Marissa Mayer Bans WAH

chestnuthooligan wrote:

<p>&lt;It's hard to work and be at the gym.  I'm not sure what kind of job you have, but do you really think an employer who has to answer to stockholders, pays employees to go to the gym?  It's sanctioned, but is the employer paying for gym time?&gt;</p><p>I am a WAH and have been one for 13 years. My last physical workplace had an on site gym. I will often take a break during the day to run or workout, and I often use this time to outline proposals, work through ongoing problems, or just clear my head from work clutter that's affecting my productivity.</p><p>I get paid for doing my job and my job does not require eyesight supervision with my manager. It also does not require fixed hours 9-5hrs. Personal work ethic and professional skill are the drivers of productivity in my profession, and it does not matter if you work in an office, at a client site, or at home. </p><p>I do have profit targets to meet and I've met or exceeded all targets every quarter that I've worked at this position.</p>

I've WAH exclusively since 2008 and this is also my experience, though I work under contract. I am paid to produce regardless of the time investment. I took a position through the Christmas retail season last year that required me to perform functions that were flexible. It didn't matter if I analyzed web traffic patterns at 1 am or first thing after lunch, so long as I seized the responsibility for monitoring it and adjusting istrategies to meet pre-decided optimization goals. The company I provided services for did not need someone sitting in front of a screen for 8 hours a day; they needed someone with my level of experience to ensure results. 

Another WAH standard, especially in client-based work, is the use of collaboration software. Some clients prefer constant updates to maintain accountability, while others just want an occasional report. 

You might find me at the pool and assume that I'm sunbathing on my employer's dime, but some work requires the kind of creativity not found in the confines of a cubicle. 

chestnuthooligan wrote:

<p>Why should I look at Mayer's FB page? The only successful WAH in my company with small children are those with childcare. The Yahoo employees with no childcare would not be working for me if I were there manager, nor for my company as a general principle. They are abusing the WAH option, and I would have no problem terminating their employment. They probably would be equally bad as in office employees.</p>

Totally late to this discussion, but I've never met someone WAH in a professional position that didn't have daycare for younger children.  I know I simply couldn't have done my job without daycare/afterschool care for the kids.

But that also reminds me of something I just saw about the some of the apparent reasons behind the policy change.  According to some sources (e.g. http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/How-Marissa-Mayer-Figured-Out-Work-At-Home-Yahoos-4322836.php) Mayer discovered that many WAH employees were hardly ever logging into work.  That simply boggles my mind.  Did Yahoo not have a policy in place about monitoring productivity, checking whether goals were achieved, etc.? Where were these people's managers?! How on earth could people get away with simply not even bothering to log in and get their work done?  I've usually got at least 3 meetings every day and batches of emails I have to address within a short time.  Even one day of me failing to be working at my desk and clearly logged in would most definitely be noticed.

I'm also inclined to agree that people who abuse WAH are very likely to be less than desirable employees in the office.  There certainly seem to be enough people out there who manage to put in their 8-10 hours face time per day and get pretty well nothing accomplished, hence the tools most companies establish to monitor productivity and achievement of goals.  

rosenylund wrote:

You do realize Bord that many families benefit from charities, correct? Why do you think people give money to them? (to the less fortunate).

Well, it's usually a needs-based org. It's not usually a person or family deciding they are "a 1st charity".