As I was reading the news over the last few days, Yahoo's CEO's edict fairly jumped out at me. A woman - and new mom - had reached the conclusion that telecommuting arrangements were bad for the business and terminated the telecommute policy company wide.
What startled me even more was reading some of the comments on the article - many from bosses and business owners - that completely supported the decision. Some stating baldly that this was her right as a CEO and if the workers did not like it - too bad.
Before beginning my diatribe, let me first state that I am completely FOR telecommuting for those jobs which can be done from home. In fact, I have telecommuted part time for over 25 years. For the last 7, I have worked from home full time. I am a single mother of two children and a database administrator. My co-workers have been remote from me (Atlanta GA, St. Louis MO, Fairfield CA, Dallas TX, etc) since 1998 - all require a telephone call regardless of whether I am in an office or at home. The only difference is the telephone number my co-workers have needed to dial.
I have been through several ups and downs with telecommuting.... not available, available only in dire necessity situations, not available, available with permission from the president and the Pope, available....)
In the early 1990's in our state, it was a politically astute thing to support telecommute arrangements. Car pooling and Van pooling to save the environment was a focal issue. The company I worked for made HUGE and amazing inroads into making this functionality available wherever possible. They even had some of our call center positions set up for telecommute. It worked - WELL!
Several things contributed to the success of this program. The attitude of the majority of the workers who were allowed to telecommute was that of workers who had been given a HUGE benefit and appreciated it. Many hourly employees worked longer hours - without charging. Salaried employees were happier and more willing to do the off-hour work. (Just because its expected doesn't mean we LIKE it!). Profits went up. Morale went up. Productivity went up. Due dates were not missed - in fact, many projects came in ahead of schedule and under budget. Sick time went WAY down.
Yes, we had our share of people who abused this gift. There are always people who will be paid for doing absolutely nothing. This is true whether they are in an office or at home. When they were caught, they were appropriately disciplined - first and foremost by having their telecommute privilege terminated, and in some cases - they were simply terminated.
In 1998, our company was swallowed by a larger 'fish'. Telecommute arrangements were terminated completely by the 'swallowing fish'. From that point, thru today, it has been an up and down thing determined by the wind direction.
All this history (and my bias) presented, let me begin my tome.
______________________________________
The first point I will address: Why would a web corporation with a global presence terminate one of the biggest perks to come a technology workers way since the dawn of the computer?
From a business perspective, this does not seem, at least to me, to be a healthy move for the corporation. It certainly is not the way to attract or retain talent. It also leads to overhead as the company now requires a desk space for each person (as opposed to desk-sharing, or "hotel" desks - vacant until needed). It seems to me that it is highly likely that the talented individuals will start casting around for other ships to jump to. Certainly, those that CAN jump ship will be the ones with the talent - logically. So, while there may be no layoffs, the individuals left will be either those whose financial or home situations are significantly adversely impacted by transitioning to another job/corporation AND/OR those who, while good, are not the "Best of the best". These will stay - however, not happily. Unhappy employees - especially those who are forced back to the water cooler - will frequently utilize that water cooler time to air their unhappiness - as opposed to collaborating on the newest deliverable.
This also significantly limits the potential hiring pool - when one does hire, ones choices are limited by the commute. If, for example, the corporate office is in Fairfield, California - I cannot hope to attract talent from Atlanta, Georgia or Hartford, Connecticut. This is true even with a 'moving' allowance. The reason? If I sell my home in GA, I will not be able to purchase a similar home in CA because the housing market is vastly disparate. This is a concern that has been voiced by many a CEO - the inability to find the talent and education needed to fulfill certain positions.
I do believe this edict will solidify her position among others in positions of power. By and large, corporate positions of power are predominantly male-held. Coincidentally, the holders of these positions of power are also predominantly against telecommuting. Among the "good old boys" - CIO's, CFO's, CEO's, COO's at the top of many corporations - there are many who have paid 'lip service' to telecommuting depending on whether it was politically the correct thing to do or not. When we were up in arms over the skyrocketing prices of gasoline, allowing telecommuting was a politically astute move. Now that we have 'settled down' and seemingly accepted the outrageous prices at the pump, there is no political wind blowing in the favor of telecommuting.
Is this a good move for her career? In the short run - perhaps. She runs a tighter, more controlled ship which ascribes to the "warm body in chair = work" theory of management. In the long run? I truly believe this will do more harm to Yahoo as a whole with the more sublime talent jumping on-board for Yahoo's competitors.
And as morale spirals downward, so too will the corporation.
With multitudinous people competing for the few available jobs, this is the correct time to enact such a measure. But, as with everything, the worm will turn yet again.
____________________________________________
I have also read that this same woman was having a daycare room built right next to her office to accommodate her child. This is the second thing I would like to address.
As a working mom, this is a HUGE insult to me. First, you have terminated the very BEST perk I could possibly have to assist me in balancing the two major priorities in my life. And then you have your child in a room right next to your office - yet my child must go to a daycare. These actions do not inspire loyalty or drive. They do not provide incentive to be the best that I can be at my job. This action by a superior also does not inspire my respect. This action inspires derision - a very unladylike snort, if you will, of abject disgust.
For the parents whose primary career is being a parent, with a secondary
career in an office, this will make an already difficult balance to maintain an IMPOSSIBLE one.
This is nothing less than a return to the days of owing your soul to the Company Store. Disrespect for the worker of the very highest order.
Many say "This is her right as a CEO". True enough. As a CEO - she can do absolutely anything she chooses - as long as she keeps her Board of Directors and shareholders happy (profitable). But, I submit for your consideration, this thought. Is this a good leader? Is this a leader that underlings will follow? Will give their all for? Will speak highly of and respect? I think not. Does this speak well of the teamwork necessary for a solid future? I think not.
An honorable person will do their job - all that they are paid for. They will even do it well. However, what many will NOT do is - well - anything they do not absolutely HAVE to do. Deliverables will be delivered. But will they be as good as they could be? Outstanding? Innovative? Probably not.
As a mom, I was very disappointed with her choice to return to work so quickly after birth. I do NOT believe that one can do BOTH perfectly. Yes, in the last 30 years, we careerwomen/mom's have learned to let our houses go to some degree. We don't beat ourselves up (really hard anyway) because someone drops over and there is still the morning's dirty coffee cup in the sink or the Sunday paper is still scattered all over the floor. But, we DO beat ourselves up over a missed recital or football game. We know that we have to make choice - some that we don't want to. Miss the recital or a due date.... And we are ok with the missed recital (barely) because we know that if we miss the due date, there might not BE another recital (due to terminal funds-a-low-a because of lack of a job).
Mom to mom, I cannot and do not look up to nor admire her choices.
_________________________________________
A little more about telecommuting for all the nay-sayers.
For every one teleworker that goofs off, there are hundreds that go above and beyond.
If you are a teleworker, you HAVE to be disciplined and dedicated. You have to set core hours for yourself. And you HAVE to be AVAILABLE. That is the down side of telecommuting. The lines of the work day blur - you have to accept that. Do not expect to turn your PC on at 8am and turn off your PC at 5pm precisely. More often than not (if you are a good employee), you won't. But, the flexibility to do a few loads of wash or put a nice roast on the table (and folks, if you think EITHER of these things takes time or is a distraction - then you aren't doing it right) - is well worth the workday blur.
Internal chats - use them. Every company has some form of Instant Messaging available - use it. In my current position, my team has a team chat going 24X7. We use that chat just like we were in an office together. We throw ideas around, we teach, we learn, we inform, we collaborate to solve problems. We can share each our screens with each other. Yes - we do occasionally throw some idle non-productive water-cooler chit chat about kids in there. We aren't robots - we are parent's and people. Most of all, we are a TEAM. I've only met ONE of them in person - but we are as much a team as any I have ever worked on.
