9 ms·
It appears there were at least some insiders who agreed that there was a lot of dead weight [1]. What I wonder is who's budgets these people were on? Shouldn't
by Paul-ish 11y ago
It appears there were at least some insiders who agreed that there was a lot of dead weight [1]. What I wonder is who's budgets these people were on? Shouldn't it be in some organizational unit's interest to cut people who are not productive, regardless of where they work from?
* [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-yahoos-confess-marissa-mayer-is-right-to-ban-working-from-home-2013-2 http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-yahoos-confess-marissa-may...
- mgkimsal 11y ago> Shouldn't it be in some organizational unit's interest to cut people who are not productive, regardless of where they work from? Well... if you have, say, 80 people working for you, and you discover 15 are dead weight... cutting them would mean you can do your division's job with 65 people. You wouldn't have any room to argue for budget increase. That's a cynical view, but one I've seen played out a couple of times over the years in my travels.
- aetherson 11y agoFiring people is emotionally taxing. That's honestly probably 85% of the reason why shitty employees can keep their jobs. Managers hate firing people and most will procrastinate endlessly if that option is available.
- throwawayaway 11y agoThis is great news, I'm saved!