Remote Work is Officially Dead, Says the World's Largest Recruiter (fortune.com)
- Reference: 0180446009
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/12/23/1836252/remote-work-is-officially-dead-says-the-worlds-largest-recruiter
- Source link: https://fortune.com/2025/12/23/remote-work-dead-3-days-office-new-norm-ceo-worlds-biggest-talent-company/
The equilibrium appears to be settling at a hybrid model of three to four days in office for most workers. Van 't Noordende noted that apart from some banks in major cities, the five-day office week isn't returning as the norm despite hardline mandates from companies like Amazon and JPMorgan. Korn Ferry predicted this "hybrid hierarchy" at the start of 2025, forecasting that flexibility would become a perk reserved for top talent. At some companies, high performers are already being offered flexible schedules as a bonus while mid-range employees don't get the privilege, the Wall Street Journal reported.
[1] https://fortune.com/2025/12/23/remote-work-dead-3-days-office-new-norm-ceo-worlds-biggest-talent-company/
These people are ghouls (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a matter for these snobs if you are actually more effective with WFH, it's a matter of how hard they can make you dance to clutch back pieces of your own freedom that are likely already enjoyed by the same C-suite fucks who want to lay these dictates for everyone else.
Re:These people are ghouls (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget that they also have investments in office space that they are keen to justify.
Re: (Score:1)
> investments in office space
Were you attempting to say "expenses?"
Re: These people are ghouls (Score:5, Interesting)
"The C-Suite that you rail against is entirely profit motivated."
You're not wrong, you're just thinking small. That is, not like a member of that clan of jackals.
They are worried about THEIR personal profits, they don't give two fucks about any given corporation. And if you do, you're stupid, because corporations don't have hearts or souls and are literally not capable of caring about you.
As long as they come out looking competent, they will be able to get a job at the next corporation, and secure THEIR profits.
Re: These people are ghouls (Score:2)
Not sure if ifs leftist so much as the bleating of aspies being forced to endure the horrors of actually being in the same room as other humans. Because their brains are missing a crucial piece of functionality they simply dont understand how social interaction works or its benefits for most people so they think it's some kind of conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3)
> The C-Suite that you rail against is entirely profit motivated. They don't care about your freedom, or crushing your dreams, or even knowing that you exist. They want maximum profit.
Profit motivated: yes. But it's their own personal profit, not the company's. This means they may make some dumb decisions if they feel that they will personally benefit from them.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the worst rackets I've ever encoutered, and I've encountered it at multiple companies, is the whole board salary thing.
The way it works is this;- Say I have some shitty acronym-as-a-service startup, no path to profitability, not even a minimum viable product, but lots of buzzwords. Seems like a way of accruing a lot of debt with no way to pay it off. Well.... Retirement funds to the rescue! It doesnt matter if I'll never be a good investment, as long as I can offer investors a $250K "job" on the boar
Re: (Score:2)
> They have the numbers to prove that, for their company, WFH isn't as profitable as in-office.
No, they don't.
> The C-Suite that you rail against is entirely profit motivated.
No they aren't. They are human beings, and as such, they have many motivations including emotional and outright irrational motivations, including their own sense of pride and power. Furthermore, they suffer from ignorance and cognitive distortion just like all other humans, so they are driven by many false beliefs about what will maximiz
Re: (Score:2)
> You can be a princess and throw a tantrum all you like, but the facts of the matter is that WFH is far more inefficient for most positions than having your employees in the office.
> Point of fact, this behavior right here is one of the major reasons inoffice positions are preferrable ( from a productivity standpoint ); the childish nonsense is more acceptable in a WFH environment than in the office.
Your two paragraphs contradict themselves, princess.
Re: These people are ghouls (Score:2)
There are so many useless and incompetent people in the corporate world, and they all had a collective emperor has no clothes moment. Folks like these hate WFH because they fold under the raw and non-negotiable pressure to get work completed. They're only competent at jawboning and backstabbing their way through their career.
Re: (Score:3)
> WFH is far more inefficient for most positions than having your employees in the office.
While being able to walk across a room to get an answer to a simple yes/no question instantaneously may be more efficient, having to wait several hours -- if not days -- to receive the same answer makes one feel like they really earned the answer. One needs a sense of accomplishment.
(plus there's no challenge doing one's job at 9am after a good night's sleep. Doing it at 3am ripped on weed and adderall is far more interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey there AC, you seem to be confused about the difference between the words "fact" and "belief."
You believe that WFH is inefficient for most positions, but the available evidence show otherwise. Therefore, your belief is not a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a matter for these snobs if you are actually more effective with WFH, it's a matter of how hard they can make you dance to clutch back pieces of your own freedom that are likely already enjoyed by the same C-suite fucks who want to lay these dictates for everyone else.
It's to make sure you're not a [1]North Korean [slashdot.org] trying [2]to steal [slashdot.org] company [3]secrets [slashdot.org].
[1] https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/12/18/2026202/north-korean-infiltrator-caught-working-in-amazon-it-department-thanks-to-lag
[2] https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/05/10/0656226/how-a-simple-question-tripped-up-a-north-korean-spy-interviewing-for-an-it-job
[3] https://it.slashdot.org/story/25/01/24/1851209/fbi-north-korean-it-workers-steal-source-code-to-extort-employers
Money in motion (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Article written by staffing agency
2. Staffing agency gets paid for recruiting and placing new employees and contractors with a company
3. Staffing agency "reports" that worker location changing from WFH to the office
4. Turnover of staff due to WHF to office transition
5. Staffing agency gets more places to profit from this WFH to office move
This is the staffing agency "talking its own book" and promoting "money in motion" again.
No "money in motion", or stability with little change means all the companies who profit from change cannot make those profits.
Re: Money in motion (Score:2)
Yup. Exactly that. Self-promotion. That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, how many high-functioning professionals are getting placed via staffing agencies? Or am I just being obtuse by assuming "staffing agency" != "head hunter"? Like, I'd go to a staffing agency if my data entry staff needed a half-dozen temps for the holidays, I would go to a head hunter if I needed a new Senior Developer. Of course those two different "types" of workers are going to have a bigger delta between wfh and wfo performance.
Quality of work (Score:5, Insightful)
Several studies have shown that remote workers do just as good a job as in-house. Whatever metrics were used, no significant difference was found. But they found that management tended to do less well. Their metrics were down slightly. Mainly in helping the employees training for better jobs.
I have a conservative friend that thought this was bullshit and talked about a friend that he claimed took advantage of work from home to work less.
He was wrong. He was seeing the guy during the day, walking his dog. But the guy ended up working longer hours to make up for the mid-day walks.
But even if he was right then that lazy guy should NOT be sent back to the office; he should be sent to the unemployment line.
Working from home is also essential for certain disabled people. A blind person can get to work - but it might take 20% more time. There own home could be much easier to deal with. Do not get me started on wheelchairs and navigating work.
This impacts quality of life tremendously and does affect your qork.
Re: (Score:2)
Great point on data. Part of the disconnect is that managers perceive soft value.
In my individual experience - managers thrive on soft power - being in office and navigating conflict they themselves create. Running around heads on fire, highly visible, but low output of any kind. I'm not saying this in ragey tone - C level folks don't produce anything, not even powerpoints as they have folks doing all that work for them.
The skills and status they worked very hard to attain were less valuable in a remo
Re: (Score:1)
If for whatever reason managers and owners value ass-in-seat (AIS) more, why don't they simply offer a bonus for AIS jobs? They could pay maybe say 5% less for a full WFH employee. This would increase hiring choices. Right now The Suits don't care because the job market is slow, they mostly get what they want, but eventually the AIS bonus will probably become the norm.
Photo accompanying article is AI generated (Score:2)
They couldn't even find a real in-office employee to photograph.
Butts in seats.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've become convinced that there are simply two types of management out there. One type is comfortable with the idea that an employee or contractor can get work done from anywhere. Physical location is irrelevant in a world where we have high speed Internet plus tools like overnight shipping/delivery. The other type tends to run businesses where physical presence is key to the core of the business model. (EG. Transportation or Logistics companies, where the meat and potatoes involves people who show up. Trucks go nowhere without their drivers, and boxes don't get unloaded or loaded if dock workers aren't there to do the work.) It's difficult for some of the later group of execs and middle managers to wrap their heads around the idea that they can remote mange somebody who is getting just as much work done for them as if they were there in person, able to be watched.
And in all fairness? I've been on both sides of this, and been pretty frustrated with co-workers who work 100% remote and just don't stay focused on the work I'm stuck handling because I came into the office. So some blame needs to go to the people who want to work from home because it lets them slack off. They didn't do much to preserve a standard of allowing WFH.
Ultimately though? What I've observed is that management types really just prefer having their people come in to a central office because it's more comfortable/easier for them that way. If the keyboard or mouse suddenly stops working or their OneDrive stops syncing, they can just demand so-and-so walk over to their desk to assist them with it. They like that a lot better than scheduling time with some remote worker to do a remote session in to their PC, or to be told, "You'll need to go round up some batteries for that keyboard." instead of making some I.T. deskside support guy change them out. If they ever feel compelled to hold an impromptu meeting, they can just walk over and demand everyone meet them in the break room in 15 minutes. You're a captive audience for them.
Re: (Score:2)
> If the keyboard or mouse suddenly stops working or their OneDrive stops syncing, they can just demand so-and-so walk over to their desk to assist them with it. They like that a lot better than scheduling time with some remote worker to do a remote session in to their PC, or to be told, "You'll need to go round up some batteries for that keyboard." instead of making some I.T. deskside support guy change them out. If they ever feel compelled to hold an impromptu meeting, they can just walk over and demand everyone meet them in the break room in 15 minutes.
These scenarios that you cite result in the worker getting back on task, and not slowing the corporate output, much sooner than the WFH scenario where they have to schedule a time(next day?) and are unable to function for an extended period of time.
You have literally proven, with your own "counter argument", that the overall efficiency of the company is increased when "you're a captive audience" in-office.
Need to see and influence (Score:2)
A different take.
There are people who are used to influence, charm, direct or order people. Those people want to see the effect of their own interactions in person with subordinate employees.
Remote work and meeting via video conference call removes many of the social advantages of attractiveness, charm, and ability to intimidate via title, physical size, and verbal ability.
Nonsense (Score:2)
I'm involved in two companies after leaving Intel.
Everyone works remotely. There are no office costs to pay. We meet online.
If you're starting a company today and you want to be free to employ people for their skills rather than their location, this is the way to do it. Subscribe to one of the many online conferencing services and get to work.
Gee, I had no idea ... (Score:2)
... that I was so special (eye roll).
Or, just maybe, you aren't counting everybody, just large companies.
*WRONG* (Score:2)
"You have to be very special to be able to demand a 100% remote job," van 't Noordende told Fortune.
That's a load of bullshit, and shame on Fortune for not calling him out on this CEO's fever-dream of workers huddled at desks in a big, ugly office. He *wishes* it was going away, but it's not.
Remote work is not going away, it's actually increasing, and nothing some shareholder-glazing CEO says is going to change that.
Which country is this talking about? (Score:3)
Apparently, I am a high performer (and all my colleagues are), because we are full time remote workers.
Re:Which country is this talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
Checked with HR. Turns out that in your case, it has more to do with your hygiene than your talent.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is true for all my colleagues too? if so, why would there be a hygienic problem at all?
Re: (Score:2)
And if I am so foul, why would my company rather keep me and my colleagues employed, albeit remotely, than just hiring officable people?
Re: Which country is this talking about? (Score:2)
So you work for a Russian troll farm? I'd be worried about getting automated away with Comrade AI. LOL
Re: Which country is this talking about? (Score:2)
There's some kind of magic in lower income countries that makes them immune to remote work productivity issues
Re: (Score:2)
The same magic that makes unproductive people suddenly become productive when standing in a different building , rather than just being properly monitored for performance.