4 ms·

> The shift in policy affects roughly 200 of Yahoo's 12,000 employees. So what you're telling me is that only 1.6% of the company's employees WFH at all? Or is

by just2n 13y ago

> The shift in policy affects roughly 200 of Yahoo's 12,000 employees. So what you're telling me is that only 1.6% of the company's employees WFH at all? Or is this 1.6% who work remotely in the usual case? I highly doubt only 200 employees take regular WFH days. I'd expect to get one or two if needed a week, so I'd suspect this impacts a LOT more people than she admits. > ..but they're more collaborative and innovative when they're together. So e-mail, chat, hangouts/skype, voip, etc. don't exist, as far as Yahoo is concerned? Collaboration does not require physical proximity. And if it's only 200 people who are working remotely, why is a mere 1.6% of the company making a DRAMATIC difference to collaboration and innovation within the company? I'm seeing a contradiction here. I still maintain my stance on this move: it's a horribly shortsighted and poorly/hastily made decision which will negatively impact Yahoo significantly more than anyone expects. If someone is abusing a lenient policy, you ban that individual from working remotely, not the entirety of your company. What a massive overreaction.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> So e-mail, chat, hangouts/skype, voip, etc. don't exist, as far as Yahoo is concerned? "Do not exist" isn't required for the claim to be valid; "are not as effective as face-to-face, in the room communication at facilitating collaboration" is sufficient. And, a fairly widely recognized fact.
- just2n 13y ago
  You need to quantify "are not as effective." Is it 1000000000000x as effective? 5% more effective? If it's not boolean (such that "do not exist" is the effect), then the problem is probably significantly less severe than it would appear. For the record, I completely disagree. For instance, personality would likely dictate what the most effective method would be on an individual basis, so that no general claim can be accurate. I've personally been involved in collaboration over e-mail that was more productive than most meetings I've ever taken part in. I've never thought "this sucks, we should be doing this meeting in person," but I have thought the opposite many times.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You need to quantify "are not as effective." No, actually, you don't. Even they are even, in aggregate, even marginally less effective than face-to-face, they are a net loss to collaboration. > I've personally been involved in collaboration over e-mail that was more productive than most meetings I've ever taken part in. Sure, for lots of things, email is a better choice than a meeting. You can easily do email with people being in the same office building. OTOH, there are things where a quick face-to-face is more effective, and you can't do that when people are telecommuting.
    - Domenic_S 13y ago
      > they are a net loss to collaboration. Implicit is the assumption that high-bandwidth collaboration is necessary and useful to all people in all functions at all times. It's not. A designer might just need to crank out a PSD without 30 people dropping by their cube. A programmer might want to work on their tickets (which were created with collaboration) without talking to anyone. Or, like you said, there may be some meetings where being f2f is better. It happens a lot. I schedule my wfh around my meeting days, usually.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Implicit is the assumption that high-bandwidth collaboration is necessary and useful to all people in all functions at all times. No, implicit is the assumption that high-bandwidth collaboration may become important to the roles of the people affected by the policy on short notice, not that it is necessary to all people in all functions at all times.
        Domenic_S 13y ago
        So the message is, be physically in the office because you (or I) may need high-bandwidth collaboration today? Sounds inefficient. I'm willing to entertain the idea, but I'm not even sure your "it might be needed" explanation is true for BigCo's... look at the proliferation of open office plans, for example. COLLABORATION 24/7, YAY!

by just2n 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> So e-mail, chat, hangouts/skype, voip, etc. don't exist, as far as Yahoo is concerned? "Do not exist" isn't required for the claim to be valid; "are not as effective as face-to-face, in the room communication at facilitating collaboration" is sufficient. And, a fairly widely recognized fact.

just2n 13y ago
You need to quantify "are not as effective." Is it 1000000000000x as effective? 5% more effective? If it's not boolean (such that "do not exist" is the effect), then the problem is probably significantly less severe than it would appear. For the record, I completely disagree. For instance, personality would likely dictate what the most effective method would be on an individual basis, so that no general claim can be accurate. I've personally been involved in collaboration over e-mail that was more productive than most meetings I've ever taken part in. I've never thought "this sucks, we should be doing this meeting in person," but I have thought the opposite many times.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > You need to quantify "are not as effective." No, actually, you don't. Even they are even, in aggregate, even marginally less effective than face-to-face, they are a net loss to collaboration. > I've personally been involved in collaboration over e-mail that was more productive than most meetings I've ever taken part in. Sure, for lots of things, email is a better choice than a meeting. You can easily do email with people being in the same office building. OTOH, there are things where a quick face-to-face is more effective, and you can't do that when people are telecommuting.
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    > they are a net loss to collaboration. Implicit is the assumption that high-bandwidth collaboration is necessary and useful to all people in all functions at all times. It's not. A designer might just need to crank out a PSD without 30 people dropping by their cube. A programmer might want to work on their tickets (which were created with collaboration) without talking to anyone. Or, like you said, there may be some meetings where being f2f is better. It happens a lot. I schedule my wfh around my meeting days, usually.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Implicit is the assumption that high-bandwidth collaboration is necessary and useful to all people in all functions at all times. No, implicit is the assumption that high-bandwidth collaboration may become important to the roles of the people affected by the policy on short notice, not that it is necessary to all people in all functions at all times.
      - Domenic_S 13y ago
        So the message is, be physically in the office because you (or I) may need high-bandwidth collaboration today? Sounds inefficient. I'm willing to entertain the idea, but I'm not even sure your "it might be needed" explanation is true for BigCo's... look at the proliferation of open office plans, for example. COLLABORATION 24/7, YAY!