CEO Marissa Mayer’s recently announced policy mandating that all Yahoo employees must work on-site at the company’s offices as of June 1 has stirred up a lot of debate. Some see the policy as a step backward for a tech-savvy company that presumably should be capable of leveraging 21st-century tools to make telecommuting a viable option. Others laud the move as a potential positive driver of change for a company that has been struggling, and a means of shedding “slacker” employees who have been taking advantage of work-at-home arrangements. Others claim it’s a strategy aimed at trimming Yahoo’s payroll by forcing people out.
According to an internal company memo announcing the move, “Being a Yahoo isn’t just about your day-to-day job, it is about the interactions and experiences that are only possible in our offices.” It pointed to in-person interaction as a way to stimulate communication and collaboration. But there are plenty of ongoing debates online as to whether it’s strictly necessary for employees to be in close physical proximity to meet such goals.
Critics contend that the ban on telecommuting will be followed by low morale, along with employee retention and recruiting problems. The change can’t be welcome news for employees who signed on with Yahoo with the expectation that they’d be able to work from home, and those who are not prepared to make the long commute or move their families closer to Yahoo’s Sunnyvale, Calif., offices. The fact is, the best person for the job is not necessarily the one who lives closest.
One other aspect of the change that is being debated is the effect on Yahoo’s female employees in particular. Working women are still most often the primary caregivers in U.S. households and arguably could have a lot to lose as a result of this change in policy. Women who are responsible for child care, elder care, or both while holding down their full-time jobs could find themselves further squeezed by the need to be on-site at set hours. This loss of flexibility could result in a disproportionate loss of women from Yahoo’s workforce.
A Businessweek article claiming that Mayer’s decision is receiving so much scrutiny only because she’s a female CEO has been dismissed by many readers in its comments section, with many arguing that it’s being widely discussed because it’s bad policy that could have implications for telecommuters at other large companies.
Washington Post columnist Tracy Grant, on the other hand, argues in support of Mayer, stating, “She didn’t betray women by making the right decision for her company. Being able to realize that is what real sisterhood is about.”
Mayer already stirred up some controversy when, five months’ pregnant, she took on the role of CEO at Yahoo and then took only two weeks of maternity leave after giving birth. Is she a role model who is making it clear that women really can do it all, or is she doing women no favors by setting high expectations for all of them—including those that don’t have access to the same resources a high-level executive does?
Only time will tell whether the telecommuting ban is the right choice for Yahoo, and Mayer is sure to be praised or lambasted once the long-term effect becomes more clear. It will be interesting to see what the legacy will be for one of the few female CEOs in the high-tech/media industry. We’ll certainly be watching!
Posted by: Gina Barrett