3 ms·
So why was step 1 canceling the policy and not eliminating the dead weight? I stand by my earlier statement: the WFH policy should never have been cut and it s
by iaw 11y ago
So why was step 1 canceling the policy and not eliminating the dead weight? I stand by my earlier statement: the WFH policy should never have been cut and it sent a horrible signal to potential employees. Why didn't she hold accountable both the shirking employees and their managers who let them get to that point?
She made a knee-jerk reaction and it was a bad call. I think all she had to do was take the actions you describe as her 'next step.' She may be better than those before her but that didn't allow her to succeed.
- x0x0 11y agoYup. It may be on any given day you can do your work locally on your laptop, but if you work remotely and never or rarely sign into the vpn, a manager should be empowered to ask why not. And if no reasonable answer is forthcoming, terminate you for cause. Instead, she punished lots of people because some of them were bad employees; I think she got the rep she deserves.
- discardorama 11y agoJust to put it in perspective: I have since moved on, and then moved on again. In both the post-Yahoo companies, the WFH policy is basically the same as that at Yahoo under Marissa. She just brought it in line with the rest of the companies in the valley. As far as potential employees go: in my 14 years of interviewing in the Bay Area, I have never, ever been asked about the work-from-home policy. That should tell you how little an impact it has.