<p>Spirited discussion on my facebook about this. Haven’t seen a CC thread. I know we have quite a few ccers who work from home. I’m currently in three positions. Two outside the home, one in the home. (Yes…it is a long day). One of the out of home requires lots of email, text, calling from wherever I am. </p>
<p>Personally I am very productive at home. My SIL works for a large company from home. Has for many years. She has dedicated office space, they have weekly team meetings, lots of conference calls, etc. I know for a fact she is a very productive employee. </p>
<p>Of course, Marissa Mayer herself took only a two week (!) maternity leave. I understand she is trying to turn Yahoo around but I don’t love this policy. And if she intended to not raise her own child why did she bother having one? </p>
<p>I don’t like it, but I’d hold judgement until I know what else she is doing to make the workplace family friendly. Is there flextime? Is there on site daycare?</p>
<p>First off, my mom only took less than a two week maternity leave before going back to work two jobs and she raised me just fine, thanks. Who says she’s not raising her kid? Could she have a SAHD husband? </p>
<p>Second, I think it’s entirely possible to do a lot of work at home. I think our 8-5 M-F in a cubicle model needs to change. There are many times where it’s unnecessary to be in the office, but there are also jobs where it’s necessary.</p>
<p>I work in an office where 75% of us work in the office and 25% work from home. The work-at-homers are not nearly as productive as the work-in-the-office people - I don’t know what the relationship there is (I know, I know - correllation is not causation), I’m just making my observation. I think it’s very possible to be productive and efficient at home; I just don’t see it here.</p>
<p>My company just decided that they couldn’t be bothered renting enough space to have workers come to an office and have either forced workers home or looked for “volunteers” to work out of their homes.</p>
<p>I do buy into the idea that there is a synergy to people coming together and it helps a company to set a tone. Many times hallway conversations have led to quick resolution of problems. </p>
<p>At the same time, I do work with teams of people on 4 continents, in different time zones, from offices or home and we all make it work.</p>
<p>When I discussed with my boss 20 years ago, working from home part of the time, he worried how he would know I was working. I asked him how he knew I was working when I was in the office. The answer is always he needs to see what I produce, and then he knows I’m working.</p>
<p>I’ve found a person is either productive or not - and it doesn’t matter if they’re working from the home or from the office.</p>
<p>“The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Would we EVER ask that question if she was a he? No. Never. It’s really hitting a nerve.”</p>
<p>^^^I would and do. I think a man has just as much a responsibility for a child as a woman, and I am not at all fond of men who have 100-hour-a-week jobs and leave the kid-raising to the woman. I wonder why they had kids, and I, personally, would never stand for it. Why should the responsibility for children automatically be with the woman?</p>
<p>Well, I would not have been productive if I had returned to work after only two weeks. Bodies need to heal, for one thing.</p>
<p>Either we as a nation want to support family life, or we don’t. Our birth rate is low, no doubt in part because it is hard for people to support kids, financially and otherwise. Allowing some people to work from home at least part of the time makes sense, if the job is the sort of job that permits this.</p>
<p>I think almost any employee needs a manager to at least occasionally check in on their productivity, and if they are not productive, they need to be told so so that they can either kick it into gear or go get a more doable job. I would think that this is true whether the person works at the office or at home. Why is Yahoo paying managers manager-salaries if they are not managing their people? Why is Marissa not asking her direct reports to do that management (and on down the line)?</p>
<p>I have always detested one-size-fits-all solutions to problems, from the time that the whole class got in trouble for the misbehavior of one kid on. Managers should manage. They should not penalize the productive at-home workers just because some slack. Very disappointing news.</p>
<p>Uggh, this is SO nasty I choose to ignore it! </p>
<p>On the “working from home” question I do NOT believe you adequately care for small children while working and I believe that those who try this ruin the concept for the rest of us. I worked from home (with school-aged children) for a few years. I loved it and was very productive. If your children are young you should at least have some type of “helper” to entertain the kids.</p>
<p>I have seen this policy VERY misused and I imagine that’s why she is stopping it. Often corporations punish everyone instead of just the offenders.</p>
<p>I work for a company with a liberal work-from-home policy for those employees whose jobs can be done from home.</p>
<p>In my own department:</p>
<p>The policy has made it possible to keep a valued employee on staff even when family issues made it necessary for her to move to a different part of the country.</p>
<p>It enables several people with long commutes (an hour or more) to bring a bit of sanity into their lives by working from home a couple of days a week to decrease the time spent on the road.</p>
<p>It makes life easier for all of us when we are waiting for the cable guy/gal and others of their ilk.</p>
<p>It makes snowstorms less of a crisis.</p>
<p>And some people who see doctors or dentists who are closer to home than to the office work from home on days when they have appointments so that they can get more actual hours of work into the day.</p>
<p>On the other hand, nobody with small children attempts to work from home on days when they also have to take care of their child – for example, if the child is sick or the day care provider is sick. In this situation, the most people attempt to do is check their e-mails a few times a day. I don’t know anyone with a child younger than about 10 who works from home while simultaneously supervising their child. And that’s the way it should be, in my opinion.</p>
<p>And this is why it DOESN’T work in my office. One of our telecommuters has three children under the age of ten - and she claims that she can look after her children AND keep up with her work load because she is “so efficient.”</p>
<p>I hate work at home. <em>I</em> can get my work done from home (I was a freelancer for a number of years, so I learned how to block out distractions) but many people seem to think it means just staying within spitting distance of the computer while they do laundry, browse the internet or take care of their kids. As a supervisor, I have dealt with numerous issues related to work at home–both involving the people who have had such arrangements and those who come in to the office every day and resent those who don’t. In a team-oriented environment, I think it makes sense for everyone to be there as much as they can.</p>
<p>I suppose it depends on the nature of the job and the setup. Does work require back-to-back phone calls and follow-up emails? Is the office centralized or spread across countries? Are there production constraints that guarantee output regardless of location? Or is work done by a team, requiring collaboration and onsite meetings? Is the home set up for work? Is there a dedicated office that signals WORK! or is the person drifting through the house, doing laundry, hanging around the kitchen, etc? There are too many variables for me to make a judgment.</p>
<p>I think I get where Ms. Mayer is coming from. If you’re trying to turn a company around, the best way to impart a new company message and get a new company spirit is to concentrate it in a new community. I also agree with mathmom that it’s wise to see what else she does to make the company family and personally friendly–flextime, daycare, shuttle buses, etc.</p>
<p>I don’t care if we’re discussing a male or a female, but I don’t think anybody should have kids if they aren’t going to take some time to raise them properly. If Ms. Mayer has a husband who is willing to put in the time, then go for it. But if she’s simply producing children to be raised by hired help, then spare society and concentrate on your career.</p>
<p>^Your statement is insulting both to working parents and to loving, qualified caregivers. At what point would you be satisfied with the amount of time birth (or adoptive) parents give their kids? Can you actually claim that parents who are home with their kids a lot are more capable of “raising them properly”? (And according to what standards do you make this claim?) There are good and bad parents in every imaginable situation. I don’t see the need to impugn Ms. Mayer or anyone else here.</p>
<p>"Of course, Marissa Mayer herself took only a two week (!) maternity leave. I understand she is trying to turn Yahoo around but I don’t love this policy. And if she intended to not raise her own child why did she bother having one?</p>
<p>The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. Would we EVER ask that question if she was a he? No. Never. It’s really hitting a nerve."</p>
<p>Yes. Why would a discussion about a policy decision by a CEO have anything to do with the way she raises her child? That is completely irrelevant. Sure that may be a decision that most of us wouldn’t make, but so what, it is her choice. Extraordinary to me that if she was a man, nobody would have even mentioned this. Because she is a woman, it is constantly talked about. Jeez, next we’ll be focusing on what she wears and how she does her makeup. </p>
<p>I guess we haven’t come a long way after all, baby.</p>
<p>She says "We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together”- well is that going to preclude Sunnyvale working with people at another location? What are they going to do about their outsourced services- those aren’t physically present. </p>
<p>The simplistic nostrum of physical presence doesnt stand up. </p>
<p>Neither does productivity. If someone isnt productive and isnt meeting goals, then <em>that</em> is the issue, not where they are physically when they are under performing. Even if you that they could be a boost from an in office presence, disallowing even 1 and 2 day a week teleworkers is silly. </p>
<p>Its not like Silicon Valley commutes are negligible- I wonder if this is a backdoor attempt to reduce headcount without having to do buyouts.</p>
<p>Who says nobody would have mentioned it if it were a man? My reaction would have been the same had it been a male CEO who thinks raising children is unimportant and had kids with no intention of either he or his wife spending any time with them.</p>
<p>“Who says nobody would have mentioned it if it were a man? My reaction would have been the same had it been a male CEO who thinks raising children is unimportant and had kids with no intention of either he or his wife spending any time with them.”</p>
<p>No offense, 3bm, but I’m not buying that. </p>
<p>If it was a male CEO, you wouldn’t even think twice about when he went back to work. You wouldn’t know, it wouldn’t be news. What about presidents who have babies and small children in office? Bother anyone at all? Nope, because they are men. If these were women, it would be a constant attack.</p>
<p>I haven’t heard this CEO declare that, “raising children is unimportant and that she and her husband have no intention of spending any time with them.” That is your own assumption. How about all those women that are in the military and have babies? Let’s impugn them too. They get a short maternity leave, and could get deployed at any time. Makes Marissa Mayer look like a stay at home mom in comparison.</p>