I am coming to the Yahoo Telecommuting brouhaha a little later than most, but I think it’s given me time to process others’ reactions as well as better formulate my own.
The gist of the story is that Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has decided to eliminate her employees’ ability to telecommute. She proposes that elimination of telecommuting and the increase of face-time interactions will improve Yahoo’s creativity and productivity, serious issues currently facing their organization right now.
The blowback from this policy include: She’s a woman! She’s a MOTHER!! The good employees are going to leave because of how important telecommuting is! People don’t need to be present to work well and be creative with each other!!
Since I am also a woman and a mother and I study virtual work and online interactions and I love telecommuting, I think most folks think I agree with these criticisms. But, alas, I do not.
First, yes, she is a woman and a mother and that gives her insight into working mother issues. However, she is also CEO of a company that is in dire straights. She took this job while pregnant, and I don’t think anyone expected her to take a long maternity leave to transition into motherhood and put Yahoo viability on hold. She has been criticized for having the ability to build a nursery near her office so she can be next to her baby during the workday. My perception is that she is not taking time off during the day to play with her baby or rock her to sleep: she’s probably still breastfeeding (or was at the time she built the office) and it’s a lot more efficient to have a direct delivery system than to pump. I’m also more than sure she has a night nurse. I don’t think she should be criticized for having more resources than other mothers have and making these choices work for her. I also feel it’s sexist to assume that she is supposed to put her roles and woman and mother above her role of CEO. When did we last criticize a male CEO for NOT putting his family (and other fathers) over his organization? Never.
Second, what about telecommuting and creativity, productivity, and connection? That’s even murkier. Yes, virtual teams can be very successful and telecommuters can be very productive. But these is something to be said about face-to-face interactions. More information is exchanged more quickly. More intellectual and social connections are made. Since the beginning of telecommuting, we’ve been waiting for that “killer app” to be developed which can replace the water cooler for employees to have those important, informal social interactions and it hasn’t happened yet. I think it’s reasonable to want employees to be on site together more often to increase those connections which *could* improve the organization’s performance.
Here, though, is where I think Ms. Mayer is wrong: there is absolutely no need for employees to be on site 5 days a week. And indeed, one or two days a week of working at home will likely improve performance and satisfaction. That’s where her mistake is. I think the benefits of being FtF will accrue with three or four days of being on site and the performance benefits won’t diminish if people still have one or two days to work in a quiet environment at home. That is where she is going to have unnecessary morale and turnover problems and probably what she is either going to regret her policy or going to change it.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. If Yahoo turns around, telecommuting may be jeopardized for many employees. If she hastens the organization’s demise because all the good employees leave, telecommuting may become even more the norm of some jobs. We shall wait and see.