As you say, office cubicle layouts are hardly conducive to idea exchange. I have always considered anti-telecommute types as "fearless empire builders"whose restrictive notions border on being Luddite. That a company that harbors pretentions of becoming a serious social media player fails/fears to foster such an environment within the company speaks volumes about its future.

In the 21st century, it's not necessary for workers who have the right tools to work side-by-side in order to share ideas. Email, instant messaging and online discussion forums -- not to mention the good ol' fashioned telephone -- provide those functions quite nicely. If anything, as some commenters have mentioned here, working from home can make one more productive. Sure, there are times when there is no substitute for face-to-face meetings, but those are often outweighed by the need to go off by one's self to actually get work done.

Unfortunately -- and as some of the comments here demonstrate -- there's a perception that working from home is analogous to "goofing off," that if you're at home you can't be possibly doing "real" work, that you must be just sitting around in your PJ's watching soaps. That perception may be part of what's driving Yahoo's move here. But people can goof off just as easily in the office, unless their every move is being watched (and that's hardly the kind of environment that fosters teamwork and creativity). A well-run organization that measures productivity goals objectively can distinguish good workers from the slackers, whether they work in the office or at home.

Also, there may be a concern about fairness. I've been in situations where telecommuting privileges were granted at managers' discretion... meaning some folks got to work at home all the time when others were never allowed to. Naturally, that leads to friction -- and often to a decision by senior management to take the easiest solution and prevent telecommuting altogether.

Finally, if this is a move to thin the herd, it's a stupid one. The first ones out the door are going to be your superstars, as they're the ones with the most employment options, the most ambition, and the most to offer the competition.

In the 21st century, it is absolutely necessary for workers to be in the right environment that suits their personality. Too many low performers think they should have the right to telecommute because they see high performers being productive with it. This places a huge amount of overhead on a manager in making sure that those low performers are actually performing at all.

As far as thinning the herd--a superstar who cares about the company isn't going to bitch and moan about where they work from. A superstar who only cares about themselves will--and that's part of the herd you need to thin. When everyone works to their potential, companies make money. When people--even superstars--are "me first" it becomes a drain all over the place.

Perhaps I should have been more clear on my last point. Few employees -- superstars or otherwise -- are likely to leave a company over a single policy change. But if they perceive that change as a pretext for something more troubling, such as a staff reduction, they're going to start polishing their resumes. They're not going to wait around to get laid off, especially if they have options.

@Ransom

What "superstars" do you know that will give their all for the company??? Will the company not let them walk? Unless they are "under contract" the company today cares little for anything but the bottom line. This is 2013, not 1950.

I would love to have the respect and loyalty from my employer that my father had. He never had to look over his shoulder for a potential layoff because stock holder profits weren't high enough. If I could find an employer that displayed that they valued me, I would stay there forever. The employers showed disloyalty first and now economically the employee has to watch their back and be ready to move on in a heartbeat. It is a sad way to live.

I telecommuted for several years and loved it. When I changed jobs, it was the total opposite. They want you in the office, period and working from home is only for people either on vacation, or home sick, or home with sick kids. Yes, we have sickos who log in to work on their vacation days.

I don't work half as hard or get half as much done in the office as I would from working from home. There's just no comparison, but my lame-brained employer isn't too bright and the management team here is seriously lacking in management skills.

When working from home, I logged in very early and got on top of any issues right away. I didn't have to waste time shaving, showering, getting dressed, and commuting, so I could spend my most productive time getting things done. Being able to run a load of laundry or whatever let me catch up on home chores with zero impact to work. Not being interrupted, engaging in office chatter or pranks, or general BS, I knocked out most pieces of work in a fraction of the time. Lunch was time for a workout and a shower and then eat while back at the desk. If it was a slow day, I found plenty of other home things to do, and when it was busy I could work overtime without having to deal with a commute and inconveniencing others at home by having to work late.

Now, most days, I don't do much of anything other than look busy. As I said, the place is run by idiots. That's all they really want. If we look busy, they think we're doing a great job. The day drags on and I'm way behind on things at home due to all the extra hours added to the work day. It's just a paycheck and I hate it, but have to put up with it until something better comes up.

Any collaborations I've ever heard in the office is when a group is working on a solution. They go into a conference room to do that. I think they have way too many of those, because you have to stop what you are doing to go into the room, just to listen to two guys who re vying for alpha dog status. They will argue, trying to get the other to adopt their method of getting something done. Everyone else is just spectators.

The other collaboration is when there is a problem. Except with that one, a bunch of people crowd into someones cubical, where they annoy all those around them with their loud talking.

When I worked for IBM, we mostly work from home. They have all sorts of collaboration tools for chatting, conference calls, whiteboard software, so everyone can participate in discussions or training sessions. You aren't going to have the best people for a particular project, all working out of the same office.

It's easy to see who is participating remotely, because there is a record of what people do. We are all assigned projects, so if they are getting completed on schedule, what's the issue? I learn something with every collaboration.

There are times that you need to be side by side but I think telecommuting does increase productivity. A company could creatively lay out an office so that half of their employees are telecommuting in a rotation. They could save a lot of money on renting or purchasing space and the utility costs for that space. It's also better for the environment when people drive less.

My job requires us to be in the office but we have laptops for those situations where we need to work a little extra in the evening or on the weekend. People started abusing this immediately...screwing around all day and then logging in from home to complete their work on overtime. Now we aren't allowed to work at home at all.

The really unfortunate part of this is that we have 250 employees and only 200 parking spaces at our facility. We are located in a residential suburb that does not participate in public transportation and there is no parking available other than our lot. We really need an option like telecommuting on certain days available since there is nowhere to park when you get to work.

I don't believe you are more productive from home. I have worked from home and from and office. When you have children at home, distractions are great. Little children need attention. Also, working at an office I felt more productive and stimulated by an office environment. There were other people that I watched who worked from home and they seemed to spend the largest part of the day just doing personal business. So, for me, and I raised to children alone through college, I think the work environment is more productive.

That's exactly it. In IT we're expected to be available 24/7 and if I need to take care of something on a Sunday night I'm not going to drive into the office to do it. So if they take that away people are either going to leave, service is going to go down the tubes or you'll have some tired and unhappy workers.

But I think that was function of having the right people, a clear and concise schedule, with clear goals...

This, a thousand times this. It doesn't matter where people work if they are working ineffectively due to poor planning and ill-defined goals.

And sometime the people telecommuting are ill-defining the goals, with ill-definition of goals for their position.

I could seriously go on about how if the two people who telecommute for the executive management team of our department were to fall off the face of the earth, no one would notice.

baaaaaaah, reminds me of something...

breaks as needed? I think that is the concern..you may have been a great employee working from home but I'm willing to bet most that do it are lazy and are not as productive..possibly only "working" 5 true hours out of the day while napping, smoking, watching tv etc the rest..not giving it what they would give it if at the office..people are lazy these days..let em work from home and you're asking for it

If people are lazy, they're going to be lazy anywhere. I've worked from home for 7 years. I'm self employed. But if I were doing the same thing as an employee, I would be evaluated by what I produce, and the quality of that work. I get a lot more done at home than I ever did in an office. The office has a lot of distractions and pointless meetings. As long as I meet all my deadlines, and produce top quality work, it shouldn't matter how many breaks I take or how many actual hours I work. I do what needs to be done - and often much more. I only watch TV when I take a lunch break, which is usually about 15 minutes. If I were in an office and was given an hour for lunch, I'd probably take the whole hour. I'm far more productive and efficient working from home.

Except for the fact that I'm posting on this vine right now instead of writing the radio commercial I'm supposed to be writing! Signing off!

I agree with WinWin4All; it doesn't matter where you are--if you're not focused, you're not going to produce. I work from home FT & I can tell you that my output is so much greater than when I worked in the office with 40 people & had non-stop distractions from almost every co-worker on a daily basis. I know my deadlines, I know what's required, and I deliver. If I didn't, I would not still be employed. It doesn't matter to my boss if I do the work at 3 am or 3 pm, as long as it's in-hand when it is supposed to be & that the caliber of work is up to par.

Since going FT as a remote employee about 18 months ago, I have had two significant promotions & make 40% more than when I worked in the office. My stress level is much lower, I don't have to worry about a commute, and I feel trusted & empowered by my employer. That alone drives me to work even harder. Some days, I work 10-12 hours straight without taking time to stop & eat more than a granola bar; other days, it's 5-6 hours of work and some time to do laundry, read the news (like now, for instance), etc. Work fluctuates in the office just as much; it's just that on the days when there's not as much to do at that given moment, you have employees creating distractions for other employees & trying to hide internet usage in an attempt to look busy. How is that a better move than hiring the right talent who can work remotely & then managing them correctly?!

Sheila, most people only work 4 to 5 hours out of an eight hour work day anyway. Between meetings, interruptions and workplace chatter, to get any real work done, people have to work late or from home later anyway when the distractions have gone away. Sure, they're busy all day, but most of that is wasted misdirected energy just trying to look more busy than the others most of the time.

Set goals and rate people on meeting those goals and deadlines and why do you care how it gets done? Or, watch them like hawks and make them into clock watchers and they will undermine you with their contempt when they get a chance.

Employees may be able to goof off for a short time when they telecommute but eventually (and it's a short eventually) they have to deliver on whatever it is they're doing. Sure you can take a nap but the work doesn't disappear if you take a nap so you'll need to work 'till 6 or 10 or whatever it takes because you're still expected to deliver.

Sheila, are you speaking from your personal experience? I don't think people in IT are lazy. They are actually competitive and go-getters.

I think if you work for the tech sector there are less distractions at home. Also, since a lot of the work is project work with deadlines there is little time to goof around. People that do goof around don't last long.

I am able to telecommute one day a week and I love it. My work is fairly independent and even when I am in the office, I still mostly communicate through email. And that's mostly to keep a paper trail. Not everyone has the option to telecommute and I sometimes think people don't believe I'm actually working: close to the end of the day I'll get some kind of b.s. email that requires my response, which of course is within the same minute as receiving it. I used to have more telecommuting days but because other people proved themselves incapable of managing it, the rest of us were penalized. It's about managing perception: make sure you're always available during your work hours and for goodness sake, get the work done that you're supposed to. If you stay on top of it, you actually can cut your work day down but everyone thinks you're always working. It's not that hard.

I think if you work for the tech sector there are less distractions at home.

Yeah. Fewer distractions like your dog barking, the UPS man at the door, or your baby crying it's ass off when I'm on a conference call with you.

Lee I know you are trying to be difficult but actually you are right. We don't have a baby but we do have a dog that loves to bark at little old ladies walking by which was an issue. However, like everything else in the workplace you find a solution. We finally found when we need to talk to someone we have to put the dog in her den and cover it with a blanket. My point is nothings is perfect but there are solutions! I really think the best solution is for people to be more productive by working from their home office.

A physical presence doesn't ensure people do work. Recently there was a case of a Verizon worker who was outsourcing his work to some guy in China for a fifth of his paycheck while he goofed off all day.

And I've certainly been in factories where the operator has been known to nod off for a minute or 30.

Go to any government job site where people come in to work--look for example at the DMV or street-repair. Are all the people working hard? Hmmm?

What a joke. Real workers work. Most telecommuting high-tech workers LOVE their work.

rachel, I wonder where you live? The last time I went to my DMV there was a 2 hour wait. Customers were lined up out the door, and all the clerks were busy. Just what is a "real" worker"? -to you. No doubt cops, teachers or firemen do not qualify, right? They just put up with stuff most folks cant even comprehend. No doubt tho, you are a real worker, hmmm

I haven't gone to the DMV in years. In my state they have a website where you can do just about everything online. On the years I need an emissions test I take the car to the testing facility. The results of the test, payment etc is just submitted through my DMV account. By the time I get home the registration stickers are on their way.

An interesting comment. You state your opinion with a desire to enlighten people and change the way they think and end it with an insult. Somehow, I don't think that works.

rick -

What did you think a corporate worker was...a ballerina???

She is a corporate tool trying to protect her nest....in a few years they will have an average workforce of drones looking at the clock...like the rest of you

In a few years she'll be at a different company with her golden parachute trailing behind her and a Yahoo! much worse off than it was. That's how being a CEO works.

that's a THEORY X CEO - the brainless ones who think that the only way to PROVE that they have productive workers is to micromanage them. Personal interaction is NOT a requirement - in fact, I know of a blind guy who is JUST as valuable in what he does AT HOME with his sophisticated reading equipment than he could be in an office and he doesn't need to waste the TIME commuting.

Wake up you dinosaurs - tech jobs don't require continuous office presence

I knew her when we were both undergrads at Stanford, and she was a raging rhymes-with-witch back then. Sounds like she hasn't changed a bit in 15 years...

Dilbert!!!

Exactly. Plus, I actually find it easier to focus at home...the office can be noisy and it's definitely not as comfortable as being home.

Ditto. Add in the trips to the coffee machine, passing co-workers in the halls...

I've had the same experience as you DaveG. I found myself much more productive working at home.

Marrisa Mater's inability to be productive in the home work environment seems to mean that all of her employees have the same problem.

And the next step is to get rid of 20% of the work force that is retired in place...

Maybe her next move will be to make sure everyone is in their cubicles by 9am. I worked at a company where the CEO implemented a policy that everyone had to be at work at 9am. Thankfully, the company was aquired and he was out the door.

I agree.

Also, as a New Yorker, we have the problem, common in many cities, where workers have to move further and further away from the job. NYC has been taken over by high-paid workers, driving up the costs of apartments. So, Manhattan is ng for regular folks, even making $100K+. Then, it spread to Brooklyn, as close to Manh as possible (heck, even Miranda on Sex and the City had to do this-couldn't afford decent place in Manh). So, the commutes get longer because of congestion and from people moving further and further away.

So, how productive is someone who has a long (my case when i moved to suburbs) 3.5 hour r/t commute (plus the hour+ to shower, get dressed nice, and at night, take it off, hang up the suit, iron tomorrow's clothes, etc.)? Finally, the Silicon Valley software firm that took over (we designed and tested investment software on Wall St) enacted the telecommute option for every day.

Even without the stock options, it was a major "raise"-no money spent on trains (at least $5K a year), dry cleaning, lunches, a.m. take-out coffee, all gone. The company was able to get a lovely office, much smaller, and even had windows that opened (sick building syndrome very common).

Then, since many of us were used to getting up so early, we just started working then, in sweats. We got to the gym properly, when it was not packed and we were exhausted, again, healthy. No worry about kids and pets at home, healthy food (and we weren't stressed and eating crap as on the job)...

Had they done just the opposite, as Yahoo did, we would have run for the hills.

Congrats. I assume it is for something better for you and your situation.

Nice to hear when people can be choosier and not be bound by tin handcuffs. The expression is "golden handcuffs" but in this economy, many people are just happy to have health ins and some money coming in, as miserable as the job is.

I agree. This is more of a sign of micromanaging and top down management when both of those are not what a technology company needs to survive these days. Putting a manufacturing model on information technology is what almost killed some of the bigger companies until they changed their tactics. Yahoo's biggest problem isn't people working from home. It's how to get more cooperative deals with other much bigger companies to revive the dead brand which could attract advertisers. Does anyone seriously see Yahoo as a competitor to Google, Microsoft, Sony, the network/cable/music conglomerates, or even the mobile phone companies? They couldn't raise enough capital to successfully put a dent in any of them even if they came up with some superior ideas. They could license or sell the ideas to them, but I don't see them being able to successfully compete with them for market share.

One has to wonder if this is just a ploy to shake up the stock through both a big headcount reduction (eliminating many of the telecommuters) and appealing to the old fashioned investors who feel like workers need to put in 12+ hour days caged like animals and work has to be painful for all workers to squeeze maximum profits. Her moves might boost Yahoo's stock price in the short term for her to exercise and sell some stock options, and will probably hurt them as a company long term, but she'll be long gone out on a golden parachute by then.

Not sure where you work - but in the top tier IT corperations I've worked in - the high profile/gotta be done right projects are given to US teams while the paint by numbers/don't screw it up too bad projects are give to the global delivery centers in Argentina, Spain, India, China, Manila, etc.

The biggest difference is that the US workers have a can do/must do attitude while many of our global counterparts don't have that same drive, determination, and sense of urgency.

And you obviously don't work in IT or you would know practically everything we do has a defined project plan, milestones, specific deliverables, etc. with continually reported metrics attached. Anyone not getting their work done will show up red on scorecards for the world to see and then gets the chance to explain the variance on a widely attended conference call either daily or weekly. Its not like my manager needs to walk around and look at our screens to know if we are getting our work done.

dee you must be from Texas where the brains are in short supply (just look at their governor)

fork, you obviously don't know what a high-tech center like Austin is like. Real, legal, non-welfare Texans work hard.

Your house must be a realy mess Dee. tisk tisk a housewife with an attitude like that. I bet your husband has to cook his own dinner when he gets home from work because you've been busy blogging nonsense all day long.

rachel, Are you from texas? That explains everything..

Oh my goodness I will resist the desire to talk about who "real" Texans are, and for some reason I suspect a certain person commenting on it- AINT IT.

Yeah. Lots of levels of management to monitor and direct the output of the workers and lots of overhead costs to absorb in offices and infrastructure. That's worked out really well lately, hasn't it? Most successful companies dropped that model long ago. Yahoo may be able to buck that trend, but I doubt it. They're going to be significantly raising their costs on a brand that most people already view as a dinosaur. What does Yahoo currently offer or hope to offer that several other companies don't already do better? Without a clear answer to that, who is going to move to or invest in their brand instead of the competition?