>If you're a CEO that signed a lease or construction contract on any piece of property since, idk, 2015, you have, in some way, burned a lot of money on a piece of ground that could have, in many cases, been replaced with a far cheaper internet connection and suite of remote work applications.
>1) explain this bonfire of cash to the board and possibly to shareholders, which is a pretty good way to see yourself shown the door"
I don't get it? Is this supposed to be bad look for the CEO because he wasn't prescient enough to predict the covid pandemic and the wfh revolution 5 years before it happened? Given how frequent next quarters' forecasts get revised, I don't think the board expects CEOs to be that prescient.
They're not expected to have predicted the next pandemic; rather, they're expected to come up with novel ideas of how to do business. That's the point, or, rather, the justification for why just one year of one job can have them set for life. You get paid an insane amount of money - many multiples of the median lifetime income of Americans - because you make the right bets that either save the company massive sums of money, create new revenue streams, or both.
We were having "disaster recovery" days at my old employer in 2015. You found a place outside the office to attempt to do your work from, and made adjustments to make your various pieces of technology work. It worked, and the implications of it working should have been obvious to our betters.
>They're not expected to have predicted the next pandemic; rather, they're expected to come up with novel ideas of how to do business. That's the point, or, rather, the justification for why just one year of one job can have them set for life. You get paid an insane amount of money - many multiples of the median lifetime income of Americans - because you make the right bets that either save the company massive sums of money, create new revenue streams, or both.
Taking this at face value, what does that have to do with getting an office in 2015? It seems like the same "hindsight is 20/20" problem as before. Maybe the CEO was busy transforming the company to use blockchain or something. You can't expect a CEO to nail every bet. Microstrategy is (was?) doing great because of their bitcoin treasury strategy, but I doubt many boards are getting upset that their CEOs didn't buy bitcoin, even though that would arguably be a better return than not leasing an office.
> Taking this at face value, what does that have to do with getting an office in 2015? It seems like the same "hindsight is 20/20" problem as before. Maybe the CEO was busy transforming the company to use blockchain or something. You can't expect a CEO to nail every bet.
Odds are, if they were "busy transforming the company to use blockchain" they blew absolutely massive amounts of money.
Someone being payed 100 million dollars is expected to have 20/20 foresight. Ludicrous sums of money come with ludicrous expectations.
The presumption that we're all rational actors with access to reliable information is not borne out by history. Anxiety and ego trump reason every time, and those at the top are often trapped in misinformation bubbles that make them think a fire is nothing but smoke.
>Someone being payed 100 million dollars is expected to have 20/20 foresight. Ludicrous sums of money come with ludicrous expectations.
Sounds like you're more upset about CEO compensation than anything else.
>The presumption that we're all rational actors with access to reliable information is not borne out by history. Anxiety and ego trump reason every time, and those at the top are often trapped in misinformation bubbles that make them think a fire is nothing but smoke.
Except in this case, you don't even have to invoke "Anxiety and ego trump reason every time", because even someone who was perfectly rational couldn't have predicted covid 19 and the wfh revolution.
Especially since board members are typically execs at other companies. Anyone remotely competent knows that the macro changes leading to remote work surprised everyone. I just don't find it credible that RTO is about CEO's wanting to keep office leases looking like smart decisions.
If anything, it's exactly the opposite. If remote work is genuinely good for the company, a good CEO will acknowledge that and work to minimize downside from unnecessary leases.
IMO execs are often wrong about RTO, but for simple cause/effect reasons, not elaborate conspiracies to retroactively justify office leases.
> I just don't find it credible that RTO is about CEO's wanting to keep office leases looking like smart decisions.
It's not credible. It's stuff folks make up from a myopic view of the situation. I have had more than a few intimate very open conversations with executives on the topic and not a single one has stated this as a reason. In fact, many are happy to be able to cancel expensive office leases when able.
The executives may be wrong, but as a group they certainly understand sunk cost theory. Most of them are even smart enough to not to fall for the fallacy by the time they reach that point in their careers. Of course lots of self-serving myopic behavior in that group as well.
It's difficult for some to empathize that there is genuine disagreement on what makes for a more productive workforce. That an individual's performance is irrelevant - group and team performance is the metric that actually matters. One does not necessarily correlate with the other.
It's very interesting to me that folks can hold the opinion remote learning is far deficient to on-campus classrooms, but simultaneously state that WFH is good for everyone. I think it's far more nuanced - and certain types of personalities and life stages will do better in one or the other.
I've worked remote most of my career since the late 90's - I have hired dozens if not hundreds of remote employees over this time. There is absolutely a group of workers who do quite well under such conditions, and some who do horribly. And it doesn't mean the latter can't be productive anywhere - or that these groups are static over an individual's entire career. This was not a controversial opinion prior to the pandemic.
You can go further into company/team structure and communication methods as well. Some have the culture to do remote well, some do not.
In the end I'm confident the market will figure out the right mix. Companies will be punished for making the wrong choices for themselves here.
> I have had more than a few intimate very open conversations with executives on the topic and not a single one has stated this as a reason. In fact, many are happy to be able to cancel expensive office leases when able.
>1) explain this bonfire of cash to the board and possibly to shareholders, which is a pretty good way to see yourself shown the door"
I don't get it? Is this supposed to be bad look for the CEO because he wasn't prescient enough to predict the covid pandemic and the wfh revolution 5 years before it happened? Given how frequent next quarters' forecasts get revised, I don't think the board expects CEOs to be that prescient.