Article for Mayer’s Telecommuting Ban:
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/marissa-mayers-job-is-to-be-ceo-not-to-make-life-easier-for-working-moms/273584/
Article against Mayer’s Telecommuting Ban: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/marissa-mayer-is-wrong-working-from-home-can-make-you-more-productive/273482/
The two articles linked
above discuss the recent ban by Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer which forbids
employees to work from home and requires them to come in to the office.
The first article, which
is for the ban, discusses the backlash against Marissa Mayer’s decision and its
labeling as “anti-family” policy. The author discusses how many people are
viewing this decision in the context that the CEO is a woman, and how some
people may be thinking, “how on earth could the
first pregnant CEO, with a young baby and a nursery in her office, deny her
employees the ability to work with their children nearby?” The CEO as
well as some current and former employees of Yahoo! agree with this decision,
saying that many people have abused the system and it is in the best interest
of the company to enact this policy and re-do the business culture to ensure
its up-most efficiency. The article also supports the importance of actual
physical presence in the workplace is essential, rather than relying on
technology, stating that “connecting directly with each other face to face is
energizing and mobilizing in ways that asynchronous communication cannot
match”.
The
second article, which is against the ban, discusses how telecommuting makes
some workers much more effective than working in the office. The author states
that there is no statistical evidence showing that telecommuting is any less
effective than working in the office. They also believe that, although perhaps
less telecommuting could help Yahoo!, there shouldn’t be a corporate policy to
forbid it because it is more effective for some workers, sometimes employees
like to “work from home for a change”, and it could hinder those workers
ability to put forth their best effort at work. Interestingly, the author does not
mention how the issue of gender plays into this controversy nor do they discuss
much the implications of technology on human interaction.
This controversy and the
discussion surrounding it highlight issues of gender in the workplace as well
as how technology has affected how we work and interact. First, because the CEO
is a woman, I wonder if there would be the same backlash against the ban if she
were a man. Should her gender be considered when discussing this issue? Is
it/why is it shocking that a woman would choose to enact a policy which isn’t
“family-friendly”?
Second, this issue
touches upon how technology has influenced how we live and work, and what role
it has in determining how we operate in the workplace. This goes back to ideas
we talked about in class regarding technology and communication. Is physical
presence still important in today’s working and technology age, or can we rely
on technology? Is an email as effective as a face-to-face meeting? Do workers
need to be together in the same place to be more efficient and effective as a
company? Do you agree with the
statement that "We need to be one
Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together"? Finally,
do you agree with authors Smith-Pfister and Soliz’s statement in their article
“(Re)conceptualisizing Intercultural Communication in a Networked Society” that
“technological advancements in digitally networked media and the exponential
growth in the public’s understanding and use of these media are leading to more
opportunities for interaction” (p. 248)?
You raise some very important questions, and this has been a story I've been following closely this week. I agree with you, and other pundits, who have pointed out that if Marissa Mayer was a man, we might not be questioning her decisions. While technology is great, and it breaks down barriers everyday, we can't replace face-to-face communication. I would imagine that for a weak company like Yahoo! that is teetering on the edge, this decision is about the bottom line. They need more productive workers, and for those who can't cut it, then they should work elsewhere. In some sense, I applaud Mayer for making a bold stance. I hope, however, for working parents and commuters everywhere, that she rescinds the decision when Yahoo! gets on its feet again. Or perhaps, she can eventually create a culture where teleworking can be done as a reward for productivity.
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting to think consider. A lot of people in Colorado work from home as opposed to what I've been accustomed to being from Pennsylvania. When I made the decision to be self-employed and cater my career so that I could work out of the office and from the convenience of my own home, I got a lot of negative feedback from friends back East who then considered that a lazy approach to work. "Must be nice to lay around and make your own schedule and not have anyone making sure you're doing your work." It is nice, but it also takes a lot of self-motivation to make sure I really am doing my work, and with focus and intention.
ReplyDeleteI think it's great to reinforce the need for like-minded individuals working on a similar goal to work together, physically. There's something to be said about work communities and the intention of spending a set amount of hours in an area to focus on tasks at hand. Our culture everyday grows more and more comfortable with the idea that everything can be done via technology and that there's no real need or necessity of having meetings in the same room rather then skype or working in an office. I don't agree. In my own life, I tend to work more efficiently and with focus when I know others around me are working too and relying on my end of the production. And its healthy for my mind and patience to have someone near by to talk to and share ideas and concerns with. We are relational beings and we are hurting ourselves by the constant push towards isolation.
A company is a team - and you can't play a sport when the team is dispersed all over the place. You need every member to be together, doing their part, to get anywhere. And the same goes for a company - you need individuals who were brought in to be a team member to work with each other, in the same area, to gain success. We're really becoming spoiled in this country. If we still require students to be in a classroom and we adults can certainly see the value and be ok with the discipline to be in our office, with our team, working together for the company.
I've followed this story closely as well, as well as the career of Marissa Mayer - a brilliant woman herself with a family, and a child on the way. When I first heard this was the case, I couldn't help but think it was hypocritical that a female CEO with a family at home was pushing for this policy - but after further consideration, especially what Anne discusses above, feel that the answer to this question is, of course, one that lies in the middle (always the best way, right?). I think it is important for companies to be flexible for BOTH working mothers and fathers - but agree that there is something to be said for teamwork and camaraderie in the office, boosting the overall morale of employees and a sense of unity within an organization.
ReplyDeleteMy boss had a baby last October and took a full three month leave of maternity. She asked for an additional few weeks and was told that while she could not get that additional break, she COULD work from home, with less hours, for an additional month before she came back to work. I thought this was a fair assessment for her, as did she, in that it still gave her flexibility as a new mother but still enforced her ties to our working office (and during a very busy time). I am also fortunate to work in a flexible work environment, where many people tailor their hours around personal engagements - coming in an hour early so they can leave early for a child's soccer game, working on a weekend but then taking a day off during the week, etc - and can do so as long as they are still getting their work done. So while working from home 100% of the time could be seen as detrimental, I do feel that it can be allowed under circumstances, and be monitored in a way that people - both men and women - can remain an essential part of their office team.