5 ms·

Does not get what? Remote employees are a commitment, a company cannot just have remote employees without making compromises and committing to doing it right. M

Does not get what? Remote employees are a commitment, a company cannot just have remote employees without making compromises and committing to doing it right. Mayer is trying to rescue Yahoo, if the remote employees are not providing enough value to justify that investment in remote workers then it makes no sense for Yahoo to retain remote workers.

sabat 14y ago
Remote employees are a commitment So are on-site employees, who can screw off just as much as an off-site one. if the remote employees are not providing enough value to justify that investment in remote workers Then fire them. This kind of draconian move won't get Yahoo anything but an even bigger talent hemorrhage than it already has.
- cglee 14y ago
  > Then fire them. That's exactly what will probably happen if they don't comply. I think giving people an opportunity to comply before firing is a good move.
  - jaggederest 14y ago
    No, it's a terrible idea. The ones that don't have any other options will stay ( you retain a higher percentage of people who are not top performers ), the rest that you would want to keep leave ( the best employees can just get another remote job right away ) This is the classic problem with voluntary buyouts and other discretionary layoffs - you only keep the people without other options.
    - btilly 14y ago
      It happens on its own over time as well. See http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... for a fuller description.
  - YZF 14y ago
    I think he meant fire them if they don't provide value. If they're remote and do provide value keep them remote.
- encoderer 14y ago
  Wha? So they were wrong to give them a warning that they are expected to relocate to an office? They should've just fired them? That's really how you feel?
  - sabat 14y ago
    They're wrong to equate being remote with not producing value. If people are not producing value for the company, sure, fire them. If they are doing well, then why force them to relocate? What's the business sense in that?
    - encoderer 14y ago
      Opportunity cost? They have $X in their budget. If the remote employees are producing $Y value, where $Y>$X, then they are earning their keep. But suppose Yahoo believes they can yield 1.5Y for the same $X budget by having on-site workers? It's not like companies are (or should be) altruistic democracies. I can see why a person affected by this would be sore, but they don't really have a valid gripe IMO. I'm personally a fan of at-will employment.
- zem 14y ago
  it's not a question of screwing off; it's that productive team dynamics are genuinely harder for remote employees to achieve.
  - sabat 14y ago
    My own experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that this is entirely untrue. What matters is communication, not facetime.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Good thing nobody told Linus Torvalds...
photorized 14y ago
That won't rescue Yahoo. Look at some open source initiatives - thousands of people "working remotely", while still being able to collaborate and ship. Yahoo's issues lie way deeper than that.
- taligent 14y ago
  Exactly. Every single person talking about how working remotely doesn't work can be refuted by open source. And why does no one talk about how working in an office reduces productivity. I know I get far more done at home.
bsg75 14y ago
Yahoo, which once was a place talented people wanted to work at (I have worked with some very bright ex-Yahoo-ers), is fighting for relevance which in part requires talented people. Getting good folks to bet on a potentially sinking ship requires the appearance that it is not an unpleasant place to work. The commitment is on both sides, employer and employee. When many companies are shedding old traditions (like the one Mayer is instating) to attract talent, Yahoo seems to be doing the opposite in this move, less attractive to _current_ employees. If you can't manage remote employees well enough to weed out those who do not produce, or you believe that dead weight will not still be dead weight when you move it in office, you just don't get it.

sabat 14y ago

Remote employees are a commitment So are on-site employees, who can screw off just as much as an off-site one. if the remote employees are not providing enough value to justify that investment in remote workers Then fire them. This kind of draconian move won't get Yahoo anything but an even bigger talent hemorrhage than it already has.

cglee 14y ago
> Then fire them. That's exactly what will probably happen if they don't comply. I think giving people an opportunity to comply before firing is a good move.
- jaggederest 14y ago
  No, it's a terrible idea. The ones that don't have any other options will stay ( you retain a higher percentage of people who are not top performers ), the rest that you would want to keep leave ( the best employees can just get another remote job right away ) This is the classic problem with voluntary buyouts and other discretionary layoffs - you only keep the people without other options.
  - btilly 14y ago
    It happens on its own over time as well. See http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... for a fuller description.
- YZF 14y ago
  I think he meant fire them if they don't provide value. If they're remote and do provide value keep them remote.
encoderer 14y ago
Wha? So they were wrong to give them a warning that they are expected to relocate to an office? They should've just fired them? That's really how you feel?
- sabat 14y ago
  They're wrong to equate being remote with not producing value. If people are not producing value for the company, sure, fire them. If they are doing well, then why force them to relocate? What's the business sense in that?
  - encoderer 14y ago
    Opportunity cost? They have $X in their budget. If the remote employees are producing $Y value, where $Y>$X, then they are earning their keep. But suppose Yahoo believes they can yield 1.5Y for the same $X budget by having on-site workers? It's not like companies are (or should be) altruistic democracies. I can see why a person affected by this would be sore, but they don't really have a valid gripe IMO. I'm personally a fan of at-will employment.
zem 14y ago
it's not a question of screwing off; it's that productive team dynamics are genuinely harder for remote employees to achieve.
- sabat 14y ago
  My own experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that this is entirely untrue. What matters is communication, not facetime.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Good thing nobody told Linus Torvalds...

photorized 14y ago

That won't rescue Yahoo. Look at some open source initiatives - thousands of people "working remotely", while still being able to collaborate and ship. Yahoo's issues lie way deeper than that.

taligent 14y ago
Exactly. Every single person talking about how working remotely doesn't work can be refuted by open source. And why does no one talk about how working in an office reduces productivity. I know I get far more done at home.

bsg75 14y ago

Yahoo, which once was a place talented people wanted to work at (I have worked with some very bright ex-Yahoo-ers), is fighting for relevance which in part requires talented people. Getting good folks to bet on a potentially sinking ship requires the appearance that it is not an unpleasant place to work. The commitment is on both sides, employer and employee. When many companies are shedding old traditions (like the one Mayer is instating) to attract talent, Yahoo seems to be doing the opposite in this move, less attractive to _current_ employees. If you can't manage remote employees well enough to weed out those who do not produce, or you believe that dead weight will not still be dead weight when you move it in office, you just don't get it.