This article suggests that this is a win-lose scenario.
It's a win for the workers and the economy at large, but a loss for employers.
However, it might very well be a win-win.
While the employer might lose a worker to an entrepreneurial venture, isn't this the sort of self-selection out that leads to a more engaged workforce overall?
Retaining those employees, who would really be doing something else, by introducing more friction through an in-office policy seems like a recipe for low engagement and mediocre business impact.
I was thinking the same thing. Plus, treat people well enough (salary, benefits, work you assign, etc) that they want to stay. IE, as a manager, part of my job is to ensure my employees feel challenged/stimulated, satisfied with their comp plan, etc. If they aren't they'll go elsewhere (start their own, or jump to CapOne/Amazon/some other big tech company in DC).
While the employer might lose a worker to an entrepreneurial venture, isn't this the sort of self-selection out that leads to a more engaged workforce overall?
Mmmm..
I don't know man?
Be careful with this line of reasoning.
Someone, say, an employer, might be forgiven for concluding from your line of reasoning, that not allowing for remote work in the first place then leads to a more engaged workforce overall. Since remote workers are more entrepreneurial, they'd self-select out by not taking the job.
It's a win for the workers and the economy at large, but a loss for employers.
However, it might very well be a win-win.
While the employer might lose a worker to an entrepreneurial venture, isn't this the sort of self-selection out that leads to a more engaged workforce overall?
Retaining those employees, who would really be doing something else, by introducing more friction through an in-office policy seems like a recipe for low engagement and mediocre business impact.