Discussion on:

Huh? Yahoo puts kibosh on employee telecommuting

It has been widely noted elsewhere that the real intent of this move is probably to get rid of a bunch of workers without having to pay severance benefits. After all, the company will have offered them continuing employment; the fact that it requires relocation, and living in a city where the employee can't afford to live, is irrelevant.

BINGO!

It's no secret that it's much, much easier to force telecommuting employees to take an unpaid day off than it is to force site based employees to clock out.

Sure, rounding up the troops and making them interact face to face can generate ideas and team building. At the same time it can kill innovation due to office politics and the distance that allows workers to do some thinking.

FORCING the troops to breathe each other's air is more likely to do the latter.

Not everyone is cut out for either scenario. Genious isn't a forced thing and sometimes we try too hard to make others like ourselves.

Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.

Having spent 40 years in Fortune 500s R&D and large education institutional research environments, I completely understand the purpose of the above directive. Absolutely nothing makes parasitic managers (especially those with little to no technical understanding) more nervous and fearful for their jobs - than not have constant access to the creativity and productivity of their underlings - which they can claim as their own to their superiors (including boards) - therefore and apparently justifying their existence. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wrote the first book on Telecommuting: The Future Technology of Work - here's the free ebook http://techtionary.com/books/telecommuting/index.pdf in 1986 - seriously this is crazy to stop this critically important aspect of work and life. For many going to work ruins their life because of their family and other reasons such as today someone is doing to die just driving to or from work.

if I still used Yahoo, or if I ever did...

Yes, we got that message at our company too.

Ironic. When management wants to sell us on outsourcing and the benefits of collaboration, we live in a global economy where teleconferencing is a great thing. On the other hand, when management wants to sell us on the advantages of physical face-to-face communication, physical location becomes all important and teleconferencing is a bad thing.

Management once again impresses us with its facility for talking out of both sides of its mouth. What this really comes down to is management's desire to keep employees under its control and under its thumb.

How many layers of middle management would be sitting on their hands if there are no employees to "supervise".

Really? More productive? Its 2013 for Chrissake! If a tech company that is barely holding on makes such a draconian switch, my guess is that there is some other reason behind their decision. My experience is that 99% of those hallway, cafeteria and impromtu meetings are not about work. Just saying....

The author does not appear to understand the reasoning behind this decision, as his reference to this as a "feel-good workplace policy" and several other statements attest. I think many innovative ways of thinking and ideas are not coming to light based on the isolation of working from home and literally "phoning it in" (yes, in addition to the implication of that phrase, as well).

If a company has a policy allowing telecommuting for purely economic reasons (no commute, lower overhead, etc.), then they are probably not getting the big picture regarding how many decisions are made and information is truly exchanged in a highly communicative organization. I have lost count of the number of ideas and projects that have been proposed or generated as a result of my discussions with upper management either immediately before or after meetings, or even through chance meetings in my office of approximately 110 people, including the 3 family members that are owners of my company.

I do believe that telecommuting may be appropriate for some and a total ban may be a bit over the top. However, doing it because everyone else is doing it and have been for a while and it saves money and the technology exist to do so and the US government is doing it does not necessarily make it right or the best business decision. Yes, you may save relocation costs and "real-estate costs" (whatever those may be), but perhaps you are losing more in the lost innovation and creativity that does come from face-to-face discussions and exchanges of ideas.

And who knows, maybe our floundering housing market may benefit from people actually buying and selling houses in order to have to go to an office to work. Said a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you never know.

If you had to have a meeting to have and idea - I suggest you didn't have the idea. I'll agree that association prospers through discussion of ideas. However, as someone dealing with intellectual property on a daily basis - I want all my ideas and responses to them on paper, recorded in multiple places and not floating around in the air for anyone (like you) to claim or build upon without crediting and appropriately rewarding the source of the original idea.

I agree that in intellectual property circumstances, and many others, documentation is crucial and necessary, but I do not and have not laid "claim" to anything (quite the opposite...see below). Open communication in many instances is clearly superior to closed, hush-hush conversations so someone gets the "credit", as opposed to what could and should happen for the betterment of the company as a whole.

Your assumptions about my intentions are obviously based on your vast knowledge of me, my company, and my job position, but just in case you do not have this information, I will enlighten you. We are a 5th generation family-owned company, the largest in the world for many of our products, with an excellent safety history (I am the Safety Director for all of our operations) in one of the most hazardous industries in the US. We have been ahead of the curve regarding environmental and safety compliance for many years and have been actively involved in guiding state and national policy in many aspects of these two areas.

Since I started with the company, we have seen a our marked improvement in safety performance and safety culture for many reasons. I do not and have never claimed responsibility for this improvement (and I correct anyone that congratulates me personally), as it is everyone's efforts that have lead us to this improvement and continued performance.

As for 'taking credit', I have had 2 specific instances just this year where one of our owners suggested some improvements that we may be able to make (did not say we had to do them, just to think about it) and after implementation, showed them to him and thanked him for the suggestion and our discussion. No this was not brown-nosing; it was recognizing that sometimes casual conversations can generate ideas that may save a person from having an injury or becoming a fatality. That was the point of my initial post.

Hey, Shep. Since you're such a business mogul, why can't companies host open video conferencing for employees ? An open door policy by internet for ideas would seem to work also. Control seems to be a little too important to you. Good management involves inspiring teamwork and listening to what these people are saying , (it is an unpopular idea for numerous reasons) and not handing out collars for your leash.

Hey, Mr. Wrinkles. You must have hit the wrong reply button, as your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I have posted. In case you were, however, I never claimed to be a business mogul. My company hosts numerous video conferencing sessions and meetings and they are cumbersome and often inefficient (not always, but fairly often), in my opinion, as well as having an open door policy via several means, including Internet, for exchange of ideas.

In an effort to correct your mistake, I will look for posts referencing 'control' and 'leash' for this article and forward a request to the admin to have this comment attached to same.

... is using technology to virtually meet and discuss things, either formally or informally. Your earlier statement about "phoning it in" may just indicate rather old-fashioned ideas about telecommuting that today's technology can improve on.
Perhaps this discussion is somewhat related to companies trying to offload communications/computing costs to their employees - for instance companies thinking that all they need to support telecommuting is a computer and a phone at their employees premises, and they can often offload even those costs on their employees. Accountants are probably slathering over the capital savings from the BYOD movement, especially as more and more computing power can be carried in the employees' purse or pocket. I predict the failure of these initiatives due to unconsidered costs - just like telecommuting will fail if the company fails to provide an adequate support environment.

I telecommute and was recently involved in the conception of a new cell of telecommuters for the company I work for. The person put in charge of the operation was site based. He decided to not allow a certain tool to the new employees that was available to all the other telecommuting cells, evidently thinking that they would never be the wiser. Never, ever underestimate the ability of people to utilize social networking and other digital forms of communication. It was a matter of days before these brand new employees discovered that they had not been granted access to a tool that all the other telecommuters were allowed to use. So the lack of communication argument is ridiculously outdated.

What does this comment have to do with what I posted?

In today's technology environment that offers very good teleconferencing and intstant messaging facilities there is absolutely no reason for people having to meet face to face. Having worked for large enterprises like HP where there may be thousands of people working on projects in some form all over the globe you could not get them in one room anyway and you end up teleconferencing. Therefore, there can be only one reason as stated elsewhere, insecure below par workers need others around so they can try and make up for their weaknesses.
I for one telecommute and I am much more effective and productive than working from an office; often I get an idea late at night and go to my computer to work on it there and then. Something I would never do if I had to work from an office.
Yahoo? Who needs them they are probably dieing anyway and this is probably the first sign of their demise.

Note going to be pleasant for some to read, but "work from home" is often way over sold. I suspect that this perk of the last decade is about to go and often for good reason, productivity. Lots of younger employees will fell "management abuses, power grab, not fair etc", but suspect management across the nation is starting to sense they can get more real work at office then at home. Know this is not popular concept among many as they have this ego problems of "creative, highly talented, special folks" etc, but reality is now going to find out what is actually being done for the bucks. Having had jobs both ways, I rather think that "at the office" will win out for productivity, as looking the person in eye and listening across table not same as via computer.
' Now many many not like it, but this is going to be a coming trend, and just might be justified by increase in products, quality and profits. Will have to wait a bit, but if Yahoo does it, other management will follow, kind of means the benefit is gone and choice is rather simple, go along or leave, same as has always been as only badly managed companies have more then couple of employees critical to their success's, others can be replaced. So that is the reality, sorry but this thing was fun, but over now for most. Suspect some basic time/work studies behind this one.

What I find most irritating about Corp/LLC's is not this thing, but their nearly total lack of hammering the elected for more competitive world class educational standards, K-12 and colleges.

I'm gonna guess your way over 50.

This entire thing is someone in management doesn't feel they are getting enough brown nosing. They are so sick and twisted thet they desperately need brown nosing in order to feel like they matter.

You should indeed never trust anyone over 50 if you're out for quick profits from existing, yet virtually outdated products (e.g. the traditional motorcar or family house).

Older inventors have the experience and knowledge to invent products that are way ahead of their times -- should this be a reason to discard them?

I'm 70, and 30 years ago I invented a revolutionary rotary-wing concept -- hence I like the metaphor of the caterpillar transforming into a butterfly in the secrecy of the cocoon, a solitary process called metamorphosis...

It takes 20 days from caterpillar to butterfly, yet 20 years at least from motorcar to personal aircraft...

Are you irresponsible enough to think we can get humanity out of the mud without that kind of metamorphoses?

Amusing post, on the 50 thing, but since at one time or other we all either heard it or said, not to worry, you will grow out of it and be worth something to company, self and nation and then some day some mouthy type with little real experience will say same about over 50 and you will smile.