Yahoo! proving it still does not get it?
Or perhaps finding ways of shedding employees without actual layoffs?
Or perhaps finding ways of shedding employees without actual layoffs?
[1] http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2013/02/why-we-still-believe-i...
Getting good folks to bet on a potentially sinking ship requires the appearance that it is not an unpleasant place to work. The commitment is on both sides, employer and employee. When many companies are shedding old traditions (like the one Mayer is instating) to attract talent, Yahoo seems to be doing the opposite in this move, less attractive to _current_ employees.
If you can't manage remote employees well enough to weed out those who do not produce, or you believe that dead weight will not still be dead weight when you move it in office, you just don't get it.
Look at some open source initiatives - thousands of people "working remotely", while still being able to collaborate and ship.
Yahoo's issues lie way deeper than that.
And why does no one talk about how working in an office reduces productivity. I know I get far more done at home.
So are on-site employees, who can screw off just as much as an off-site one.
if the remote employees are not providing enough value to justify that investment in remote workers
Then fire them. This kind of draconian move won't get Yahoo anything but an even bigger talent hemorrhage than it already has.
That's exactly what will probably happen if they don't comply. I think giving people an opportunity to comply before firing is a good move.
The ones that don't have any other options will stay ( you retain a higher percentage of people who are not top performers ), the rest that you would want to keep leave ( the best employees can just get another remote job right away )
This is the classic problem with voluntary buyouts and other discretionary layoffs - you only keep the people without other options.
See http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... for a fuller description.
So they were wrong to give them a warning that they are expected to relocate to an office? They should've just fired them? That's really how you feel?
They have $X in their budget. If the remote employees are producing $Y value, where $Y>$X, then they are earning their keep. But suppose Yahoo believes they can yield 1.5Y for the same $X budget by having on-site workers?
It's not like companies are (or should be) altruistic democracies. I can see why a person affected by this would be sore, but they don't really have a valid gripe IMO. I'm personally a fan of at-will employment.