon.
Wait, So You’re For RTO Favoritism?
Let’s be clear, while I have an ego it is not so large that I cannot change my mind when presented with new and compelling evidence that challenges a firmly held belief. I work in data and analytics and I love empirical studies and it’s how I try to guide my decisions - if someone else has already analyzed something, backed it with data, and put it out there, why wouldn’t you follow that? And if someone comes with a better argument and better data, why wouldn't you change your mind on it? It’s essentially the foundation of this thing called science - a rarity in today’s America.
However, dear reader, this is not one of those times. Firstly, I don’t favor RTO mandates at all. I think hybrid is probably the most efficient way to work, but I think mandating when and how people come in is infantilizing employees and removes the all-important autonomy teams require to do their best work.
That said, if RTO mandates are inevitable (and unfortunately that’s where we are today), then implementing them by team performance makes the most sense. In the same way you don’t mess with a shooter’s form while he’s on a hot streak, you don’t mess with a productive team’s chemistry in the middle of good performance.
But that’s not what the corporate world has done. Instead, they came out of the gate hot and told everyone to get in the office, that the days of working from home in sweatpants was over and it was time to be adults again. They now cannot go back and selectively enforce it, as the original message was meant for everyone, not just low performers.
So now it looks like favoritism and inherent unfairness as opposed to a perk of being a good employee. The Journal article dives into RTO being used in this way - a retention tool for high performers to stay at a company where they may not get the same benefit somewhere else.
And again, this is a fair practice (and one common in the corporate world), but imagine if a company gave everyone a bonus, and then took those bonuses away from people who were underperforming - that’s what they’ve done with RTO; make everyone come in, and then quietly not enforce it for some favored employees. In the bonus situation, there would rightly be mutinous under- and overtones in the rank and file. Why would leaders expect anything different in this kind of selective RTO situation?
Perks vs. Rules
This is where leaders need to be very clear about RTO. Or any perk, really. If something is truly a perk, it is earned through either seniority, performance, or both. It is not a rule selectively enforced, but more or less part of someone’s compensation package. It also tends to not be widely advertised to everybody, but only to those in the know - for example, until I was sniffing an SVP position I had no idea what was required to fly business for work until I found myself in a position where I was entitled to it. A single-digit row was open to everyone who met the requirements, not selectively given to favored employees. And until I met those requirements, I was boarding zone 20 way in the back on the treasured MD-88 (the 90 if I was lucky) on the LGA-ATL route.
Unlike a perk, a rule is something everyone must follow that is widely advertised to an entire workforce, with the understanding that it is a requirement of employment. It’s not something that some employees can follow while others don’t need to worry about (outside of ADA considerations where applicable, of course.) RTO mandates fall under rules, as opposed to perks. Hence the whole “mandate” language companies have attached to RTO.
Mixing rules and perks will confuse employees, and lopsided enforcement or granting of either will breed resentment. The RTO debate has been a fraught one from the start, but the unforced errors being made by leadership of companies - between its ham-fisted implementation, to the selective enforcement of it (or reintroduction of it as a perk for good employees) - will only make it worse.
Zooming out, all of this is insane given that RTO - from data we have today - does not make a difference one way or another. In other words, wading into the RTO battle can only hurt a company if done poorly and drive higher attrition, and it will not make a financial difference if done expertly.
Grab Bag Sections
WTF Mavericks: I don’t like the Mavericks. I really don’t like Kyrie. I hate on Luka, but only because I see him as a threat and I actually find him a lot of fun to watch - but not to the point where he can act as a foil against my Celtics. So while the excuse of “His conditioning sucks” certainly rings true, the trade of Luka Doncic to the Lakers for Anthony Davis makes less sense than letting a spoiled billionaire into key payment systems of the US government.
But it all makes sense when you dig into the “mastermind” of the trade. Nico Harrison is the GM of the Mavs and there’s an infamous story of why Steph Curry ended up going with UnderArmour and a big part of it was Nike and Harrison’s presentation to the generational shooter. It included a photo of Kevin Durant and calling Steph by the wrong name. This time instead of messing up a Powerpoint, he just ruined a guaranteed decade of Dallas contention in the West.
Album of the Week: Last week we dove into hip hop that had an emotive aspect - this week we’re cranking the emotion up to 11. As part of the reader survey (that not a ton of people took, but I’m not bitter), it was pointed out that this newsletter tends to have a bias towards male artists. While I haven’t broken down the numbers, a quick glance at past AOTWs confirms this anecdotally. So at the advice of *Borat voice* my wife we are digging into one of her favorite albums from early womanhood: Alanis Morissette’s third studio album Jagged Little Pill.
Let me tell you, dear, reader, if you felt any of the above post was a bit sharper than my usual ones it’s probably because I had alt-rock/post-grunge near perfection blasting through my Ultimate Ears Wonderboom 2 (have I mentioned we need sponsors?) this past week. This album is an absolute trip, and it has helped explain a lot about the mother of my children.
One thing I was pleasantly surprised by was how much of the album I actually remember hearing getting radio play when I was in middle school. Out of thirteen tracks on the album, six of them were released as singles and did well on the charts. All of the songs on the album are quite good, with “Perfect” speaking to the perfectionist in me and “Head Over Feet” being a very interesting juxtaposition of lyrics about falling in love over grunge guitar.
But we all know (especially Uncle Joey) that the standout is “You Oughta Know.” The anger, the lyrics, the composition. With Navarro on the guitar and Flea on bass, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better late-90s grunge all-star cast for a single track. Give JLP a spin this week - it matches the current national mood for most of us, and you can avoid a 25% tariff on this particular Canadian export.
Quote of the Week: “People work for money but go the extra mile for recognition, praise and rewards.” - Dale Carnegie
See you next week!