Something is rotten in the state of Apple

Apple recently announced a set of (rather large) retention payments for some engineers. (I assume that these are senior engineers.) The payments are in the form of restricted stock units which vest over a four-year period. Apple is making these payments to prevent employees from leaving for other companies. It's not clear, but these appear to be one-time payments. (That is, this is not a new, recurring payment to employees.)

This is not a good idea.

If employees are leaving Apple, that is a problem. And the problem has two (for this post) possible causes: employees are unhappy with wages, or employees are unhappy with something else.

If employees are unhappy with wages, it is quite likely that wages are not in line with other companies. If that is the problem, then the correct action is to adjust wages to competitive levels. A one-time payment (even spread over years) will not fix the problem.

I tend to think that Apple's wages are competitive.

If employees are unhappy with something other than wages, then a monetary payment does not fix the problem. Employees could he unhappy about many things: working conditions, opportunities to work on fun projects, opportunities for professional growth, political involvement of the company, or projects deemed unethical by employees. (And more!)

Monetary compensation does not fix any of those problems. The problems remain, and the unhappiness of employees remains.

I suspect that in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, Apple requested (demanded?) that employees return to the office, and a number of employees -- senior-level employees -- refused. Not only did they refuse, they refused with "and if you make me return to the office, I will leave Apple and work for someone else". (This is all speculation. I am not employed by Apple, nor have I spoken with any Apple employees.)

Apple has not one but two problems.

The first problem is that employees are leaving, and Apple has addressed that problem with bonus payments.

The second problem is that Apple thinks this tactic is a good one. (They must think it is a good idea. Otherwise they would not have done it.)

Payments of this type must have been discussed at the highest levels of Apple. I suspect that even members of the board of directors were consulted. Did anyone object to these payments?

In the end, Apple decided to pay employees to address issues that are not related to compensation. It is the wrong solution to the problem, and it will probably make the situation worse. Bonus payments were offered to some employees. The other employees will resent that. Bonus payments vest over four years. After the last payment, employees who were given these payments will see their compensation drop significantly. They may resent that.

Apple has a problem. Retention payments don't address the underlying issues. Is Apple addressing the underlying issues? Possibly. (Apple would not advertise that.)

Let's see what happens at Apple over the next year. I expect to hear about changes in the organization, with the resignations of several senior executives.

I also expect that Apple will continue on its current course for its products and services. Those are sound, and have a good reputation with customers. I see no need to change them, other than the typical improvements Apple makes each year.

After BYOD comes BYOO

Folks are concentrating on the "bring your own device" (BYOD) change in the workplace. I'm looking ahead, to a possible next change: "bring your own office" or BYOO.

The idea of BYOD is simple: Instead of companies supplying computing equipment to employees, employees purchase equipment. Instead of supplying employees with iPads, for example, let employees purchase their own tablets (iPads, Android, or Windows) and provide them access to the needed data and apps.

BYOD is one of a number of changes that shift responsibility from employer to employee. Other changes include company-funded pensions (replaced with employee-funded 401-k plans), company-funded medical insurance (replaced with employee-funded insurance), and company-supplied training (replaced with employee-selected and employee-funded training).

I see BYOO (bring your own office) as another step in that sequence. With BYOO, the company does not provide the office to the employee. Instead, the employee makes arrangements for his own workspace. This may mean a home office, or it may mean a co-working space, or it may mean s shared hotelling space in which workers rent a cubicle, desk, and office equipment.

BYOO is possible for people who can work without being in a specific physical place. Some jobs require physical presence: waitstaff, assembly workers, plumbers, etc. Many jobs, especially IT jobs, can be done remotely. Analysis, design, programming, and testing can all be completed without physical presence.

To implement BYOO, one needs the types of jobs that are "remotable", coupled with the equipment to make it possible. That could be as simple as a cell phone, a laptop computer, and an internet connection. (And possibly a quite place to work.) We have the technology today.

We may not have the psychological ability to implement BYOO. If managers need to see people sitting at their desks to believe that they are working, BYOO is not possible. Remote work is possible only when managers trust individuals to complete their work without immediate supervision.

One other prediction: the acronym BYOO will *not* be the one people use. I don't know what it will be, but it won't be BYOO.