4 ms·
It doesn't seem that any of the people who left were remote workers. I mean--maybe they had felt some solidarity with their remote-working coworkers--but I susp
by peterevans 11y ago
It doesn't seem that any of the people who left were remote workers. I mean--maybe they had felt some solidarity with their remote-working coworkers--but I suspect that Yahoo's problems run a little deeper.
The company promised a turnaround that hasn't happened. The people leaving largely seem to have been in positions to have a strong sense for when and how such a turnaround would come to fruition--and their actions suggest to me a lack of confidence.
I do agree that the memo didn't really help the company in any notable way. Whatever it could have helped was surely more than offset by what it could have--and did--hurt.
- bad_user 11y agoBanning remote workers may not be the catalyst, but it may indeed be a valid symptom . When that memo happened I actually thought to myself that, hmm, that doesn't seem to be the kind of company I'd like to work for. And now along with this story, the first thing I remembered was that memo as it left a pretty strong impression over me. And don't get me wrong, I understand why some companies may want people to always be present in office during business hours. But what bothered me the most was the tone, because that memo was a threat against people that, for better or worse, probably helped build Yahoo and made it what it is today. In other words, the morale of employees could have been affected by such decisions. And unhappy employees in the creative sector are not productive employees. So you could say that they missed the turnaround. But what if they missed that turnaround because of how things are managed internally? It's not that far fetched.