Marissa Mayer and Yahoo's telecommuting: Right motivation, wrong execution | Hacker News Reader

Marissa Mayer and Yahoo's telecommuting: Right motivation, wrong execution

chrisyeh.blogspot.com

31 pointschrisyeh28 comments

My impression from reading about the "brouhaha" here on HN is that people were mainly talking about the flaws of the policy itself. A lot of friction and hot air, but fundamentally, taking away a major employee perk isn't going to be easy even if it's obvious-in-black-and-white better for everyone, and this one is very grey. The one thing most people seem to agree on is that Yahoo! is not in a great position to be making stern pronouncements—after all, there are better companies hiring on both sides of the debate.

I see very little of this as having anything to do with Mayer-as-Mayer or Mayer-as-a-woman and almost all the reaction here having to do with Mayer-as-a-technology-CEO. Can't speak for the greater world, though I think my coworkers would agree out here in the middle of nowhere.

But I'm really here to bellyache about the format of this content. There are so many blog posts that read "Paragraph 1. In this post I'm going to tell you X. Paragraph 2: X! Paragraph 3: In conclusion, I think X." The length here is an improvement but I'm not sure a three page essay really warrants a table of contents of five parts.

> There are so many blog posts that read "Paragraph 1. In this post I'm going to tell you X. Paragraph 2: X! Paragraph 3: In conclusion, I think X."

This is a classic persuasive writing/speaking technique, and often quite effective when used well. I think people try to shoehorn an otherwise expository or short-form post into that form because it's worked for them in the past.

To be clear, it's most effective when working with a subject matter lengthy enough to exceed the standard short-term attention span of ~5 minutes or so.

In this response, I'm going to tell you that I think it's pedantic and wasteful, and mainly done to take up extra space.

It's my honest opinion that people do this because they want to take up extra space, and because they vaguely remember someone in school telling them "that's how you should write an essay." But that doesn't mean it's appropriate. In many cases, it simply adds bloat. Unnecessary scaffolding upon which nothing hangs but empty air.

In conclusion, I disagree with you, because I think the form is overused and leads to pervasive snoring. It could be used well, but if it were I wouldn't be complaining about it. I have now explained why I think this is and now I invite you and/or the reader to draw your/their own conclusion/s.

In this case, it's a publishing artifact. I wrote the content in parts for the sake of Sulia, which has a 2,500 character limit on posts.

On the other hand, there is real value to using subheads; I'd rather lampshade transitions with subheads than write so-so transitional paragraphs.

You have extremely poor reading comprehension if you think I was disagreeing with you. As I said, it doesn't work well in very short examples.

Oh come on, that was comedy gold.

> I see very little of this as having anything to do with Mayer-as-Mayer or Mayer-as-a-woman and almost all the reaction here having to do with Mayer-as-a-technology-CEO.

And this, I must say, I like a lot.

As IT industry, we might not be there yet when it comes to eradicating sexism, but at least it seems that this test has been passed successfully. Strongly as some may feel about Meyer's policy, it has been criticized almost exclusively on the grounds of merit and predicted effectiveness in achieving its desired goal (i.e. making the company more innovative). Little I've seen references to Meyer's gender and/or maternity playing a role here; that article (and the NYC article it quotes) look like exceptions rather than a rule.

That's the IT/hacker community I like and respect.

I think Hacker News is a more sophisticated venue than most; the mainstream media and the tech blogs haven't maintained that same focus on the real issues.

This is the reason for staff slacking off:

Google's mission: Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

Facebook's mission: Facebook's mission is to make the world more open and connected.

What is yahoo? Yahoo! makes the world's daily habits inspiring and entertaining. By creating highly personalized experiences for our users, we keep people connected to what matters most to them, across devices and around the globe. In turn, we create value for advertisers by connecting them with the audiences that build their businesses.

http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/faq.cfm

Note: if you do a google search for yahoo mission, nothing is found on yahoo itself. The lack of a big hairy goal is not motivating.

I don't think you need a unifying mission. Take Apple, for example. They just make great product lines.

Their mission statement [1]:

What is Apple's mission statement?

Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App Store, and is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices with iPad.

Yahoo could do the same by paring their offerings into a set of great products.

[1] - http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=6

Having a mission like "the best personal computers in the world" sounds like a pretty hairy mission to me.

Yahoo has been adrift for well over a decade. Once upon a time, Yahoo stood for something: A hierarchy of the web. It hasn't had a real purpose since 2000 or so.

I hope Mayer finds a purpose for Yahoo, but we won't believe it until it starts actually working.

I feel the decision to kill remote-work would have been less harsh if Yahoo opened up a daycare departement for all the employees' kids. Now the CEO does not work remote, but gets to have her kid in the room next door. She's paying for it herself, so thats smart. Why not give other employees that option? Give them the option to pay for an in-company daycare centre together.

I don't see how you make Yahoo! a great company again without having employees work hard (not just smart) and work side-by-side, physically.

Whatever percentage of Google or Facebook works from home, I'd argue the percentage at Yahoo! should be less.

It's clear Marissa is on a mission to make Yahoo! succeed at playing catchup and righting the ship.

Folks who wish to work from home should go to more established, relaxed institutions.

This isn't your daddy's Yahoo! anymore.

Go long Marissa Mayer.

What is the value of Yahoo the company right now?

Is it in their IP, their customer base?

Is it in their physical assets, their cash on hand?

Is it in their employees?

If any significant amount of value is in their employee base then what is the advantage of cracking down and removing employee perks? You're not going to get rid of the dead weight that way, the folks with the least talent and skills and the least ability to find jobs elsewhere are logically the ones who are not going to leave voluntarily, they're going to put in the bare minimum of effort (whether at home or in the office). Instead you'll get rid of the people who have the easiest time of finding jobs elsewhere, the most talented folks. And by removing a perk that is common in the industry you'll make it harder to attract outside talent.

There's a time and a place for buckling down and cracking the whip, but that comes after you instill a new vision for the company, not before. Asking people to buy in to the old vision and buckle down for the same old work that they've already checked out of is unlikely to have good results.

Wait, Yahoo! isn't established? Were they not incorporated on March 1st, 1995?

I don't see how you can get employees to work hard unless they want to do it.

I do see value in getting rid of dead weight (productive employees hate slackers more than just about anything) but this telecommuting ban is a terrible way to get rid of dead weight.

Who is this guy and why should I read his multi-page armchair analysis of Yahoo! PR releases and leaked memos?

Not necessarily an unbiased article, since the author is the VP of Marketing at PBWorks; an online collaboration tool. http://pbworks.com/about-us

Ok, thanks. Fair enough. The About page on his site was rather uninformative.

VP of Marketing at what? Haven't heard of them. He should get back to doing his job instead of slinging mud at third party entities.

So the seller of tools used by telecommuters is not happy when Marissa Meyer suppress telecommuting.

One other funny point...the other Chris Yeh (who works at Box, another collaboration software company) used to work at Yahoo as their head of the Developer Network.

Why not send people to http://www.chrisyeh.com, my ancient, hand-coded personal web site?

I think I only update it every few years because I hate having to rev up the ol' FTP client.

Sadly, I'm no more qualified than most journalists to comment on this. (A true statement than you can read in several ways)

But I've always been under the impression that the ideas of the writer, not his or her resume, are the most important thing to consider.

Personally, I've seen a lot of qualitative analysis and anecdotal evidence to support remote working, specifically when it comes to technology companies. I've worked with a notable company who almost exclusively used remote employees and, from that experience, would never advocate remote work on a regular basis. It certainly has a place, for specific people of good standing and character who are put in an extraneous circumstance; but I've consistently observed what I believe Mayer has: smart people in the same space day after day will breed a more innovative, collaborative culture.

Most of the criticism that I've observed regarding the announcement seems to reek of the opinion that telecommuting is a "Good Thing" and that anyone who can't see that is missing the forest for the trees. This usually goes in hand with laughable academic braying and vaunted statistics about (some number less than 40) hour work weeks.

Forgoing my inclination to rant about how that kind of opinion is generally cancerous to an organization trying to change the landscape of it's industry through creativity, I think that Yahoo! is in a position where it can't afford to treat their employees like a productive group. And to that effect, it's much easier to identify shit employees who show up an hour+ late and leave with the herd at 5pm when you(or your managers) can observe that behavior regularly. Regardless of their output, I've observed that people who can't be bothered to adhere to simple routine will become an abrasive factor in a fast moving, creative culture; and tend to inevitably diminish the effectiveness of their peers. That kind of situation is the last thing that Yahoo! needs at the moment.

If Yahoo! can get out from under it's own sense of prior accomplishment and entitlement, and I remain confident that Mayer can do this for them, I'm sure she would consider a situation like remote working when it comes to top talent. But, until that happens, everyone there should be treated like a rich son in a boarding school -- assume the worst about most of those individuals and the one's who are weighing down the company will start to show their true color.

Totally agree: "I don't believe that treating employees fairly requires treating them identically". Also I don't think "hallway and cafeteria discussions" are the paradigm of hard work.

I'd much rather people plan out a working session, provide materials in advance, and then push to a resolution than rely on random serendipity.

That being said, I generally prefer working in the office to telecommuting, despite the distractions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com