Overall, the analysis, released as a pre-print, found that RTO mandates did not improve a firm’s financial metrics, but they did decrease employee satisfaction.
Drilling down, the data indicated that RTO mandates were linked to firms with male CEOs who had greater power in the company. Here, power is measured as the CEO’s total compensation divided by the average total compensation paid to the four highest-paid executives in the firm.
This is an interesting metric. And the research outcome makes a lot of sense.
Also, RTO policies are garbage - but I’m stating the obvious.
The goal was not to improve company financials. It’s to justify paying rent to corporate real estate holders so the people who get rich from owning property don’t lose their infinite free money exploit.
I don’t get why this thought is so prevalent. Unless these companies are also in the business of renting the property out, it makes no sense for them to line the pockets of someone at their own expense, especially if it also costs them in productivity and employee satisfaction. Or maybe there is some bribery going on, but I’ve seen precisely zero evidence of this.
the businesses themselves aren’t renting property out, no. the shareholders and executives who run the companies and hand down these decisions, however, are frequently invested in real estate.