February 27, 2013 by Emily V. Troiano
A recent memo from Yahoo! management calling for all virtual workers to begin working from the office has reignited the discussion surrounding work-life effectiveness and flexibility. Responses were rapid and widespread, from a Google exec who agreed with Yahoo’s new policy to Virgin CEO Richard Branson, who Tweeted that workers excel when given a choice of where to work and Lisa Belkin, coiner and chronicler of the so-called “opt-out revolution,” who labeled Yahoo’s policy a throwback to a model of work that no longer exists, in which work and home were entirely separate realms.
These articles and many more have compelled me to reflect on how work “works” best—for me as an employee and for my family. This is also what will, I hope, continue to work in the future, for many people, as workforces and workplaces adapt and evolve.
When I was first hired at Catalyst, I spent several years working full-time from our headquarters in New York. For the last seven years, however, I have been working remotely from my home. I don’t have enough space in this brief post to convey how much this flexibility has meant to me (in that I could continue doing a job I loved, even when my family relocated), my family (in that my husband and I can both have fulfilling careers without choosing whose job to put first), and, I believe, my employer (which has been able to retain a qualified and extremely committed employee).
Many companies benefit from having virtual workers. Even more importantly—and I say this as an employee currently located 487 miles from my boss and team—companies benefit from having a flexible workplace, in which employees feel they have some control over the process and outcome of their work and are empowered to do what needs to be done, both at work and in life. Many companies have discovered that having employees who feel they can make and keep doctors’ appointments without stress, attend their kids’ plays/recitals/games, and even occasionally work from home while waiting for the cable guy benefits both individual workers and the organization as a whole.
The modern workplace is constantly evolving. Just as there is no such thing as an approach that works perfectly for every single employee, there is no one-size-fits-all model for running a company. The challenge, these days, is to figure out what works best for you (and/or your family—although it’s important to remember that flexibility isn’t just about people with children) and to find a workplace which supports that. This won’t be possible for everyone—fire fighters and retail workers can’t telecommute, though they too need some flexibility some of the time. But for many of us, the vast majority of our work (sending emails, making phone calls, writing documents) can be done from anywhere.
In a rapidly changing world, it’s become more and more crucial to conceive of and create the kind of agile workplace—one that is responsive to the needs of employees and employers alike—that will better serve individual workers, companies, customers, and communities.
Some believe that the most effective workplace is one in which employees regularly collaborate in person. What works best at Catalyst, and certainly what works best for me, is having the opportunity and the freedom to work both at home and in the office. I enjoy and benefit from working on specific projects and events and trading ideas with colleagues in person whenever possible—and I am prepared to do the same via the many technologies available when face time isn’t an option.
What do you think? Tell us what model of working “works” best for you and your company in the comments section below!
3 Reader Comments
The decisions being made by women executives are often made the same way a male executive would make a decision, by looking at what is best for profitability of the company. Or at least it seems that way. When you are Stamford or Harvard educated, have worked at McKinsey & Co. or as an early employee at Google, the struggles you encounter as a working parent are not the same as your average employee. While we can applaud the success of Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg, they had to play the ol' boys game to get where they are. When you are at the top you can make your own rules...so long as you are leading a successful and profitable company.
So what does that mean for the average working mother? We still have to fight hard for the flexibility and work from home benefits that make work/life balance possible. We can't count on women at the top to look out for those in the middle or bottom, because their goal is their own success, not ours. I work at a company where there is very little flexibility, so I commute by subway an hour each way, work from 9-6 and am often the first person to leave the office. I have to schedule parent-teacher conferences for early mornings, scramble when my kids are sick, and be careful about asking to leave early when my family needs me to be home before 7:00 p.m.
All companies should have solid work from home policies in place, with failsafes implemented. Yahoo! is trying to pare down the fat and become a more successful and profitable company, but the collateral damage will be the loss of talented, middle aged women who were able to 'have it all'. Rather than looking at job performance across the company and firing those that aren't doing their jobs, Marissa Mayer is targeting the very demographic that most hoped to benefit from her success.
Thank you, Emily for your wisdom! I have also watched with confusion over Mayer's recent decision. To me, this change in policy is more a reflection of poor leadership and mismanagement than anything else. While, some of the talking points released have been around a collaborative working environment, etc... I believe the leadership at Yahoo saw this choice as a fast, easy and (frankly) lazy way to eliminate non-performers and fat. Instead of holding leaders and employees accountable for their failed performance, they simply used a policy that eliminated a benefit for all. For those workers who ARE doing their job and ARE engaged and supporting the goals of the organization, I can only imagine that this decision is as painful as it is markedly disrespectful of their achievements.
Whether or not employees should work from home is not at issue. Yahoo leaders need to learn how to establish clear expectations, hold people accountable to their performance and have courageous conversations when those expectations are met. Until they integrate this into their practice, it won't matter if everyone is under the same roof or not... they will still under-perform as an organization!
Thanks, Emily!!!
I also wrote a blog about this issue if you'd like to check it out: http://krisplachy.com/marissa-mayer-a-lesson-in-courage-or-cowardice
I think that Yahoo's overall blanket rule that no one can ever work from home is a mistake. There's a difference between a "remote worker" and "working from home." It sounds like Yahoo wants to get ride of some of their "remote workers" (people who work out of their home office full time, and never come into the Yahoo office) because they think some of them aren't performing. Okay, one way to do that is to say that no one can be a remote worker anymore. But hey, another way is to have efficient and effective managers who know what their employees are doing, even if they don't see them in person. And to give people (both managers and their employees) training on what it means to be a remote worker, and what is expected of them.
But, telling people who do come into the office on a regular basis that they can never work from home is just not a smart move, imho. With all the technology we are surrounded by, a worker can be extremely effective putting in 2 hours while their sick child naps, for example. I think they are going to lose valuable employees because of this.
Leave A Comment