There has been a lot of talk about +Marissa Mayer pulling back on Yahoo's Work@Home program and canceling out all work at home employee's off-site privileges. My gut reaction was that she was going backwards, not forwards, in how employees where treated in modern work environments.
As far as a change agent for women and families, I think she's fallen down on the job after less than a year. No matter what a person's choice regarding marriage / partnership or children is in conjunction with having a family, I strongly oppose any employer standing in the way of that choice. I feel it unjust that 'singles' (without spouses or children) get pulled into longer hours or promoted more fluidly than their coworkers with families. I hate the discrimination that men or people with families may make more money for the same job as 'they are the breadwinners'. I especially loathe work environments that put their own needs above the well being and life balance of their employees for the sole reasoning of control and order.
Then I thought about it. My view is strongly biased because I consider myself highly undesirable to hire. Oh, I'm a great talent when it comes down to my area of expertise(s), but I would make a horrible cube farmer (employee). The idea that large companies such as Yahoo or Zappos that most would think are progressive are actually implementing some pretty radical rules to force creativity and comradery is disturbing. Okay, let just say that it honestly did not occur to me that every single employee in a company would be doing less than their absolute best at their job. As a solo business owner, I have no choice but to be the best – or better than the best – 110% of the time. My business depends on it. Employees can (sometimes) fade into the woodwork and slack off much more when entire companies are not riding on their work alone. SMB owners do however, have this burden of having to always be brilliant and over-productive.
So let me just say that maybe Ms. Mayer is heading in the right direction with recalling all the work from home positions. According to this Harvard Business Review article, there was some research done to determine the top 250 producers (in whatever metrics they used) and the work at home people didn't rank high at all for contributions to the company. Considering that Yahoo is currently in the crapper (yes, that's a technical and financial term – grin) there would be need to pull everyone back to the mothership (in the office) where morale and productivity could be monitored better.
When companies and employees consistently produce quality I see no reason to restrict or dictate their work environments Yahoo is not really quality right now.
The one thing that grinds on me is that media – and maybe Ms. Mayer – seem to be considering that she's trying to mimic the successes Google had by implementing the same rules.
She will not duplicate Google's success, products, services or future path. I sincerely hope for the sake of the Yahoo employees that she has a plan outside of "do what +Sergey Brin does".
She's becoming the Dragon Lady of Silicon Valley in my opinion, which in the end might not be such a bad idea. I just hope she doesn't burn down too many bridges in the process. She has the potential to ruin it for the rest of us women.
Embedded Link
Marissa Mayer Is No Fool
Like any good leader, she knows who creates real value, and how, in her company.
Google+: Reshared 4 times
Google+: View post on Google+
+Lynette Young Sometimes working from home might give people that lack luster I can wear my pajamas to work mentality……Business's want people to take pride in their work and be accountable
+Sheila B. DuBois I realize that now too. While I have become very proficient working from home or my own office for the past 16 years, I realize not everyone has that discipline I think that's why I see a lot of people 'in transition' (out of work) that decide entrepreneurship or small business ownership is the path for them. It takes a kind of discipline much different than from succeeding in a corporate environment.
Knowing you . You do take pride in what you do and you dress to show it when I have seen you in hangouts… which I haven't see you do in a long time 🙂
She has a point…in having people go into work. If she is the Dragon Lady, she is the only female in a position of that power. We need to support her…women are getting fired right and left in Silicon Valley. If the company a year from now is mega productive and innovative, people will say…wow, she is forward thinking. If she pulls a Carly Fiorina of HP…the company went into the abyss as a result.
Being that she came from Google (employee #20 I believe) & helped build Google to the successful powerhouse it is today, she would be smart to take a few pages from that rule book & implement them at Yahoo. It was probably the reason she was hired at Yahoo in the first place.
Anyway, I don't believe she has an issue with work at home employees as a whole, just the one's that aren't doing their jobs at Yahoo.
Yahoo is going under and new leadership – by a woman or man – will not make a difference. All this decision will do is accelerate the rush for the exits as the better employees look around and realize that they will never have the opportunities that even "median" employees had in terms of work/life options.
Yahoo got teh stupids when they dropped Google as their search engine and while I still have an email account there, I no longer actively reference it or visit it…When GMail got IMAP for free accounts, I switched and never looked back.
+Matt Harmon I rarely check my Yahoo account either.
I think Mayer is out of touch. Additionally, she has never had to ever actually do anything original. She has had a charmed life.
I can see your (new) point but it still doesn't sit well with me. I don't know all the details since I'm not there and can infer what I want from reading the memo and various articles, but if it is as rigid as it sounds … well, unhappy workers aren't productive either. In a way I hope this helps her and her team be successful but not at the expense of work at home positions across the board.
+Lynette Young I work from home permanently now, and while at first, I did wear my PJs, that novelty wore off quickly. I view my ability to work from home as a privilege, and one that I can lose if I'm not pulling my weight. I think that mindset actually has me working harder at home than I ever did in the office. That said, I miss the office camaraderie. It's lonely at home by myself all the time. It takes discipline and maturity to do the work from home thing right.
I do think Marissa Mayer is making the right move though. I doubt that I'd have this privilege if my employer was in the financial crapper like Yahoo. I think she's getting all hands on deck, which is what they need right now.
No doubt about it, this is a 1 step forward, 2 steps back movement
To paraphrase Peter Drucker, you have to work within the culture you have.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the company is already on life support and she's trying to bring it out of a coma. I very seriously doubt she (or anyone else) can.
Like most first to market players, Yahoo rested on its laurels for too long and got run over.
Her best option would be to shop around for buyers (perhaps some of her colleagues from Google?) which may be why she's making an attempt to make the culture more compatible with potential merger candidates. That is probably her only pathway to assured success.
I mean really, a company with a logo that still looks like it's from 1997 (with what sounds like a culture to match) is going to compete in today's market? Against Google and Facebook? (Which is pretty much the sector they are in, at the moment.)
Where's Rupert Murdoch when you need him? (Or at least someone who is as stupid as he was to buy MySpace for $580 milllion.)
I think from a business perspective, this is likely to be a smart move long term. It will not be easy and there will likely be some growing pains. I don't think "too big to fail" is a good strategy and she knows it. They need to get lean and operate with more discipline to remain competitive. They're the underdog and frankly perks are a privilege not an employee right. I understand people's thoughts that you have to maintain competitive perks to keep people happy, but I don't think those are the only reasons smart, talented people choose to work for a company in general.
Yeah. People work for self-esteem and glory or something.
Sorry. People work for money and as much else as they can get. In Yahoo's sector, this decision is just another statement that they are not prepared to compete.
They aren't a start-up any more. When an established player begins to sputter out, the road back to competitiveness is long and narrow. Palm, for example, never really recovered. Apple nearly died (I would argue that when Jobs returned, he basically re-launched the company as a very, very large start-up). Sun was another first to market player. The auto industry in the US did actually die for a few weeks, until the government intervened.
It would be interesting if she could manage to re-launch the company a la The Return of Apple. That would be very interesting, in fact. But the more mundane slow die off or merger seems more likely.
I agree with +Matt Harmon. Not sure this is such a good move.
However, IMHO a good employee not only works for money, but has a goal for the company it is working for in mind. This means that good employees really tries to make a difference to improve the company they work for. They do not go to work only to do the minimum accaptable work, go, home, come back the next day… and feel like they´re stuck in routine. Good employees need to be trusted that even at home they would be as productive or even more productive for the company as they would be in the office.
Don´t get me wrong… I do not think employees should work at home every day. Meetings if possible should be done face to face, questions should be asked face to face, etc… However, if an employee has a bad day, or has a day planned to work on a paper it needs to finish… I believe the responasbility on whether to work at home or in the office should be the employees.
Of course… not all employees are good employees, and a bad employee does not mean the person is bad at its job… So it is quite a complicated issue. HR revolves all around the person, and the individual, all employees are different, and have their specific needs, background etc. I just can´t agree on forbidding something which might actually help productivity, and increases trust.
I love working at home, but I think greater creativity comes thru collaboration, something that work at home can inhibit.
I think there are some good points made here. It really depends on how strict they are going to be with the policy. Are they prohibiting all work from home completely or are they willing to give the employees one "flex day"? Being located in a congested city area, working from home cuts down on commutes, which can ease employee frustration and actually give them more time to be productive. Are they willing to let employees work earlier or later hours to compensate? What other things will they implement to increase employee satisfaction?
As an example – my wife's company – a large company – generally does not allow working from home. They manufactures goods, and as such even office staff have to be on hand most of the time when there are issues to be hashed out. However – she's an accountant. So it's not like a lot of her work can't be done from home. So – last week when we had an electrical problem in our home – and someone had to wait for the electrician – she worked from home. The company does not have an issue with it in these kinds of circumstances. If a child is sick and you're staying home with them, if you need to be home for a service call, etc… These are things that working from home allows.
When I first read your post, I took it as a bit condescending toward those of us that aren't SMB owners, that work for companies and are so-called cube farmers. The idea that our jobs aren't as demanding or require the best of us is sometimes true. However, to succeed and rise within a company, a good company anyway, takes a large amount of discipline for the grind, commitment for it to be for more than a paycheck, a bit of creativity to bring innovation to your job, adaptability to adjust to ever shifting corporate winds, and a good dose of humility to work well with others and effectively build relationships and influence. It's still challenging, and for those that don't find it so, maybe they're not going anywhere, maybe they're in a poor company that promotes based on seniority or politics, or maybe they're just not in the right career. The biggest difference isn't in the level or quality of work; there are plenty of bad, lazy SMB owners out there, and their businesses, while they last, show for it. The difference is risk. With some companies, you can find a slack job and sit your time until you retire or the company folds. You can't do that with an SMB, although some have tried. To do well in either world generally requires 110%. Don't sell the working class short.
Nothing like good old fashion crack the whip!
If you are involved in competition against the big players, you cannot afford to drop the ball in any way. Yahoo is having difficulties that Mayer inherited by choice. She knows the Google climate, attitude, and is a change maker. Don't give up on her yet…she may even return Google search or go into joint venturing with them…anything is possible. It is too soon to tell…and she is more than a tough competitor. She, of course, could also leave them because the staff she inherited are not like the Google staff she was used to working with. Google makes it so comfy for you at work, YOU NEVER WANT TO LEAVE. How many employers do that? Ba ha hahahahah. Stupid employers start cuts everywhere they shouldn't. They cut the comfiness, if any (gyms, free lunches, etc., etc.). Then they cut at the bottom and work up…downsizing, giving hard workers more work…in some instances, they are doing the work of 3 people. And the CEOs? They get rewarded, they get perks, options and salary increases for their stupidity, lack of effort and innovation and driving the company into the ground. Real logic there. The morale is destroyed and R and D and innovation is defeated because the worker bees don't have time for it doing the job of 2 or 3 additional people. It's the old paradigm which is outrageously counterproductive, against John Nash's theories which were better than Adam Smith's, causing economic downturns left and right and part of a collapsing corporate structure that looks for ways to cut everything and has brought this country down in revenues as that mentality has sent them overseas for sweat shop workers and the Caymans…instead of investment in R & D for a better, more competitive product. .Google is intuitive…innovative AND HAS ESCHEWED THE OLD MODELS OF THE TRADITIONAL PARADIGM. GOOGLE "IS" THE PARADIGM. Mayer came from that. She will employ that whenever she can…this is a beginning. Anything said against her could also be said in apprehension. Competitors would love to see her fail…they don't want more competition. She is assertive and in these war games, she is edgy and smart and innovative…and she is a woman. It takes very strong men to admit that a woman has what it takes to compete against them…and best them. What man wants to be bested by a woman in business??? in politics??? in anything??? It's not fair as square, it's got some latent, mythic, horror connected to it that frankly is beyond me. Whatever it is, it makes viewing women competitors besting men (the potential for that) as something completely loathsome for men (I am not saying all men, just the ones with women issues…the older men of the old paradigm). For them, it's like back to sissyville and women as friends? OMG what would the old boys think? Too bad. Women should be looked at as warrior equals that can enhance, help and strengthen everyone's position for the better. I must be insane…sorry for the rant. I'm going out for coffee. 😉
"When companies and employees consistently produce quality I see no reason to restrict or dictate their work environments Yahoo is not really quality right now."
This. Times a million. That is all.
I think this is going to cause the good employees to leave.