1. It was obvious from the data that tons of people were taking advantage of WFH at Yahoo (e.g. never logging into the corporate network)
2. Easy to make the argument that the problem was Yahoo management didn't manage WFH well, but even if one takes that as a truism (I'd say especially if one takes that as a truism) seems like the fastest way to fix that would have been to at least get everyone in the office.
WFH can work great, or it can be a total failure, but the worst in any case would be to come into a specific situation and not make decisions based on the data for that company at hand and instead base them off some broad "industry trends" standards.
The cynical part of me thinks this is a way of trying to save costs (of renting offices) and pass this as some kind of politically correct virtue signalling. We so care about your well-being and we're so forward looking!
Most effective - All of the team physically together in the same space.
2nd most effective - All of the team remote.
Least effective - A mix of in-office and remote team members.
Most companies that try out remote work start with the least effective option (the mix). I don't know enough details of Yahoo's attempt to say if that's what they did, but I expect so.
The 100% remote option can save some office space cost, but some of that gets eaten up by increased travel. Even 100% remote teams can greatly benefit from getting together sometimes.
But one less-appreciated possibility opened up by 100% remote is the ability to draw talent from a much larger geographic area. We had engineers from all over North and South America. On balance, I think that makes it easier to retain older employees with valuable knowledge, who might want to have a house in the suburbs in a non-coastal state, instead of limiting your hiring pool to people willing to tolerate the congestion and cost of living in a big city.
I guess my take is the hot one, but if a remote team is routinely travelling to meet, I do not think that is 100% remote! It's just mostly remote. I recently had a 'remote job' that required 6-8 cross-country airline flights per year. The stress from those trips dramatically decreased my productivity in the weeks leading up to the trip (via increased personal costs not covered by the company, via harassment at airport security, etc). When hired, I was told it was 2 trips per year. This was okay with me, but the increase was not.
Perhaps some teams who work remotely can and do benefit from frequently meeting in person, but I honestly do not count that as 100% remote. It just...isn't 100%.
I also have a great deal of respect for my teammates, some of whom I've worked with on multiple projects and companies over the past decade. But I'm especially glad not to complicate our relationships beyond our work together.
100% this. Will be interesting to see what employers do when workers start requesting part-time coworking space.
That rule is to prevent spread from strangers in grocery stores etc during brief contacts
For now, it saves tremendous costs as it could be over a year before their typical engineer wants to come into an office.