You Can Take the Girl Out of Google...

Marissa Mayer's ban on working from home fits right in with the culture where she used to work.

A client of mine once described the Google culture as the "re-creation of the campus experience." It was a very apt observation. If you have ever been to Google, the first impression is that you're back in your old student union. Young people rushing every which way, notices for roommates and cars for sale posted on the walls, the occasional pet dog walking through, and so on.

And then there are the perq's - free food, on-site dry cleaners, auto mechanics and detailers, gyms, etc. Who wouldn't want to work there?

Well, as it turns out, people who want to have a life. Several recruiters have told me that they can pull people out of Google with relative ease once those people are tired of being "on" 24/7 and want some time for their families, significant others, or even just themselves. Typically, those people are older (mid-thirties plus) than the typical Googler.

Now Marissa Mayer - formerly of Google, now CEO of YAHOO - has announced an end to "work at home" schedules, effective in June. She cites the need for collaboration that only a physical presence can provide. The Twittersphere is in an uproar.

Some claim the ban is a setback for women's rights. Others point out that Mayer herself took only two weeks for maternity leave, supposedly a sign of her anti-family bias. Some say she doesn't get the idea of connected world. The cynics say it is an easy way to reduce headcount, by having all those who want to work from home leave YAHOO voluntarily (saving the company a boatload in severance costs).

I will withhold judgment. I think Mayer's argument about collaboration has some merit, but I also agree that an outright ban on remote working is draconian. There has to be a "happy medium" that allows employees to work from home and still have a presence at work that helps the employer achieve its goals. A year from now - long after working from home at YAHOO has been banned - we will begin to see if the company is more innovative. Or less.

I do believe, however, that Mayer is mistaken in trying to replicate the Google culture at YAHOO. It's like transplanting human organs - the host will almost always reject the transplant because the DNA is different. While YAHOO doesn't have the cachet that Google does as an employer, trying to force the employees to copy their more successful competitor up the highway is doomed.

Ironically, Mayer's announcement shows a lack of original thinking on her part. OK, let's stipulate that YAHOO is not as innovative as Google. And let's also say that Mayer is frustrated by the slow pace of change in the organization since she took over last July. Given that a significant percentage of employees work from home, does it make sense that eliminating what many - if not most - people consider a perq will inspire your employees to higher levels of innovation? Does weeding out the work-at-home staff necessarily improve the caliber of the cube dwellers? Was there absolutely no other way within the parameters of the YAHOO culture to get people to be more creative?

It is surprising that such a brilliant executive as Mayer made such an unoriginal move. Hopefully, she and YAHOO will recover.

What Do Great Employers Have in Common?

What Do Great Employers Have in Common?

Whether it's high tech or high fashion, healthcare or software, the best places to work share a common trait.

If you read any of the articles about the most desirable places to work, you will find a wide variety of employers. Google is there along with Wegman's grocery stores. Apple shares a roster with Baptist Health.

They all hire different types of people, with completely different skills, using different processes and myriad tools. So the common element of greatness is not dependent on the talent or the tools these employers use to find and keep the best and brightest.

Social media is gaining popularity with many employers and job seekers, but even that is not found in every example. Apple, for one, is notoriously secretive and discourages social media use among its employees.

Give up?

The common trait all great employers share is that each of them has a great story.

Facebook has a story so compelling they already made a movie about it ("The Social Network"). Apple has the story of the two "Steves" - Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak - who sold a VW bus and took on IBM in the early 80s. And, yes, they're in production on that movie, too.

Google? Sergei Brin and Larry Page, two Stanford grad students, develop a better algorithm for searching the Web and become billionaires overnight, then create an corporate environment that resembles a student union more than publicly-traded company.

The Nike story about Phil Knight making his first pair running shoes using a household waffle iron is mythic in athletic circles.

I could go on, but you get the idea. And the importance of stories is that they give people something in which to believe. Without them, people lack inspiration. They begin to work for the money, which makes them mercenary and frustrated because they lack greater meaning in their lives.

Bookmark this blog if you want to learn more about the importance of stories to attracting, hiring, and retaining the best talent. The proliferation of channels has made it paramount for employers to understand their stories and how those stories play out on the various platforms, e.g., Facebook, career Web sites, Twitter, Google+. and even antediluvian print (which Google is a master at using).