(image courtesy: Dilbert)
Sometime back, Marissa Mayer [disclosure: I’m a giggles fan 😉 ] created quite a flutter with her decision to get Yahoos to stop their work-from-home arrangements. This seems a performance linked decision and across the web, you will find various perspectives on it. This mix of perspectives continue on the employee side as well. Working-from-home brings its own set of pros and cons, and one can debate it from both sides.
As with most everything, there can hardly be a single solution that fits all, and there are various subjective elements on the employee and employer sides that need to be considered. This is especially so in the social era, when corporations will be compelled to align business objectives with a purpose that consumers and employees can identify with, and work cohesively towards.
As I considered work-from-home in that light, I went back to its origins, and wondered about its intent. It would seem that work-from-home has long been considered as a perk for employees and a ‘carrot’ for hiring. Some organisations might have even brought up cost savings, but I’m not sure if it has ever been tightly linked to the organisation’s purpose. If the employee treats the job as exactly that, then shirking-from-home/office would only be a variation in degree. In the end, the work-from-home option is a bribe. On the other hand, an employee who shares a sense of purpose will create value regardless of his/her location.
I realise this might somewhat idealistic, but with technological advances, organisations’ increasing understanding of culture and its impact on business metrics, and more and more people becoming conscious of how they’re financing their lives, and what they end up doing for it, I think the idea is moving towards reality. Maybe not as a rule, but as a good number of exceptions.
until next time, feel at home at work.. 🙂