Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 Sorry - not true. It's a combination of a conducive environment with good pay. A hostile environment with more pay will not attract the BEST, it will only attract a majority of workers who are willing to sacrifice personal liberty a la cheap skates. Check this below video and see what Zuckerberg, Dorsey say about employee retention via perks. Work for home should be thought about as a "perk". Where does hostility come into the picture? Here are some interesting development observed in this debate thus far: a) WFH is supposedly ONLY for women. You should read articles from Salon, CNN and everything else as to how Yahoo CEO has thrown women under the bus. b) Asking people to work suddenly makes the work environment hostile because do not want to be at their work place. c) Those who stick at Yahoo are only those who do not value personal liberty. Not saying you are uttering those words but it is absolute insanity how a simple directive from CEO has suddenly exposed the underbelly of modern "entitled" generation. :blink:
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Where does hostility come into the picture? Here are some interesting development observed in this debate thus far: a) WFH is supposedly ONLY for women. You should read articles from Salon, CNN and everything else as to how Yahoo CEO has thrown women under the bus. b) Asking people to work suddenly makes the work environment hostile because do not want to be at their work place. c) Those who stick at Yahoo are only those who do not value personal liberty. Not saying you are uttering those words but it is absolute insanity how a simple directive from CEO has suddenly exposed the underbelly of modern "entitled" generation. :blink: Before we get into a discussion - I would like to know what are discussing about? I was talking about the removal of a perk which existed for so long. It is not an "entitlement" but a perk and people are annoyed that this "perk" is being removed off the table than monitored for abuse. Read the article from 37signals which I posted earlier and there is every word in it that makes sense. WFH is a great perk to attract talent and a legacy for Internet based start ups emanating from the Silicon Valley. There is no sense to completely remove WFH since a lot of times you do not need to be present in person. You are thrusting your opinion of how projects work on others. High time it's understood that WFH is completely possible and is very individual in nature. Rather than remove it from the table, one must only simply monitor the deliverables. Micro-management never helps specially for a group of well talented individuals who are involved in shaping the future of the Internet.
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Forcing workers to come into the office is a symptom of Yahoo’s problems, not a solution to them http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21572767-forcing-workers-come-office-symptom-yahoos-problems-not-solution?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/mayerculpa But tethering the Yahoos to their stalls in the company’s offices does not seem like the right way to go about boosting their output. Plenty of evidence suggests that letting employees work from home is good for productivity. It allows them to use their time more efficiently and to spend more time with their families and less fuming in traffic jams or squashed on trains. It can reduce companies’ costs. Cisco claimed in 2009 that it was saving $277m a year by allowing its people to telecommute. A study by researchers at Stanford and Beijing Universities of a large Chinese travel company compared the performance of employees allowed to work from home with those who were stuck in the office: among the home-workers, job satisfaction rose, staff turnover fell by half and productivity went up by 13%. Hardly surprising, since a lot of people don’t seem to work while they are at work: last year J.C. Penney, an American retailer, discovered that a third of its headquarters’ bandwidth was taken up by employees watching YouTube videos.
Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 Before we get into a discussion - I would like to know what are discussing about? I was talking about the removal of a perk which existed for so long. In your particular case, we are discusisng that people join a company for trust. Considering thats what you highlighted in my previous post. So better prove it.
Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 Forcing workers to come into the office is a symptom of YahooÃÔ problems' date= not a solution to them Counterpoint by GOOGLE head-honcho "The surprising question we get is: 'How many people telecommute at Google?' Mr Pichette said at a talk in Sydney on Monday. "And our answer is: 'As few as possible'. http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/business-it/do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do-googlers-dont-telecommute-20130219-2eo8w.html So much so for WFH being a driver for top talent companies.
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 In your particular case' date=' we are discusisng that people join a company for trust. Considering thats what you highlighted in my previous post. So better prove it.[/quote'] I said people love an environment based on mutual trust. This is more true for motivated individuals with talent as they are able to drive themselves and provide great productive value. Note - we are talking about companies like Yahoo whose USP is to innovate in the Internet. Considering this, the perk for WFH is of great value and helps achieving both goals - employee satisfaction in terms of flexibility, fatigue etc. and company goals in terms of work. Removing this perk equates to distrust in the employees. Yahoo can't separate the performers from the non-performers. Hence, this dictatorial edict by MM.
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Counterpoint by GOOGLE head-honcho So much so for WFH being a driver for top talent companies. You are making a classic fallacy here - you are once again being myopic rather than the big picture. Google gives other perks like food, showers etc. If you ask Yahoo, how many people stay in your company because of food obviously they will answer none because there isn't any. WFH is an important perk which should exist in companies like Yahoo! The removal of an existent perk shows distrust in employees.
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Lurker - If you really want to understand why WFH matters please try detailing a list of top Silicon Valley companies who do not allow WFH vs. ones that allow. You will see it easily rest in the favor of WFH allowed. You can't use exceptions like Google (which for the matter of fact actually have other perks) and use that as a rule. Also, note that there still exists option at Google for WFH. They haven't entirely done away with it. FRom the same article you posted - Telecommuting, or "teleworking", has been touted by the federal government as one of the key benefits of the national broadband network, which will provide high-speed internet access using fibre optic cables to approximately 93 per cent of Australians. Last year, Prime Minister Julia Gillard made a commitment to have 12 per cent of the Australian Public Service regularly teleworking from home by 2020. At the time of the announcement, Ms Gillard said about 4 per cent of the public service had a teleworking arrangement. In 2011, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy cited Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, showing that just 6 per cent of Australian employees had telework arrangements. He said that businesses must change their attitudes about people working from home. "In Australia, the number of people with an arrangement with their employer to work from home has been low by international standards."
akshayxyz Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Before we get into a discussion - I would like to know what are discussing about? I was talking about the removal of a perk which existed for so long. It is not an "entitlement" but a perk and people are annoyed that this "perk" is being removed off the table than monitored for abuse. Read the article from 37signals which I posted earlier and there is every word in it that makes sense. WFH is a great perk to attract talent and a legacy for Internet based start ups emanating from the Silicon Valley. There is no sense to completely remove WFH since a lot of times you do not need to be present in person. You are thrusting your opinion of how projects work on others. High time it's understood that WFH is completely possible and is very individual in nature. Rather than remove it from the table, one must only simply monitor the deliverables. Micro-management never helps specially for a group of well talented individuals who are involved in shaping the future of the Internet. ++ Very few would disagree - programming / creating s/w /research is an art (I am not talking about implementing bijness solutions using some template s-w/tools) and require certain degree of creativity, freedom. Some artists like to work in isolation/peaceful environment, while some kind of work is benefits from when done with the team present (like ad/fashion-agencies kind of work). Bottom-line, there is no need for one-size-must-fit-all - every individual/task is different. You worry about tracking deliverable and providing the resources - let the individual worry about how/from-where to execute them.
Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 I said people love an environment based on mutual trust. This is more true for motivated individuals with talent as they are able to drive themselves and provide great productive value. Note - we are talking about companies like Yahoo whose USP is to innovate in the Internet. Considering this' date= the perk for WFH is of great value and helps achieving both goals - employee satisfaction in terms of flexibility, fatigue etc. and company goals in terms of work. Removing this perk equates to distrust in the employees. Yahoo can't separate the performers from the non-performers. Hence, this dictatorial edict by MM. DM, How about an example instead of a theory? Give you 3 top IT companies of 90s and today. I will make it Indian so hopefully everybody can relate to. TCS Infosys WIPRO Which company was considered most "trustworthy" and which company ended up receiving most talent and why?
Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 You are making a classic fallacy here - you are once again being myopic rather than the big picture. Google gives other perks like food' date= showers etc. If you ask Yahoo, how many people stay in your company because of food obviously they will answer none because there isn't any. WFH is an important perk which should exist in companies like Yahoo! The removal of an existent perk shows distrust in employees. Thank you. Can you keep your personal dislikes out of the discourse please?? You had a point from Economist, I put forth one by Google CFO. Dont like it. Move on. Dont go torpedoing it because you dont like it. Personally between an article on Economist and some weird 347 link, I will take YAHOO CEO and Google CFO every single time. But hey feel free to listen to academics :giggle:
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 DM, How about an example instead of a theory? Give you 3 top IT companies of 90s and today. I will make it Indian so hopefully everybody can relate to. TCS Infosys WIPRO Which company was considered most "trustworthy" and which company ended up receiving most talent and why? Once again - a wrong analogy. TCS, Infosys and Wipro do not meet the properties of the companies under discussion - Yahoo, Google and Facebook!
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Thank you. Can you keep your personal dislikes out of the discourse please?? You had a point from Economist, I put forth one by Google CFO. Dont like it. Move on. Dont go torpedoing it because you dont like it. Personally between an article on Economist and some weird 347 link, I will take YAHOO CEO and Google CFO every single time. But hey feel free to listen to academics :giggle: Sorry for that comment - I retract it. I didn't mean to be personal but honestly felt you were getting lost in details The weird "347" (37signals) link you say in the Internet business for over a decade. The guy whom you are giggling at is the founder of Ruby on Rails (the hottest selling web technology currently) and a best-selling author. He's not your John Doe MBA CEO who can't write a single line of code and probably understands project collaboration better than the Google CEO. Jeff Bezos serves as an advisor to 37signals. Choose your words wisely! Also, inadvertently you have made a huge blunder in your argument. You can't support Google CEO and Yahoo CEO at the same time. The Google CEO allows WFH but the Yahoo CEO does NOT. Clearly, you have to choose one from them.
Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 Once again - a wrong analogy. TCS' date=' Infosys and Wipro do not meet the properties of the companies under discussion - Yahoo, Google and Facebook![/quote'] Lol. I am glad we dont get sucked into much discussion. Feel free to take your judgemental tripe elsewhere :--D
Lurker Posted March 1, 2013 Author Posted March 1, 2013 The weird "347" (37signals) link you say in the Internet business for over a decade. The guy whom you are giggling at is the founder of Ruby on Rails (the hottest selling web technology currently) and a best-selling author. He's not your John Doe MBA CEO who can't write a single line of code and probably understands project collaboration better than the Google CEO. Dont care. Google CFO carries more weightage on how Google, by means one of the most admired companies anywhere and top destination for talent, perceives WFH than some academics. Also, inadvertently you have made a huge blunder in your argument. You can't support Google CEO and Yahoo CEO at the same time. The Google CEO allows WFH but the Yahoo CEO does NOT. Clearly, you have to choose one from them. You are one judgemental tool, arent you? Always assuming. I am not even gonna bother that with a response. But yes next time ask me, and I will explain, instead of assuming (and my blunders). On second thought, maybe not..Dont see us going anywhere. I say that with all due respect dude :winky:
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Lol. I am glad we dont get sucked into much discussion. Feel free to take your judgemental tripe elsewhere :--D :facepalm: Seriously didn't expect this from you. No one here is suggesting that WFH is a right but everyone acknowledges that WFH is an important perk. I can't put it in more simple terms. Take the top three companies from the Silicon Valley and then do your exercise. Taking off shore companies in a conservative work country like India and drawing a conclusion for companies like Yahoo which are product based and located in a much more liberal working environment in the US is quite senseless.
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Dont care. Google CFO carries more weightage on how Google, by means one of the most admired companies anywhere and top destination for talent, perceives WFH than some academics. Huh? IF you do not care, why did you care to comment? IF you cared to comment, you do care else do not comment! Once you giggle against a web publication like 37signals which every other company including your beloved Google admires and then when I point out it's importance - you say don't care. How can one company sample size disown all others? Why is ONLY Google's word important? IS Google the ONLY admired company which doesn't allow WFH? What about the other admired companies in Silicon Valley which do allow WFH? Why should their policies be not taken as a representative of what someone thinks of WFH? You are one judgemental tool, arent you? Always assuming. I am not even gonna bother that with a response. But yes next time ask me, and I will explain, instead of assuming (and my blunders). On second thought, maybe not..Dont see us going anywhere. I say that with all due respect dude :winky: I just went on what you wrote. You said you will take Yahoo CEO and Google CEO every time. My question to you is how can you take both of them when they are actually making different policies? Google allows WFH but Yahoo does not.
akshayxyz Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Best example of WFH product is - Linux...and many many other open source tools.
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Some very good/most admired product based (innovative) companies which allow Work From Home (I will avoid naming Google). Amazon Facebook (The entire Camera App for Facebook was built at a garage) Dropbox Hewlett Packard AOL Netflix Twitter Microsoft IBM Air BnB Foursquare Path I think this sums things up pretty well.
rahulrulezz Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 To be honest, D_M won the battle against Lurker and I have to change my opinion that WFH shouldn't be totaly removed and should be there as a perk
Recommended Posts