Top talent has options. Others are hesitant to leave where they are comfortable.
It is hard to tell if the bourgeoisie fail to see what the real impact of moves like killing off WFH are. Or if they do see that impact but it doesn’t matter as much as us worker bees think it does.
If an engineering company loses their top brass, how long can they go without a real impact to the bottom line? Are the top folks the ones causing expensive change? Or confusing lower level employees? Does having top folks around inspire others to be better or make them feel inadequate and less efficient?
Maybe losing top performers isn’t permanent and you need to cycle through some of them here and there to make more money.
I hate all of this but I’ve watched a company seemingly purge their top performers with bad policy change again and again. There is no way they didn’t see a mass resignation coming.