Yahoo, working at home: Marissa Mayer has made a terrible mistake—working from home is great for employees and employers.

Yahoo Has Made a Terrible Mistake. Working From Home Is Great for Employees and Employers.

Yahoo Has Made a Terrible Mistake. Working From Home Is Great for Employees and Employers.

Innovation, the Internet, gadgets, and more.
Feb. 26 2013 6:11 PM

Marissa Mayer Has Made a Terrible Mistake

Working from home is great for employees—and employers.

(Continued from Page 1)

Mayer is going to regret this decision. It’s myopic, unfriendly, and so boneheaded that I worry it’s the product of spending too much time at the office. (She did, after all, build a nursery next to her office to house her new baby). It’s not just that the policy completely elides the virtues of working from home. Numerous studies have found that people can be more productive when they’re allowed to work away from the office. One, released this month by researchers at Stanford, showed that when Chinese call-center employees were allowed to work from home, their performance increased by 13 percent. Considering such gains, it’s likely that Yahoo’s new ban will force remote workers to alter their work lives in a way that will lower their productivity. It will also put Yahoo at odds with just about every other tech company in Silicon Valley—firms that don’t impose such rules on working from home, and with whom Yahoo competes for talent.

Illustration by Robert Neubecker

Illustration by Robert Neubecker

The larger problem with the ban is its apparent cluelessness about how creative work occurs. Marissa Mayer is said to be a devoted office worker. Both her admirers and critics call her a workaholic, a woman who’s gotten ahead not just through talent but also by working longer hours than most other people. Yahoo is a Web and media company, a firm teeming with engineers, designers, writers, and editors—people whose work not only can be accomplished remotely, but also people who may find working at home to be a better way to get things done. This decision suggests that Mayer doesn’t understand one of the most basic ideas about managing workers—that different people work in different ways, and that some kinds of pursuits are inhibited, rather than improved, by time in the office.

The working-from-home ban also reveals that Mayer doesn’t know how to measure her workers’ performance. Swisher quotes a source who says that Mayer has been “irked about Yahoo parking lots that are slow to fill in the morning and quick to empty by 5 p.m.” This is a classic bad-manager misconception—that a full parking lot means people are getting stuff done. And it’s easy for employees to game that system. If my boss makes it clear that she’s looking for my car in the parking lot in the evenings and on weekends, all I’ve got to do to get noticed is spend a lot of time at the office. Sure, this will ruin the rest of my life, but otherwise it’s easy—as long as I’m in the office, even if I’m just playing solitaire, I know I’ll be making a good impression.


By contrast, allowing workers to work from anywhere pushes managers to look at more important measurements of productivity. As David Fullerton, the vice president of engineering at the Web firm Stack Exchange, explained in a recent blog post extolling the virtues of remote working, “As a manager, I can’t easily know how many hours each person on my team is working. This is actually good for me because it forces me to look at what they’ve done.”

One theory behind Yahoo’s office-only policy is that it’s an effort to combat the firm’s bloat; the firm, one ex-Yahoo told Business Insider, has been beset by people who claim to be working remotely but just don’t ever get things done. But if that’s the case, then why use this blunt instrument? Why not just fire the people who aren’t doing their work?

One last thing: Yahoo’s HR memo defends its working-from-home ban by pointing to the improvement in “collaboration and communication” that stems from being in the office. This is a reference to a long line of research pointing to the benefits of propinquity—when people from different disciplines interact with one another, they come up with brilliant ideas together. (See Jonah Lehrer’s New Yorker piece explaining the research behind this theory; despite the author’s disgrace, the research still looks pretty solid.)

Yahoo’s memo seems to suggest there’s a tension between the productivity gains to be had from remote working and the collaborative spirit fostered by people in close proximity to one another. But that doesn’t have to be the case. Companies with flexible policies can allow people to work at home a few days a week and from the office on other days. Modern communications technologies can also help. For instance, telepresence robots like the Beam and Anybot allow home workers to move a robotic avatar through a faraway office. People who work using these technologies have told me that they allow for offsite workers to interact with their colleagues very naturally. The more you use it, the more you feel like you’re really there.

Such remote-working technologies are going to get much better in the next few years. I suspect that in time, the distinction between working in the office and working at home will fade away. We’ll all be able to work from anywhere, at any time, and our work will be assessed by what we produce, not how much time we spend doing it. Except at Yahoo, where the only thing that counts is showing up.

Farhad Manjoo is a technology columnist for the New York Times and the author of True Enough.