Humor Has Its Place... But Not Here

I've said this often: Be careful with humor in serious times. And what's funny to you may not be funny to someone else. It comes down to knowing your audience and having some compassion.

When Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer recently quipped, there will be “no layoffs… this week,” many at the company were reportedly shaken (http://www.mediaite.com/online/yahoo-ceo-cruelly-instills-fear-in-her-workforce-with-ominous-joke-no-layoffs-this-week/). With discussion about Yahoo!'s future and potential cuts already in the air, this attempt at humor was particularly unfunny.

There's some history on misreading the audience at the company. When Yahoo!'s work-at-home policy was reversed in 2013, they reported that it was meant to raise morale and increase collaboration. (You can read more here: http://www.c-o-i-n-s.blogspot.com/search/label/Yahoo). 

I agree that face-to-face communication is ideal but there's also a need for flexibility to ensure the best people are able to participate in the enterprise, especially in tech where there's great dispersion of talent.

The bottom line is morale or fun can't be forced or mandated. They're outcomes of an honest, communicative and interesting work environment with visible, empathic leadership.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Morale is Not an Objective, It’s an Outcome

Why We Keep Talking About Yahoo! (and Not in a Good Way)

The plus/minus of Yahoo!’s decision to reverse their work-at-home policy continues to dominate discussion about the company. It’s a clear sign that they’ve not taken control of the issue. 

The New York Times ran another story on the controversy today. Who were their sources? Who’s speaking for Yahoo!?  “A former senior employee,” “Brandon Holley, former editor of Shine, Yahoo’s women’s site, now editor of Lucky, Condé Nast’s shopping magazine,” a current “manager” and a “former manager.” This is not the way to 1) represent the company or 2) take charge of the message.

Because Yahoo! is staying out of the discussion while everyone else is weighing in, the issue continues to churn. Instead of redirecting us toward information on Yahoo!’s promise, we’re left talking about their problems.

I can certainly understand the need to address corporate culture issues; I support that wholeheartedly. But the headline of the NYT article announced, “Yahoo Says New Policy Is Meant to Raise Morale.” That's a big mistake, in my view. Here’s what I wrote in my book, Camelot, Inc. (Chapter 11, Joust for Fun: Dealing with Boundary Issues): 

You can’t mandate fun or good morale. I was in a room full of executives at a leadership retreat when the moderator asked, “What is your job?” The answers from the group were varied and included: “I protect and expand the reputation of my company,” “I generate new business and keep the money flowing in,” and “I try to create a great atmosphere where the people can contribute, learn, grow, and have fun.”

Wait, what? Fun? How much fun should we be expected to provide? Directly, none. Someone’s fun or happiness is his or her own job, or the job of a friend or spouse. Fun, like morale and office friendships, should be the happy byproduct of a vibrant, empowered work environment. 

The bottom line is that morale, fun or a “cool” place to work are outcomes of an honest, communicative and interesting work environment. Yahoo! will succeed if it focuses on delivering differentiated products services, providing unambiguous information, and instilling confidence with visible and empathetic leadership.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

What Was Communicated by Yahoo!’s Work-At-Home Reversal

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

We have to expect information leaks. Some are intended as part of a communication plan; some are unintended and, thus, may need a communication plan. Yahoo! is experiencing the latter.

A few days ago, AllThingsD reported that the company will no longer allow telecommuting. In a leaked memo from Jackie Reses, EVP of People and Development, employees were told that, “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.”

It’s hard to say how big, what kind or how many problems are caused by the remote workforce. (“Only several hundred” employees work remotely, though thousands “might be at home one or two days a week.”) Whatever those problems are, the new issue for Yahoo! is explaining its move. In the absence of a planned roll-out, here’s how stakeholders might be interpreting Yahoo!’s surprise announcement: 

• Some employees abused the work-at-home policy, which necessitated some unequivocal action.
• Employees working at home were not performing as well as those in the office and/or don’t know how to manage their time at home.
• Yahoo! leaders don’t know how to guide or train their work-at-home employees. They can’t trust what they can’t see.
• Some competitors appear to be able to keep their employees on-site; in order to speed a turnaround, Yahoo! feels that they have to be more like them.
• They seem to be “throwing the baby out with the bath water” – Yahoo! believes a one-size-fits-all solution is best.

The list can go on – we can keep imagining until the source of the issue give us reason to stop.

As it happens, I’m a big believer in face-to-face communication but not necessarily in the 24/7 variety. I wrote in Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table, “The continued cohesion of a team can be helped by having at least occasional face-to-face contact. Let’s take the elevator, the car, or the airplane and get back to our base, our Camelot, every now and then and sit around the Round Table for a discussion.”

King Arthur knew that his knights would be gone for weeks or months at a time while they implemented his plans. Yet, he demanded that they all return at the same time once a year to share their stories, hear updates and reaffirm commitments.

Perhaps Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer and Ms. Reses can take some cues – some Camelot wisdom – from the past:

• Hire people you can trust, which starts with a thorough vetting process.
• Train your people adequately, and ensure expectations are set and followed.
• Communicate as often as is reasonable, practical and appropriate.
• And, allow for flexibility. One size does not fit all.

Clearly, working at home can be challenging both for the employer and employee; it’s definitely not for everyone. But in a world of increasing customization and personalization, they should take the time to understand what kinds of people doing what kinds of jobs can work for how many days away from the office. It’s possible that Yahoo! could increase its fortunes by finding the right talent, not just the talent who can be in the office five days a week. 

Addendum:

Four days after news broke about Yahoo!'s policy reversal, the company issued a statement: “This isn’t a broad industry view on working from home. This is about what is right for Yahoo right now.” In response to a NYT request for elaboration, a company spokeswoman declined, saying, “We don’t discuss internal matters.”

What a missed opportunity. True, it's an internal matter but it's an issue that has much broader, external implications -- look at what's being communicated about leadership, decision making processes, and corporate culture and reputation. Why not address the stakeholders? Talk about your vision, ideas and plans. Cite some research that helps to justify the decision. Take control of the message.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.


 

Another Botched Corporate Transition

When Will They Ever Learn?
The news this week that Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz was fired took me back to Mark Hurd's departure from HP last year. I used Mr. Hurd and the HP Board as an example in chapter 13, Passing the Candle: Succession Planning, in my book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table. While Yahoo! stock rose and HP stock dropped in the immediate aftermath, both actions left a leadership vacuum -- the Boards acted without naming a successor. Indeed, both companies didn't appear to have a succession mechanism nor was a search firm in place. I wrote, "Succession for executives and managers must not be left to chance; evaluation of internal and external talent, along with a predetermined, orderly process for transition, is required to help guarantee the organization's ongoing success."

In the case of Ms. Bartz, though, a number of other book chapters were violated such as chapter 8, Picking Your Battles: Navigating through Your Audience and Environment. It was a less than graceful exit when she sent an e-mail to 14,000 staffers saying, "I am very sad to tell you that I've just been fired over the phone by Yahoo's Chairman of the Board." In an interview with Fortune, she expanded her remarks by saying, "These people f****ed me over."1 Will that help her to create trust in future relationships? Does that embody professionalism? And, in a blow to chapter 14, Destiny and Legacy: Making Your Personal and Professional Mark, is that how she wants to be remembered?

Of course, the Chairman, Roy Bostock, also trampled on chapter 8 as well as chapter 10, Realism and Idealism: Balancing Vision and Execution. The key take-aways are that one can't allow things to boil over and that important issues - no matter how awkward or uncomfortable - must be handled face-to-face. Ms. Bartz said she called him out on the cowardly handling of the termination by asking, "Why don't you have the balls to tell me yourself?"1

All of this begs the question of whether or not Ms. Bartz was the best choice when she was hired in 2009. In chapter 5, Creating a Round Table: Assembling the Right Team, the importance of vetting and fit - skills, personality, philosophy - are discussed. In an open letter, Yahoo! investor Daniel Loeb noted that Yahoo has cycled through four CEOs in four years. He said, "This board's failures have destroyed value for all Yahoo stakeholders." Ms. Bartz was brought in to turn around a struggling Yahoo! but mostly divested or shut down struggling units and shed employees. She "failed in that she could not build new growth engines for the company."2 And was her "take no prisoners" approach appropriate for Yahoo? As an outsider, I don't know but reports of poor relationships with Asian partners and a "proclivity for verbal gaffes" indicate that trouble probably started early on.3

So, Yahoo looks amateurish and ill-prepared, calls for ousting some Board members have begun, Ms. Bartz will probably continue to embarrass Yahoo! and herself for a while, and no one learned any management or communication lessons. Hint: I'm available for some consulting and I'll bring copies of my book.

1. Patricia Sellers, Fortune, Sep. 8, 2011
2. Maxwell Wessel, HBR Blog Network, Sep. 7, 2011
3. Kara Swisher, All Things Digital, Sep. 6, 2011

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.