Steve Maller / Flickr
Working Together… From Home
The news that Yahoo—under the direction of CEO Marissa Mayer, a brand new mom herself—will revoke employees' work-from-home benefits vigorously renewed America's ongoing discussion on work-life balance. Mayer was hired, at 37 years old and five months pregnant, to turn Yahoo around, and if the Yahoos (what employees call themselves) are slacking off from home, then perhaps this is a wise move.
When rival company Google was asked how many of its employees work remotely, CFO Patrick Pinchette said: "As few as possible. There is something magical about spending time together."
I believe God himself said something similar way back in the beginning. God's declaring Adam's aloneness "not good" didn't only apply to sex and procreation. Surely the "magic" that happens when humans work together in Gardens of Eden or Valleys of Silicon had something to do with God's creating a mighty colleague for Adam.
We were made to spend time together, to work together. To put it churchily, we were "created for community," and that community includes our work. We were made to brainstorm and share and build and collaborate. We were made to come alongside and carry each others' loads and challenge and soften or sharpen each other, depending. And I believe God smiles when this happens and that more often than not, good things—or "magic" if you will—come from this God-ordained working together.
And yet, as much as I understand Mayer's decision and as much as I agree with the magic of spending time together, I wonder if she and other opponents of working from home are missing out on a more comprehensive understanding of what "working together" really looks like in the 21st century.
Working from home for the past 11 years saved my sanity by allowing me to use and stretch my non-mom gifts in the daily grind of motherhood. Aside from its sanity-saving benefits, working from home has budget-saving perks too. And I won't lie: it's wonderful being able to enjoy the flexibility to dash out to volunteer at school, to be home to wait six hours for the plumber, to not panic on snow days. It's for these reasons I thank God for jobs that come with the at-home option.
The ability to work at home has not only been good for me financially and mentally, it's been good for me as a worker. As much as I love my colleagues and in-the-flesh meetings and brainstorming sessions, as much as I love the serendipitous hallway chats that lead to bigger ideas and all sorts of "magic," truth be told: I do my best work when given time and space to be alone.
Auditing America's Political Integrity
Stay Sexy or Else? Well, Please Forgive These Mommy Hips
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Pinterest
Comments
Adam Shields
@Janet, My point is that this is about poor management of resources not working out of the office. If you are not going to fire people that don't work, then you are not going to fire people that don't work regardless of where they work. Maybe this makes sense in your industry, but this does not make sense for a software and webbased company like Yahoo.
JANET W
Well, it's not hurting their brand with me. I fully support holding employees accountable for their actions. And I'm not sure if you've ever been in management before -- but it's really difficult to just "fire" someone nowadays. First, you've got to realize that unless there's documentation (and a history documented), firing just doesn't happen in a company that size. Secondly, if a person is marginally productive but in a key position, it's not like you can just replace them with some "yahoo" off the street. If there are projects that are mid-process, changing personnel mid-way through a project can be devestating. There's always lag time when you have to fill an open position, as well. So, say you immediately filled the position, you've still got to do orientation, etc. Plus, I don't know how great a PR move it would be for Yahoo to fire all those people given that there's such an uproar about merely making them come to the office and work.
Adam Shields
@Janet W, But why is this being blamed on those that work out of the office. By your numbers how are the 1% affecting the 5% that are in the office unduly? I fully agree that those that work outside of the office can sluff off. But so can those that are in the office. By all accounts that I have read this is about management, not about the actual working out of the office. If you can't fix the 5% that are in the office already and not working (again by your illustration) then what makes you think getting the work outside of the office people in the office will make it better? There are industries that working outside the office just doesn't work (you can't fix a washing machine remotely). But software development is one of those industries that is perfectly designed to work remotely. If people are not working, fire them. But that does not seem to be what is going on here. To me this appears to be yet another bad move by Yahoo to further hurt their brand & marginalize their company.
JANET W
Adam, It's naive to think that those 2% (whose pay, work output, and expected contribution to the company we know nothing about) aren't part of the issue. As a business-person myself, I can testify that if 2% of my employees aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, it can drastically negatively affect the other 98% who may be working very hard but whose jobs are seriously negatively affected by the lack of performance of their co-workers. But let's say that even half of those who were working from home are slacking off (1% of my work-force) and let's say that I've got another 5% at the office who are doing the same thing. One easy fix for the 1% is to get them into the office so that I can monitor their performance. As for the other 5% who are already at work but not contributing -- I'll have other initiatives that I'll apply to them (that probably wouldn't make headlines).
Adam Shields
It is ridiculous to think that 2% of the Yahoo workforce that works from home is responsible for the decline of Yahoo. A company that has been in near continuous decline for the past decade. Work at home staff are a scapegoat that will do nothing to turn the company around. If 15-20% of the workforce worked from home, maybe she could claim a problem. If 2 percent work from home, then it is either about scapegoating or about poor management of staff.
JANET W
A business that is failing will absolutely look at ways to tighten up. And, yes, this means evaluating productivity and making adjustments. If these 200 happy employees were working diligently at home and productivity was up, then there wouldn’t have been a reason to make a change. Obviously, being happy at home, in this case, didn’t necessarily equate with increased productivity. I’m not sure why it was necessary to bring up the fact that the CEO is a new mom. She didn’t decide that, because of her new mom status, she should work from home. I think that, as a business, it would be much better to have an on-site daycare than 200 employees watching their own kids at home while trying to work. How much better can a person concentrate while managing small children at home than at an office where they have a dedicated cubicle or office, free of children interrupting? We have to remember that a business is able to compensate and retain employees only as long as the company is still in business.
Tim Fall
Together does take many forms, and in God's kingdom that togetherness nowadays seems to take form through bits and bytes as well as face to face. As you say, for us introverts this can be invigorating. Cheers, Tim ( timfall.wordpress.com )
*