Mike Gunderloy comments on how currently telecommuting is viewed as a suitable response to a disaster (like a freeway collapsing, in which case it may be necessary for people to telecommute to avoid unacceptable commutes to work), but in other cases is still looked down upon.
But I’m starting to wonder how long we’re going to have to watch telecommuting (and by extension, other forms of web work) be marginalized this way. Implicit in the “telecommute in case of disaster” message is the other message that no sensible person would do this in normal times. Given the choice, of course everyone would prefer to get up an hour earlier in the morning and join all the other commuters in their giant vehicles, jockeying for position in the multiple lanes of a still-intact I-80 to I-580 connector in order to have the pleasure of being tied to a desk, wearing a suit and tie, for eight hours.
What’s it going to take to make telecommuters first-class citizens of the working world, rather than the crazy uncles that most companies don’t really want to talk about?
He then goes on to describe business, government, technology and personal factors and tendencies that would need to change in order for this to occur. Read more on Web Worker Daily.
An article by Dave McGinn (The failed revolution) just published in the Financial Post of Canada (found via Northern Telework) talks about how overall, the telecommuting phenomenon is not living up to expectations:
THE PROMISE With the advent of the Internet and tools such as e-mail, the notion of getting up in the morning and actually travelling to some far-away office seemed totally unnecessary. Back in the ’90s, companies were buying that idea. “Telecommuting is hot among businesses small and large,” BusinessWeek magazine noted in April, 1999. Advocates were quick to point out telework’s many advantages: companies would save on reduced office space costs, employees would benefit by not having to waste time or money commuting to work and all parties would enjoy a more flexible, productive workplace.
THE REALITY While the Canadian Telework Association estimates that some 1.5 million Canadians now telecommute in one form or another, up from 600,000 a decade ago, working off-site still carries the stigma it did back in 1999: “There are many managers who think that if they let one person do it then they have to let everyone do it, or that telework doesn’t work for teamwork or that management is too difficult with people working off-site,” says Bob Fortier, CTA president. Even organizations that have instituted telework programs, including Bell Canada, Inco Ltd., Bank of Montreal and IBM, are aware of telecommuting’s bad reputation. “There is definitely still skepticism and a question of ‘are you really working?’” says Deenah Patel, manager of corporate diversity at IBM Canada.
It seems that the expectations were that telecommuting was a solution that could be applied to everyone in every situation. I think that this does not quite jive with reality. As more people become educated regarding the pros and cons of telecommuting, and in what situations, industries (and types of workers) it is best applied, look to see levels of disappointment lower.
HR Daily Advisor has posted an article by Jay Schleifer (Telecommuters: Why They’re Suing Their Employers) reporting that as telecommuting is becoming more popular (up 40% in a single year), instances of remote workers suing their employers are becoming more common.
The crux of the issue is control. Without direct on-site supervision, employers simply don’t have it over how many hours employees work, whether they’re following company policy, and even whether home offices are properly set up so that workers don’t lose client information or injure themselves using ergonomically unsound equipment.
The solution appears to be in thinking through and implementing a set of solid policies to resolve the issues above, at the start of any telecommuting relationship.
According to Schleifer, some of the different issues that should be fleshed out include:
- Wage and Hours - determine exactly when the employee should be working. How is this reported, how is overtime to be handled?
- Enforce work schedules - make sure that agreements about overtime (or the non-approval of overtime) are followed
- Travel Expenses and Equipment - who buys it, who is responsible for its maintenance, what will happen to it if the employee leaves the company, how much will be the company’s responsibility, how much the employee’s (ie: the company may by the computer, but what about headphones? desk? surge protector? phone bill?)
- Proprietary Information - how should this be controlled and safeguarded when stored primarily in the employees home
- ADA Compliance - If applicable, how will the company work with disabled employees who are working from home
Although the $65 million dollar lawsuits will tend to happen more with extremely large companies like IBM (who have much more ingrained bureaucracy), many of these issues are still extremely relevant for smaller companies who employee remote workers. While any good employer-employee relationship must be based on trust (and even more so for telecommuters), potentially disruptive issues like the ones described above are best handled at the outset rather than after the fact.
Christopher Nickson posts on Digital Trends (found via Northern Telework) about a report that was just released that investigated the affect that telecommuting has on the environment. While lots of energy (and burned fossil fuel) is saved when a worker does not drive into work but rather walks down the hall to their home-office, it turns out that 80% of this saved energy is used up by increased energy costs incurred by the worker in their home (or to put it more positively, as Debora Ng writes, telecommuting means a 20% savings of energy). Additionally:
However, more powerful new home computers use more energy, and with routers and servers on 24/7, telecommuting has its own green issues to address if it’s going to make a real contribution to the bigger ecological picture. Additionally, some labor activists are worried that telecommuting could also lead to more outsourcing in cheaper economies, taking downsizing to a new level.
So telecommuting, which is already a growing trend, could have very positive benefits for global warming, the report concludes, but only if it’s carried out “in a planned and managed way.”
Today almost all businesses and government offices in the United States are taking the day off in observance of Memorial Day. This is day (along with some other days in the calendar connected to national observances like Labor Day and Independence Day, and religious observances like Christmas) are almost universally given as “company holidays” to full-time employees (working in non-essential areas). If your office is in New York City and you are telecommuting to work from Idaho, there is nothing strange about taking off Memorial Day along with the rest of the company. But what if you are telecommuting from a country where the reason behind the given company holiday has no meaning?
To give a personal example, I live in the Middle East and telecommute to my company in Boston. Although today is Memorial Day in the US, where I live it is just like any other work day. Likewise with nearly every other day that is a standard company holiday for a company located in the United States. Although I enjoy having a day off from work as much as anyone else, if I am going to receive extra days off as company holidays, I would rather take them on days that have meaning to me, where I live.
The manager or employer of those telecommuting from international locations are (or should) want to make things as easy for their employees as possible. This means letting them take days off when it is best for the employee (this will benefit the bottom-line as well). On the other hand though, the employer wants the remote worker to feel as if they are part of the company. If every single person in the company is taking off on Memorial Day and the one employee working overseas is working on this day and taking off a different day instead, this has the potential (depending to a large degree on the people involved, precedent and inter-office politics) to make the remote worker feel farther away from everyone else in the company.
In my case, when I have the need for an extra day off (normally for religious holidays) that fall around a company holiday that I would otherwise not feel the need to observe, we arrange for me to work on the company holiday and for me to take an extra day off at my discretion. As with many issues surrounding telecommuting, open communication and sensitivity to the needs of the remote worker (while keeping company-issues under consideration) are key in handling situations like this so that both the company and the telecommuting employee are able to use company holidays in the best way.
CIO Magazine has just published an article called Seven Things the CIO Should Know About Telecommuting (found via SlashDot) by Esther Schindler. The summary is:
- Telecommuting saves money for the company - you will save on lower office expenses for the telecommuter, you can hire people in different locales for less money than you would have to pay locally.
- Telecommuters can be more productive - Many people thrive in a quieter environment, away from the hustle and bustle. Face time can sometimes be inverse to productivity.
- Telecommuting doesn’t work for everyone - You need to be self-motivated and be able to be away from the social outlets that an office can provide in order to be a successful telecommuter
- Trust your people - Having workers out of the office is not possible unless you trust them to be able to work away from your scrutiny.
- Hone management skills for telecommuting - Communication is key. You have to be able to adapt your management style to focus on the parts of the job that need emphasis for the remote worker.
- Keep the telecommuter in the loop -Email, IM, phone - make sure that you stay connected with them, and they stay connected with you. They are still part of the team.
- Tools and technology make the difference - Get them a good computer, help them outfit their home-office, set up a VPN, pay for their office-related expenses, buy them a second (or third!) computer.
In short, telecommuting is a viable way for employees to work efficiently and productively, providing that they are supported by their employer and supervisor. See the article for more information and thoughts on the subject.
In a recent article published in Business Week (The Importance of Being There, reg. required), Jack and Suzy Welch write about one aspect of telecommuting that can be very detrimental for the development and success of one’s overall career:
But what you can’t do very well from home is lead. To lead, it’s no good blowing into town for important meetings and showing up at retreats. You have to muddle in the muck in between. People have to see how calm you stay in a PR crisis, how decent you are to new employees who don’t have the hang of things, how much you sweat during a tough deal, and how hard you work on a deadline without bitching and moaning. Or how you don’t do any or all of the above.
Which brings us back to face time. Companies rarely promote people into leadership roles who haven’t been consistently seen and measured. It’s a familiarity thing, and it’s a trust thing. We’re not saying that the people who get promoted are stars during every “crucible” moment at the office, but at least they’re present and accounted for. And their presence says: Work is my top priority. I’m committed to this company. I want to lead. And I can.
As they correctly point out, nowadays one can accomplish nearly every task related to one’s job (especially when closer to entry-level and farther away from management) away from the office. In some ways, one can even work better away from the hustle and bustle. But if you are interested in becoming a “leader” (as Welch was at GE), you will never be able to succeed if you are not there every day, being active and in-person.
Obviously, if management is your number-one career goal, then telecommuting can only be a short-term solution for you. However, for many types of jobs (especially those that are very techno-centered) and for people who are happy with what they are doing and do not have ambitions of leadership and management, telecommuting may very well turn out to be a much longer-term solution than described by the Welch’s in their article (Robert Mitchell makes a similar point in his blog post on the subject).