Last Friday's decision by Yahoo to eliminate telecommuting has released a firestorm of punditry on both sides of the issue. The lessons to be learned by analyzing from the sidelines are many - so let's begin.
Extremism at both ends: witness the thousands of comments posted about Yahoo's action. Many, unfortunately, can be categorized as being at the extreme ends of the spectrum: either this recent action by Yahoo was described in Biblical Revelations as a sure sign of the end times. . . or. . .that telecommuting itself has contributed to the downfall of civilization as we know it. As leaders, let's "back up" and be thoughtful: neither extreme is true. This is one action by one company regarding one set of circumstances.
Look at core thought differences expressed in this debate. Advocates of telecommuting point out that it can cut costs, often contributes to higher workplace satisfaction, reduces employee turn. Yahoo's Marissa Mayer counter-points that great collaboration happens when employees are working at the same site together and, whether in meetings or informal gatherings, these collaborations can lead to innovation.
Instead of automatically defaulting to one side or another, let's recognize this: both points of view are true; neither is wrong. This is the stuff that tough decisions are made of.
Look at the challenge contextually: pundits look at the Yahoo decision from their own personal viewpoint (pro-telecommuting or not - and here would be a good place to insert that generally I am in favor of it). We should also look at the issue contextually. Yahoo is a company that is publicly struggling and yes, is in dire need of innovation. The decision to end telecommuting may be a right decision for Yahoo at this time, but not a right decision for its competitors. As leaders, we should always apply context to issue management.
Understand that personal choice is still in force. The debates surrounding these type of issues can quickly degenerate into "the management has no right to do this" or "the employees are just a bunch of whiners." Let's be clear: Marissa Mayer and her management team are within their rights on changing the policy. . .and the team members at Yahoo are within their rights to either follow the policy or pursue opportunities elsewhere. (Let's also be clear that there are limitations to this guideline; no one in management should make the workplace a living hell - with the proviso that if the employee doesn't like it - they can just go elsewhere. That's not ethical and is just a bad business practice.)
Don't substitute a policy change for what is really a management issue. There has been some vocalization to the thought that Yahoo had become lax and that team members were abusing the telecommuting policy. Let's hope that the policy was changed for the stated reason, encouraging innovation, vs. trying to solve what is essentially a management issue by changing the policy. Lesson to be learned: don't change what may be a good policy just because of abuse by a few.
Lead with the headline and manage the message. Assume that Yahoo took the action of eliminating telecommuting with the purpose of fostering innovation; the message that came through in the media was upside down. It accented the elimination of what many felt was a strong benefit and then gave the reason. Properly positioned, a stronger managed message would have been, "Yahoo believes that it needs to foster innovation and further believes that its talented staff, working in collaboration with each other, is the best way to achieve that goal. With that in mind, it will no longer be a telecommuting company." Both messages are still presented, but in my mind, it is a more positive presentation of the message.
Brent Frerichs is the author of "Courageous Questions, Confident Leaders" available for readers, IPads, tablets and PCs on Kindle.
No comments:
Post a Comment