After reading the article Prof. Bassett sent out regarding Dell's new WFH policy, a lot of questions ran through my mind. The article essentially described Dell's backtracking on its prior pro-WFH stance, which began even before the 2020 pandemic. After experiencing the majority of its employees work on a completely remote or hybrid basis recently, the company is pushing people to get back in the office. It's either that or face a future without promotion nor ability to move laterally within the company. I have heard of other companies make such an announcement, encouraging workers to come back in the office for productivity purposes, but this sticks out to me for several reasons.
First, after Dell's CEO publicly announcing his pro-WFH stance, coupled with Dell's seeming approval of WFH prior to the pandemic, this seems like a harsh move that could have ripple effects far into the future and affect thousands of employees. For employees who don't work near an office, they will now face transportation challenges, involving time to get to work, gas costs, and maybe having to find transportation in the first place. For other employees, they may have to find childcare that they didn't need while working completely remotely. And yet, for others, if they were drawn to the company for its WFH ability, this may result in a lost allure for their role.
The pandemic has largely passed, but its effects remain. One of those effects was a change in the way we work and a greater acceptance for employees who choose to work from home (as long as they still are getting their work done). What once seemed temporary now looks more like a permanent change in how businesses across America run, and an abrupt change like this will have many negative effects and inconveniences for employees who have had the ability and have experienced the benefits of WFH and choosing when they go into the office.
I am by no means against working in the office, nor am I wholly in favor or working completely remotely myself, but I do not think a change like this should come with a threat of no future promotions or role changes. It leaves employees with almost no choice but to abide by the new rule or find work elsewhere (which as the article alluded to, may be the company's goal). Another issue I have with this, and one I may look further into, is the timeline for such a change. The article was posted this month, with a mention of the rule going into effect in May. This gives very little time for employees to be able to find childcare, secure transportation, etc. that would allow them to be able to abide by the new rule, especially for those employees working completely remotely. In my opinion, there should be a longer amount of time in between the announcement of the rule, and its implementation to account for such challenges after the last few years.
When employees leave, unless the position is being eliminated altogether, someone new has to be trained to do the work done by the departing employee. That is highly disruptive and expensive. I hope Dell's management appreciates this.
ReplyDeleteI've seen this in law firms where a key staff member sought a raise and the lawyers in the firm didn't want to pay the raise, so the staff member left. That created a cascade of problems that harmed the firm's productivity and cost far more than paying the requested raise would have.
When you are in a position down the road to hire staff and you have someone valuable to the firm's operations, keep in mind that it is often less expensive and far less disruptive to meet that staff member's salary requests instead of hiring and training someone new.
Mackenzie, I agree with every point you make. There is no reason for Dell to enforce this rule and I hope they will overturn it.
ReplyDelete