Marissa Meyer, at age 37, she is the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company. The first thing she did right after taking up the incredible job of being the CEO of Yahoo, is to take 2 weeks off from work to become a mother. Yes, you heard it right, just 2 weeks and she was back to work clocking nearly 15 hours everyday. Corporate honchos of silicon valley blew trumpet stating that she is the best thing that ever happened to Yahoo and several months later she banned Work-From-Home(or otherwise called as telecommute) option for all the employees in Yahoo. Suddenly the priced possession of silicon valley became one of the most hated CEOs in Corporate America for embracing the aforementioned rule. Every journalist, feminists, authors, opinionated people, corporate heads and the ones who-have-no-other-work-but-to-critique shunned her for insanity and called her idea 'stupid'.
.jpg)
But I(& I'm sure, some of you) feel that, what she did with Yahoo is something very audacious yet offbeat. The ultimate goal is to bring back the beleaguered but once incredible company back to the place where it belongs. Is this too much to ask for, that too when you are the CEO of the company? Every employer has the rights to make or break a process, rule or a best practice which is being followed(may be forever) for the ultimate good of the company itself. End of the day, company's stability is more crucial than the individual's interest.
Cutting down on work-from-home option, is not as bad as laying off people. So why this hue and cry?
Every individual who reads some form of news everyday knows the fact that we are still in recession which started in the mid of year 2008. We are trying to get back. There are quite a lot of lay offs, employee's pay cut downs, clients not willing to spend and much more that we hear day-in-day-out. So when you look at this luxury-cut-down option, one would not feel that it is such a bad idea or a big deal.
Truth to be told: "The flexible option of work-from-home in any industry is a 'privilege' and definitely not a 'right', and if management feels that employees are misusing the given privilege, they have all the rights to take that privilege away."
Marissa, an ex Google employee was heading a big unit out there when she opted out to handle Yahoo as its CEO. I'm sure most of you might be knowing the work culture of Google. Google basically provides its employees everything on campus, hence indirectly everybody is expected to work from Office location(they even provide a laundromat, you see :)), although there are exceptions. She being an ardent Google fan and a smart women, before introducing the idea of cutting down on work-from-home option, she introduced lots of perks to the employees, by emulating Google. Once she fed the taste of goodness in the form of perks to her employees, she broke the news of cutting down on telecommuting option. That is a master stroke. When your employer gives you what you want or showers you with extras, you have no complaints, but at the same time when a luxury is taken away, you become very critical of the same employer. Isn't it ironic? Should yahoo employees not stand by their CEO's decision, for all she is doing is, of course for their own good in long run? Why this double standard and the extra criticism? Will people never put themselves in the protagonist's shoes and think for themselves?
I read the following in one of the online portals which pretty much sums up what she is going through:
"She inherited a sinking ship when she took over at Yahoo, but instead of just rearranging the deck chairs, she has made bold moves to push the company’s stock to the highest it’s been in a year."
Her critics fail to see the urgency of the company's turnaround situation, the need to refocus on the workforce and spruce up the management and prune out the unwanted. You know, when you are about to sink, all you think about, are the things that you would have made right, and that is exactly what Marissa is doing, before it goes down head first, she is trying to do everything right to keep it afloat.
A research firm rightfully pointed out several negative facts about encouraging work-from-home option in the corporate world:
Throw in your opinion in the form comments, suggestions. I would like to hear both, for and against opinions on the blog, so pour in. You know, when there is none to counter your argument, there is no spice in life. I firmly believe in that, I'm sure you do too. :-)
Image courtesy: Internet
.jpg)
Cutting down on work-from-home option, is not as bad as laying off people. So why this hue and cry?
Every individual who reads some form of news everyday knows the fact that we are still in recession which started in the mid of year 2008. We are trying to get back. There are quite a lot of lay offs, employee's pay cut downs, clients not willing to spend and much more that we hear day-in-day-out. So when you look at this luxury-cut-down option, one would not feel that it is such a bad idea or a big deal.
Truth to be told: "The flexible option of work-from-home in any industry is a 'privilege' and definitely not a 'right', and if management feels that employees are misusing the given privilege, they have all the rights to take that privilege away."
Marissa, an ex Google employee was heading a big unit out there when she opted out to handle Yahoo as its CEO. I'm sure most of you might be knowing the work culture of Google. Google basically provides its employees everything on campus, hence indirectly everybody is expected to work from Office location(they even provide a laundromat, you see :)), although there are exceptions. She being an ardent Google fan and a smart women, before introducing the idea of cutting down on work-from-home option, she introduced lots of perks to the employees, by emulating Google. Once she fed the taste of goodness in the form of perks to her employees, she broke the news of cutting down on telecommuting option. That is a master stroke. When your employer gives you what you want or showers you with extras, you have no complaints, but at the same time when a luxury is taken away, you become very critical of the same employer. Isn't it ironic? Should yahoo employees not stand by their CEO's decision, for all she is doing is, of course for their own good in long run? Why this double standard and the extra criticism? Will people never put themselves in the protagonist's shoes and think for themselves?
I read the following in one of the online portals which pretty much sums up what she is going through:
"She inherited a sinking ship when she took over at Yahoo, but instead of just rearranging the deck chairs, she has made bold moves to push the company’s stock to the highest it’s been in a year."
Her critics fail to see the urgency of the company's turnaround situation, the need to refocus on the workforce and spruce up the management and prune out the unwanted. You know, when you are about to sink, all you think about, are the things that you would have made right, and that is exactly what Marissa is doing, before it goes down head first, she is trying to do everything right to keep it afloat.
A research firm rightfully pointed out several negative facts about encouraging work-from-home option in the corporate world:
- While work-from-home is a good idea and should be allowed only selectively, the apprehensions pop out when management allows it on a wider scale and then it becomes uncontrollable and unmanageable.
- Some workers or employees have misused the work-from-home option to a vantage point that they have started a side-businesses while being on the company's payroll. Yes, this is true!!
- Some experts equate work-from-home to universities going online/correspondence as it cuts the teaching payroll. But honestly tell me: Will you be able to get the same amount of knowledge by self-study instead of listening to a lecture in a class atmosphere with number of students with different background discussing a topic, where you can ask questions and demand clarifications? I doubt. This is what Marissa's new rule points to in a nutshell. The concept of "One Yahoo!", working side by side furthers collaboration and improves work speed and quality, and that some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and off-the-cuff team meetings. Isn't it true? In specific, cafeteria discussions had worked like charm for me and my team. I'm sure many of you can relate to this.
Throw in your opinion in the form comments, suggestions. I would like to hear both, for and against opinions on the blog, so pour in. You know, when there is none to counter your argument, there is no spice in life. I firmly believe in that, I'm sure you do too. :-)
Image courtesy: Internet
Ohh, I am not here to give u spice.. For, I believe what she did is a great & right move when the ship is sinking.. All u care about is to stop more water from coming inside and somehow shut the hole that has formed.. That's all she is trying to do.. People should stopping fussing about it & try and do something more productive !!
ReplyDeleteAnd as u already know, u have yet another award !! Just keeping up the tradition to comment on the nominee's blog :P
Hee Hee! Chitz - it is OK if you don't give me spice :-)
DeleteYes, I'm glad to see the support for Marissa. You know, people bring in the feminist concept and they put her down, so thought will do a write up on her!! Thanks for reading, mam!
And yes, saw the award and my gangnum style dance just got over, will answer all the questions EOD today or max tomorrow. And thank you, thank you, thank you! Again.
Very interesting topic Pavithra. I can relate to it very strongly because my co made the same changes,taking away flexi-time and bringing in the system of clocking in and clocking out. The new system was also because of the new shareholder and bosses. I have been with the same co for the past 13 years, working flexi-time for these years. I was productive, I was happy working from home, my bosses had no complains and delivered as per the need of my job.
ReplyDeleteI was hit hard when the ruling of working full time was introduce and it was very very difficult to accept and adapt. I work more for occupying my time and the salary is more for my own need. Being married to someone who is married to his business means I am the home affairs minister, from A-Z. I managed well when working flexi-time and now its like a big crisis.
Of course working flexi-time is a privileged but we all performed and co did well. Most of the ladies, all educated work to occupy their time and money was never any issue for them. Therefore we never expected high increments and bonuses and were happy with whatever we received. Now with the new system, everyone is so calculative, don't want to do anything extra and there's no support towards the management. The internal operation is all mashed up with staff resignation and new recruits these days cannot match the strength of those who were experienced and dedicated.
Every day issues arises and further internal confusion. So I am wondering whether its the happiness of the employees are important because thats an important factor in productivity. The lady boss may be right but a company cannot perform if employees are de-motivated. There's also the issue about work life balance. We are bogged with being stuff in traffic jam all the way. Maids are difficult to come by, therefore why is the quality of life? No wonder people at younger age are kicking their bucket at very much earlier age. Successful bosses like Richard Branson did not agree with what Yahoo did, similarly many other bosses opposed what she did. I can go on and on as I am speaking from my own experience. Anyway, let's see how well and far Yahoo progresses.
Thanks Nava for having patience in reading my write up or should I call it an essay ;), this has become a routine for me now, I think I should start picking up lighter topic to cut down on words :-)
DeleteI was thoroughly intrigued to read your views, which is spot on giving the view from the other side of the same coin since you have gone through the drill. Your words clearly portrayed the difficulties and inconveniences caused by cutting down on the flexi option. And I hope you get respite soon in one way or the other.
The one very important point which caught my eyes from your comment, was "Employee Motivation", i.e. employees not willing to take up extra work or just doing what is allotted and leaving the rest hanging because of the flexi option removal. Yes, this happens as an after effect of a lifestyle changing rule or decision by the employer. We are accustomed to a lifestyle and when there is a change or blow, the ripple effect becomes unmanageable. But sooner or later people would get used to the rule and would do the needful. This is a psychological outcry. When we buy a new dress, we wear it again and again until we get bored and thereafter you won't even remember buying that dress, you move on.
So the effect will last for sometime, but people will realize that there are only three ways to get out of the mess, either by quitting the job, or look out for a new job or become your own boss by starting your own business. Having said that, people would realize that all 3 options are not very easy to choose, hence people will start accustoming to the existing situation. It is like, having something is better than having nothing at all. It takes time, but it will workout eventually.
Although in your case, flexi option was productive, there are many other cases where this option creates too much trouble.
In my friend Bijetha's case, she hates flexi option: Reason being, if she works from office it takes 10 hours for her to complete the work along with her team, but at the same time if she works from home, she ends up putting 15 to 17 hours of work every day because of not being able to collaborate effectively, since each one works in his or her own time, and also because of having too many misunderstandings and so many re-works, client dissatisfaction and now she is in a deep mess. So she opted out of flexi option and made sure her team followed suit.
I think flexi option works effectively when the work involved is less COUPLED to each other in the team, but when the coupling is too much or reliance on one other's work is heavy, then this option not just degrades the productivity of the company or the project, it takes the work-life balance completely out of the individual, like in the case of my friend.
So I think it is very subjective to the work we do and the culture of the organization that we work for.
But thanks a lot for your opinion, Nava! A great perspective, indeed.
please collect award from space...
ReplyDeletehttp://welcometomyrasoi.blogspot.com/2013/04/award-time.html
Hey thanks a lot Bhawna for the award!! Means a lot!
DeleteI will definitely collect them!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteRead through your reply Pavithra. I know its difficult to change after being used to what it has been. That said, I am wondering how many women can be Marissa? Coming back to work after three weeks of delivering a baby. Easier for her but to the average women out there, it may not be so simple. Like it or not, Asian culture is not the same to Western. Also, I am wondering if it matters where we work from, whether from home or at work. With technology, anything is possible these days. Many of my colleagues who clock in and out from 9 to 5 are more on facebook, on the phone, talking their mum and maid, sorting out the home issues. Not only that, they are also hanging on the phone, sorting out their personal issues about their husband,their in-laws etc etc. Their lunch break can prolong further from the 1 hour, buying pampers, paying bills and getting provisions. Many bosses like Marissa jump the gun because they have not gone through the mills. I mean, how much of experience she has managing people.
Anyway, this has been an interesting topic and thanks for sharing.
Nava, I understand the fact that Marissa is privileged to have avoided home related work or to have delegated her home related work to a help! I also read that she is building a day care only for her kid in Yahoo campus, dunno how true this is. But the point is somehow I still could not find fault in her new rule to removing the flexi option, my eyes are caught in the part of the company where they are struggling to run the core business, "when there is no foundation there is no building" - so if the company is going down, along with it will take all the people working down, so to me it is still better if she removes flexi option and save people from laying them off.
DeleteAnyways, it was very nice to have this mini debate with you and get new perspectives, thanks for your time Nava, appreciate it.