March 1, 2013
by Lisa DeAngelis
0 comments
This week there has been a great deal of debate over whether Marissa Mayer was right or wrong to eliminate Yahoo’s work-from-home policy. Having followed much of the discussion, and read the internal memo, I remain confused. What is the issue that Yahoo is solving for? Is it productivity? Is it morale? Is it innovation? Is it a lack of communication and collaboration? Is it issues with speed and quality? All of these are mentioned in the memo and in the ensuing debate. And yet, few if any of these are resolved by enacting a dictum of “face time.” Let’s take a moment to look at each issue separately.
Productivity While the commentary on the announcement focused on “productivity,” the actual memo spoke of “speed and quality.” Effectively these are the same. Is the organization (and the individual employee) delivering what they said that they would deliver, when they said that they would deliver it? As noted in many of the commentary on this decision, much of the research indicates that employees who are allowed flexibility in their work location are more productive. Employee productivity is less a function of proximity than a function of setting clear expectations and managing to them.
Morale Based on the comments from current and former employees, it appears that the morale issue centers around (a) individuals abusing the work-at-home policy and (b) lack of communication and guidelines regarding the enactment of the policy. How does it help morale to issue a drastic, across the board edict that punishes those who are productive when working from home?
Innovation I firmly agree that innovation happens through collaboration. I disagree that the only way innovation happens is when people physically see each other. The following is an excerpt from Regina Dugan’s TED Talk from March 2012.
“Last September, the gamers of Foldit solved the three-dimensional structure of the retroviral protease that contributes to AIDS in rhesus monkeys. Now understanding this structure is very important for developing treatments. For 15 years, it was unsolved in the scientific community. The gamers of Foldit solved it in 15 days. Now they were able to do so by working together. They were able to work together because they’re connected by the Internet. And others, also connected to the Internet, used it as an instrument of democracy. And together they changed the fate of their nation.”
I would think a company such as Yahoo would not only advocate for innovative on-line tools that allow for the type of collaboration described above, but also lead the way in creating them.
Communication and collaboration This, to me, is the root of the issue; though not in the way intimated in the memo. If Yahoo is looking to create a culture of communication, they missed the mark in the way they chose to deliver the message. Why not bring the affected population together, explain the decision, and engage them in the plan and communication?
There is never only one answer to an issue. Whether or not eliminating the work-from-home policy was the right decision for Yahoo will be determined in the months to come. In the interim, it seems they’ve learned an important and very public lesson regarding the way that they chose to convey it.