3 ms·
These were people who had negotiated full time work at home for various reasons (probably as a condition of employment). They aren't really exploiting a perk.
by corresation 14y ago
These were people who had negotiated full time work at home for various reasons (probably as a condition of employment). They aren't really exploiting a perk.
Further I would never lead based upon reducing resentment -- I remember one workplace where a non-contributor became infuriated that technical discussions happened in group email, demanding that HR step in and stop it. They resented that the people who knew the most had the floor the longest, and demanded that the process happen in a roundtable meeting room format where everyone can show that they were a part of it.
- danielweber 14y agoWhether it's called "condition of employment" or "a perk" the effect on other employees' morale can be the same. Other employees can, correctly or not, see themselves as busting their ass while Joe gets to slack off. > Further I would never lead based upon reducing resentment You give an example where an entire group is working well, and a single person is mad. That is not a good counterpoint against the theory that you should take action if one person is happy and many others are unhappy. I'll say again (although I shouldn't need to) that I don't know if this was the situation at Yahoo.