Richard Branson wrote:

'To successfully work with other people, you have to trust each other. A big part of this is trusting people to get their work done wherever they are, without supervision. It is the art of delegation, which has served Virgin and many other companies well over the years.'

and that is at the heart of Mayer's action. By her own admission, and supported by plenty of other evidence, this culture has failed at Yahoo, and the number of Yahoo employees who are WFH and not delivering on their committments to Yahoo has now reached a crisis point.

She's responding to a failure of management lower down in Yahoo, that has allowed this situation to arise. She can hardly be expected to assess each and every Yahoo WFH employee and decide which is doing the job and which isn't, but she has to stop the bleeding somehow and get the management issue sorted. It's actually a gutsy move, that shows she's prepared to buck the current management fad du jour, admit there is a serious problem, and take the unpopular decisions. Good for her.

Nobody's saying that WFH is a bad idea, generally. Branson describes exactly what is required to make it work. It's just that that is not how it's working at Yahoo right now, and Mayer is willing to address that. That's what a CEO is for.

llater,

llamas

Most folks don’t have the discipline required to work from home effectively. How crass to second guess the CEO of a successful company.

'To successfully work with other people, you have to trust each other. A big part of this is trusting people to get their work done wherever they are, without supervision.'

And therein lies the rub. How many times have you trusted someone to do something for you, and they didn't come through? And when someone isn't really held accountable the first time, or gets a pass for one reason or another, they're going to take that as a given. Me, I know I can't work from home effectively, there are too many distractions. I know I can do it to a point, but I wouldn't be giving it 100% of my attention, and my work, thus the company, would probably suffer for it. But, see, I can admit it. There are many others who either can't or won't, and they don't see themselves as being part of a problem.

I'm with Mayer on this one. Much learning comes from casual interaction with, or being able to go over and tap the local guru on the shoulder. This doesn't happen when they work from home. It might be possible, but depends on the time constraints of the work.

How about this for an example of what can go wrong: You need someone to do something NOW, and he's on his boat. The guy puts in his time, and gets results. Explain this to your boss.

I work from home and love it. That said, I work in software development, and I've seen how having geographically dispersed staff negatively affects the outcome. It's not about not trusting people or them not being available (on the contrary, all the work from homers are ALWAYS available), rather you lose a certain indefinable synergy from having people in the office around a whiteboard or able to just pop in. For software development teams, that can really impact the work.

Look at the credits for a Harry Potter movie.

There's no way all of those people saw each other, but if you have a common goal, you can get it done.

If work is less important or pleasant than play, then play you will. This is obvious.

My husband has worked remotely for the last 10 years. It works because a) he had already worked for the organization in person for 3 years so everyone knows him; b) he is efficient and productive; and c) he spends a week out of every 6 back at the office to keep the face to face interaction up.

He is getting tired of only having the dog for company during the day and is looking forward to a change.

I can see Meyer wanting to use this move to reestablish the right work culture and then relax the requirements later.

A few comments. Sometimes working from home works, sometimes it doesn't. This depends on the employee, the job, and the other members of the team. If any one doesn't work well with a telecommuting person it will be less efficient.

A second thing to point out she is coming fro Google, which has a very different lifestyle. There the company made working at work so much "fun" most employees don't leave at 5, but stay extra shifts. The company becomes their life and they don't have a life outside of the company.
A different philosoph, do you want a job you can do at home or a job you like so much you never want to go home.

Good Morning America this morning had a protracted and inane story on Mayer's dictum at Yahoo. They tried mightily to generalize what is happening at Yahoo to the world at large, and failed miserably. Even Mayer said this was done for Yahoo at this time and given Yahoo's current situation.

Why do the idiot media always go right to the "there is one best way for everyone to do everything" attitude?

Only one thing can explain the sarcasm and fear that Marissa has wrought into the hearts of would-be telecommuters: The Emperor's New Clothes. They're naked and they know it.

The creation of wealth is NOT a fashion.

Listen, nobody particularly wants to look at your ass, OK? If they're insisting that you come into to the office to see things getting done, it's because your productivity indices aren't high enough.

If you're productive enough, you can work wherever you want... And if some "backward" manager can't appreciate your brilliance, you can go work for her competitor.

Good luck out there, Dr. Sweatpants.

> Why do the idiot media always go right to the
> "there is one best way for everyone to do
> everything" attitude?

I think that's a really silly thing to say. First because media are insane, throwing darts in all directions, and it's telling that you're offended by that one. Second because the tendency of bosses not to trust their employees to work without supervision is the oldest expression of commercial insight in human history... The one that lead, early in civilizations' ferment, to slavery.

I mean, People, get over yourself.

Richard Branson is the boss at his company, just the way Marissa Mayer is at hers.

His rules may not work at her company. And vice-versa.

Both Google and Apple have cut back or eliminated the telecommuting option. I think Mayer is looking at their success and wants some of it for her own floundering Internet behemoth. As for losing "valuable" employees, I'd say that's one of the reasons Mayer is instituting this policy -- to get some people to quit.

I have heard many people speculate it is to get people to quit - a hidden layoff.

There also from what I read lots of Yahoo employees who almost never go into the office. Many too far to even reasonably drive to a company office.

My personnel experience has been that not having people in the same space reduces many things. At one point my team all tele-commuted one day a week (Wednesday). That worked well...generally we got more done on the tasks that didn't require much interaction on that day. Once you need to start doing much interaction, remote working really hurts. Though I did notice if people worked a lot together (established a good relationship) then remote working was not as much of a negative.

> I have heard many people speculate it is
> to get people to quit

Well Golly, if a huge trove of talent is released into the marketplace, then competing firms will snatch it up immediately, right?

Again again again: Talent write its own ticket.

alittlesense asked:

'Why do the idiot media always go right to the "there is one best way for everyone to do everything" attitude?'

Well, in this case, it's quite simple.

'Working from home' is a sacred shibboleth of some elements of the feminist movement, who hold the view that women are naturally superior in every possible field of endeavor, and the only reason they do not completely dominate every facet of the working world is the outdated adherence to work-life conventions which are biased against women.

WFH has been overwhelmingly pressed forward as a solution for working women, that allows them to work while still enabling them to fully indulge their other life choices. Note that WFH is only an issue, or an option, in the fields of work that white, middle-class women overwhelmingly favor, namely, office, white-collar and 'creative' work. The waitress at Applebee's can't WFH - but who cares about her?

This white, middle-class feminist worldview requires, therefore, that WFH be seen as the normal and necessary standard in all places and all fields of work (that they care about) and therefore, any suggestion that it is anything other than a wonderful, positive force for good must be resisted at any cost. Whatever happens, it cannot ever be seen to be, exactly what Ms Mayer has confirmed that it is at Yahoo - a cause of reduced productivity. For years, the proponents of WFH have been telling us all how it means that people get so much MORE done - now we find out that, in this major case at least, it has resulted in a whole lot LESS getting done. Can't have that, can we?

And since the mainstream media is completely in the tank for any and all white, middle-class feminist issues (since it's packed with white, middle-class feminists), the reaction was completely predictable - and doubled-up, since Marissa Mayer is a white female and is therefore percieved as a traitor to the sisterhood. If the CEO of Yahoo had been a white male, it would have been easy to demosnize him as an uncaring plutocrat chasing evil profits at the expense of the dedicated working women of Yahoo. But because she is a female, and a working mother, no less, her decision must be resisted at all costs.

Like I said - it was a gutsy move. It confirms that she is well-placed as CEO of Yahoo, since she is prepared to speak the unpleasant truth about a popular system that's beloved of feminists, and which she might have been expected to personally favor. Good to see that she cares more about the stock value than about political correctness. Good for her.

llater,

llamas

Mayer has a nursery next to her office for her child.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284828/Yahoo-boss-Marissa-Mayer-angers-employees-building-nursery-baby-office.html

That should be "nursery for her child next to her office." The office is not for her child.

uh, kevin? Branson OWNS the damn company...
Seen this before, a number of times.

When someone new comes on board, they think they need to show tough, to establish dominance.

I think she is VERY MUCH showing it the wrong way, in a distributed technology company, but time will tell if she ends up running yahoo into the ground.

But. As pointed out by Conan... she doesn't model good behavior by bringin' her kid to work, when she doesn't allow anyone else to.

Essentially the behavior she is showing is that: "I can make exceptions in everything I do, because my farts don't smell..."

She'll loose her talented people, and burn the company down with the rest, and surely land on her feet...

So she has a nursery for her child next to her office? (some reports say it was constructed at her own expense, but that doesn't actually make any difference). So what?

I'm sure she has an admin to handle day-to-day tasks for her, and a driver to drive her. Does that mean every Yahoo employee should have their own admin, and their own driver - because she does?

The 'nursery next to the office' means that she made arrangements for childcare that do not interfere with her duties as CEO of Yahoo. She's doing exactly what she now wants the employees to do - she made arrangements in her private life so that she can show up for work. The fact that she's very rich simply makes her arrangements a lot more convenient. Good for her.

If her employees want on-site childcare, like she has, then let them organize and pay for it. I'll wager that Yahoo would provide free on-site space, and would probably subsidize it as well.

This idea that the CEO of a company must have the same working conditions as every other employee, or somehow it's just 'not fair', is totally ridiculous. That CEO is worth a hell of a lot more to the company - the stockholders - than almost any other employee, and anything that maximises her productivity is not only desirable, but prudent. Her job is to maximise stockholder value, not play equality games with the staff.

llater,

llamas

Admittedly tin foil hat angle: Richard Branson owns my wireless carrier (yeah I'm a cheap ass with a pre-paid plan) and an airline. His business model would be well served by me telecommuting and living two states away from headquarters.

Aww, the exec can't show off her gold Rolex to the drones if they're not coming in to the office to kiss her ass and compliment her suit and shoes.

Looks like she has two choice: (1) embrace the new technology that saves her company millions in overhead, exhibit real leadership, and take the company to its next brilliant iteration, or (2) micromanage everything into the ground.

Nine months to a year and she's gone, and Yahoo can start over yet again.

If they're still around.

Yahoo is so messed up--I'd say she's trying to get rid of deadwood and figure out what to do next. Google has very few work at home types. And if you've got little kids and no nanny or partner, you're not really working at home. And she paid for her own nursery.
I work at home, but I'm always able to dash into a client's office if needed, but then, I don't have little kids. When I did, I had a nanny.

If these people are all that valuable to Yahoo, they're already working in the offices.

I'm an executive in a successful, though far smaller than Yahoo, tech company. The entire company is distributed rather than centralized and only the business office and contracts people keep regular office hours in our office suite.

All of my technical staff and developers work from a home office, as do I. It is true that some discipline is required, and you do miss the coffee pot camaraderie of a regular office, but I would put our productivity up against anyone's. Technology keeps us in touch and on the same page. I find that many things go just as well over the phone or via email, though our team does meet in person every month or two to do some brainstorming on projects. We really only have two rules. 1) you must answer and return phone calls. 2) project and development deadlines must be met. Otherwise, I don't particularly care what hours people work unless they are doing some sort of designated support. Actually, I find that I regularly work more hours than I am nominally supposed to, as do my developers. Probably because it's fun, and partly because they are free to take care of personal business as needed rather than thinking in terms of days off. Like I said, they're a high productivity bunch.

I've never taken Yahoo or their services very seriuously, and in some ways am surprised they're still around. However, I'm pretty sure something other than what has been reported in the press is going on. It remains to see whether the new CEO will be successful. I would bet on no, but your mileage may vary.

By the way, the screed in the comments about working from home being a feminist meme was hilarious. Pure comic genius!