Telework

The price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States has hit $4.00 for the first time and the threat posed by global warming looms. Yet with the economy and the environment both in bad shape, employees continue to make what now amounts to an unnecessary and tragic commute to the workplace 5 days a week. A behavior driven by the employer’s expectation that everyone must show up every day. I call it tragic because thousands of jobs can now be performed outside of the workplace, so not everyone has to show up every day. Many workers can work from home or off-site most if not every day of the week. Employers, both government and private are choking the life out of the environment and the economy by engaging in the unnecessary warehousing of workers every day from 9 to 5. If it is true that opportunity comes when there is adversity, then the opportunity to overcome soaring gas prices may be here already. It may be too idealistic to imagine life without rush-hour but we can aspire to attain something close to it by exploiting unconventional opportunities like telecommuting and telework.

Telecommuting or Teleworking as it is sometimes called is nothing new. You have email and virtual private networks (VPN) which make it possible for a worker to access the workplace from almost anywhere with nothing more than a computer and internet access. This is good news. The bad news is that most organizations either implicitly or explicitly, discourage telecommuting. They fail to see its surprising practicality. I know this from almost 10 years of professional experience, 4 of which involved full time telecommuting. The unpopularity of telecommuting may partly lie in a belief that is ingrained within us. This is the belief that no one, other than the government, is crazy enough to pay you to sit at home from Monday to Friday. There is a prevailing mentality that work has to be performed in full view of the employer before compensation can be made. Clinging to this belief today is quite backwards when you think of it. Unfortunately most employers have this belief along with a majority of employees. Years ago it would have been inconceivable that students would be able to earn college degrees without having to set foot in a classroom. Today, the most reputable schools around the country offer online classes. If we are so advanced that college professors can teach their students without actually being in front of them, then we should also be able to effectively manage and oversee employees without having to stand directly over them.

Never has it been more critical to rethink this behavior where everyone goes to the workplace five days a week. Workers, many of whom are underpaid to begin with continue to burn a hole in their pockets and an even bigger one in the atmosphere because of this belief that everyone must show up at work every day. First of all, you are underpaid. Secondly, you are spending the entire thing at the gas pump so you can get back to that underpaying job. All this without asking one simple question, “Am I able to accomplish my job requirements or even do my job better if I worked from home most days of the week”? If you think that most of the work you do has to be done in the workplace, think again. What percent of your entire work week do you spend at your desk working? It is this amount of time that determines from an operations perspective, whether your job can still be done effectively outside the office. For example, Jane Doe is a junior level analyst with her company and she earns about $35,000 a year. Her schedule includes a one hour staff meeting every Monday and a couple of short meetings during the week, each one lasting about 20 to 30 minutes. She physically interacts with her boss and co-workers several times a day, maybe for 30 minutes in all. They mainly discuss work issues and they also swap questions and answers. This means that the every week, she spends approximately 5 to 6 hours on required interactions, about 3 hours in meetings and about 3 hours with her boss, leaving her with 34 hours at her desk doing actual work. Required interactions are those human interactions that are critical to do the work you have been given. Required interactions can take the form of meetings, questions for the boss, questions from the boss, brainstorming with co-workers or even checking up on end users or clients. A more efficient work schedule for Jane Doe would be to work from home four days of the week and come into the office only on Mondays. Every Monday morning she would go into the staff meeting for an hour, leaving her with 7 whole hours to be available for most of her other required interactions. The remaining four days of the week can be spent in the confines of her apartment doing her work and taking calls as if she were in the office. I observed that for most workers around me, these required interactions were important, but it was the actual task done from behind the desk that took up the bulk of their 40 hour work week. Everyone cannot work off site. In fact many in the workforce have to be physically at the workplace in order to accomplish their job requirements. But the population that I will be discussing is made up of workers who don’t have to be in a workplace to accomplish their job requirements, or those that I call non-site essential (NSE) workers.

The NSE worker

NSE workers are those who are able to accomplish their job requirements working off-site or at home most of the time. To me, mass telecommuting is a practice that involves frequent telecommuting for every NSE workers and the creation and maintenance of policies and infrastructure to support that practice. There is a difference between current trends in Telecommuting or telework and the idea of Mass Telecommuting. With the current trends in telecommuting you have a very small number of people working from home once a week at most. Mass telecommuting on the other hand involves a massive number of workers who go into the office sparingly, and work from home or off-site at all other times.

Mass telecommuting seems most applicable in the white collar sector. It is said that white collar workers make up more than half of the entire workforce here in the US. Many of these workers have college degrees and the likes, but strikingly seem unable to grasp that many among them do not even have to leave the house in the morning in order to get a paycheck. I am always struck by the looks on faces of people that I know, whenever I suggest that they can work from home especially given these record gas prices. Many are puzzled and can’t seem to figure out how it would be possible to do billable work anywhere else but in the office. Yes, the apparel does say Harvard indeed but the mind may well have idiot written all over it. Telecommuting is not and should not be an alien concept. Even jobs that don’t require a college degree can still be done effectively via telecommuting. In the customer service and telemarketing industries, thousands of customer service reps and telemarketers have to commute to call centers every day to take and make calls. Why not Decentralize these call centers, hand everyone a laptop and a PABX telephone and send them all home. Big companies in the US have outsourced their entire customer service to places as far away as India. Their reps do not have to be physically here in the US in order to provide services to their US customers. If this is possible, is it not also possible that workers who handle calls for a living here in the US can do it right out of their homes?

There is a green revolution of sorts happening at the moment that has everyone either going or thinking of going green. There are more hybrid cars on the road and more organic food on store shelves, but what about the 800 pound Gorilla in the midst? This 800 pound Gorilla happens to be a workforce that could be made greener, but unfortunately is led by executives and managers many of whom like to parade as tough guys but are actually too yellow to steer the ship through uncharted waters. What impact would it have all around if you took 15 to 20 percent of cars off the roads every day? Would it have much environmental or economic impact? I have yet to come across a telecommuter that likes to hug trees, but as a result of their style of working, telecommuters and their employers inadvertently help the environment. Plus, when you work from home, believe me, you will definitely think twice about the cost of ink and paper before printing out that 100 page user guide that you could read off your screen just as well. Thus it is safe to say that white collar workers that telecommute or telework most of the time can be considered either green collar or green-white collar workers. And employers that promote mass telecommuting ought to be considered green as well and also be entitled to all the breaks and benefits that come along with that designation. It would be naïve to think that everyone who is given the opportunity to telework will be in front of the computer screen everyday from 9 to 5. No one is perfect, and yes, some of your telecommuters may leave home during normal working hours and head for the mountains or the mall or wherever. Not a big deal! Just hand them a pocket computer or a PDA, this way you can stay connected with them.

Telecommuting Myths and Obstacles

There are a number of myths about telecommuting that I have encountered which may have something to do with its unpopularity among employers.

No work will get done

One myth about telecommuting is that the work won’t get done. Traditionally, from 9 to 5, managers and bosses assert their power and control over employees in the workplace. Mass telecommuting means that there will be fewer people in the office for managers to boss around. Perhaps this is a myth fueled either by the managements fear of losing this power or perhaps it may be fueled by the contempt that non-teleworking employees have for that one employee who has only been in the office once, but gets a check every week like everyone else. In fact in my years of telecommuting I found that I worked more at home. It made sense. I was at home after all. When you are working in your most natural element, almost everything you need is right there. There is no workplace stress and you are more relaxed. So naturally I had more energy to do more work. Another reason why I worked longer hours is because I didn’t have to drive home, so I could work as late as I wanted. Employers need not fret, because mass telecommuting and oversight are not mutually exclusive. Many managers like to think that without their involvement, the work won’t be accomplished. Adopting mass telecommuting or teleworking means that we have to toss out not all, but some of the traditional approaches to management. This does not mean an all out marginalization of management; rather it means embracing a more goal oriented style of management that involves less supervision. As more and more new service oriented jobs emerge, many of these jobs will be project based and have measurable milestones. Things like status meetings and reports can still be used to determine rather quickly whether or not telecommuters are doing the work. Hey, even the president who supposedly has the most important job in the world does it right out of his home. So why can’t ordinary people be trusted to telework from home or from nearby telework centers? The bottom line is this; employees who take their work seriously at the office will most likely take it seriously while working from home. On the other hand, employees who slack off at the office will most likely slack off at home. If the serious employees don’t become slackers while working from home, then productivity will not be at risk. Having said that, one test for the viability of mass telecommuting could be to see if there has been a sharp decline in productivity given the current trends in telecommuting. Anything short of a sharp decline would suggest that mass telecommuting is viable.

A hindrance to teamwork

Another myth is that telecommuting is a hindrance to teamwork. Try getting your employer to let you work from home and you will likely get a long lecture on teamwork, replete with platitudes. There are many managers out there who have become control freaks. They would rather have you come to work every day and surf the web from 9 to 5, than trust you to meet your workplace responsibilities from home or ...
<click here for the complete document>

On the contrary, Telecommuting and VPNs can help teamwork. There are many fields of work like the military or the health research field, where groups are decentralized and members are spread out across geographic areas. They communicate and share data via internet, email and virtual networks. Yet they are still able to achieve group objectives, all without being in each other’s faces all the time. I don’t see why it would be such a bad idea for corporate and government organizations to start adopting mass telecommuting.

It may surprise you to know that employers and managers resistance to telecommuting has no more to do with their concerns about teamwork and getting the job done than it has to do with fear, egomania, or even managerial narcissism. Maybe I am wrong. Whatever the reason may be, the combination of email and VPN renders primitive this notion that the only way to achieve teamwork is to have the entire team report to the office everyday from 9 to 5.

If you telecommute you may be forced to take a pay cut

Another myth I encountered is that you have to take a pay cut if you telecommute. This is utter nonsense. Years ago when I started telecommuting every day, someone I know asked me if I had to take a pay cut to be allowed to work from home. My response to her was, “are you out of your mind”? Should I be made to pay for having the stones to take the initiative? No, I didn’t take a pay cut. In fact I received bigger pay raises and got more performance bonus checks after I started telecommuting. Besides, I was doing the water cooler junkies a favor by telecommuting. You see, I have the unpopular gift of being serious and candid around the office. Unlike most, I dismiss the notion that being a regular at the water cooler, jockeying for the boss’s approval, and putting on an act from 9 to 5 are the surest ways to ensure professional survival. There are just no guarantees that any of these things will bring you the money or longevity that you seek. My own professional survival is ensured mainly by a combination of the quality of my work, reliability and a willingness to assert what I call my natural worker leverage when necessary.

Employees are obstacles as well

It is not just employers and managers that are standing in the way of mass telecommuting. The employees are just as much an obstacle. Many NSE employees would love to telecommute or telework but are just too afraid to demand it. Afraid of being fired or afraid they would have to take a pay cut or afraid of some other stupid myth about telecommuting. Employees are typically afraid of their employers. This fear is so strong that it prevents many employees from understanding and using their natural worker leverage. Natural worker leverage is simply based on the fact that the employer has something that the employee needs and the employee has something that the employer needs. However the employee’s natural leverage is inherently weaker than employer leverage because there is an abundance of candidates willing perform the same job for the employer. Nevertheless, weak leverage or not, leverage is leverage. Assert it well and you will have longevity, and maybe even finally get paid what you are really worth.

Mass Telecommuting can be a win-win

Mass telecommuting like anything else will have its side effects. When you allow people to work from home in massive numbers there will most certainly be challenges. Maybe the daycare industry will suffer as a result, or maybe we’ll become even more obese from not having to leave the house at all or from sitting in the Lazy-boy with a laptop while listening to the boss ramble on the speaker, cocktail on the left and a bag of chips on the right. Maybe we’ll be delving into murky legal waters as we move towards converting our homes into small extensions of the workplace. I don’t know, but whatever the side effects may be, it is unlikely that conditions will be as grave as the economic and environmental problems we are currently facing. It is impossible to accurately predict all the side effects of mass telecommuting without trying it first. But given the current conditions it is safe to assume that there could be something in mass telecommuting for everyone, employees and employers alike.

Consider how much employers spend warehousing workers everyday from 9 to 5. Think of how much space and energy is used up just to keep workers on “lockdown” from 9 to 5. There is no need for organizations to continue warehousing workers at current levels. Businesses can cut down on the building and maintaining costs, energy costs, and all other costs and liabilities associated with the workplace. Some benefits, and subsidies extended to employees by their employers may no longer be needed in a mass telecommuting age. This could amount to significant savings for the employer. Government can cut back on spending simply by sending part of its workforce off to work from home for more than just 20 percent of the time. The joke or reality depending on how you see it is that government workers don’t do any work anyway. So why continue to spend tax dollars warehousing those who qualify as NSE workers?

Mass Telecommuting: Possible ways to go about it

Many workers employed by Government agencies are allowed to telework about 20 percent of the time. This is a good step forward but the Government can do more by encouraging more of its employees, especially the NSE ones to work from home more often. Big private organizations can pick up where the government leaves off and stretch it even further. But first, the infrastructure to support mass telecommuting has to be in place. For example, a company with a VPN capacity that supports 10 users could increase the capacity to support 50 more users. That means 50 more workers can be accessing the workplace from their homes all at the same time. Secondly, I would imagine that the idea of mass telecommuting, a dramatic shift in the fundamental way of how we think about working and management, will require major changes in policy. Employers will be faced with coming up with policies that will be suited for this kind of virtual working environment.

If the big organizations are reluctant to adopt mass telecommuting, then smaller organizations can make the move. I found that small companies, women owned or minority owned tend to be much more agile and not as set in their ways as the bigger organizations. By their very nature these companies seem to be less opposed to change than their bigger counterparts. All my telecommuting experience has been with small or women owned or minority owned companies. It was in companies like these that I frequently came across bosses and executives who shared a simply philosophy about the work; “just make it happen baby”. They didn’t care whether you showed up, or whether you did the work from mars, or whether you got your dog to do it for you, so long as you do a good job and meet all the deadlines. I found this progressive management style to be more prevalent among female bosses and younger male executives. The typical male managers on the other hand, I found weren’t equally as progressive in their management style. They seemed to be more interested in hovering over employees than the end goal.

Economic hardships and all, it is unlikely that employers, small or large will be willing to relinquish significant control and embrace mass telecommuting. Rather they are more likely to opt for the unoriginal approach, like handing out more metro vouchers and encouraging workers to carpool more. Things that have already been tried before. With that said, it is then the employees that must take the initiative. Management can be pressured into allowing more telecommuting. From experience, I know that most people in the workplace are just too scared to push management to do things. This is because everyone capitulates to that ever present threat of firing. No one wants to poke the bear. That being the case, principal members in a workgroup or the key players can band together and take the initiative to demand telecommuting for the entire team. Although I am quick to impugn management, from experience I know that most managers are not stupid enough to get rid of their key players. There a many managers and executives out there who don’t have a clue, so they have to rely on their key players to make things happen. Some years ago, while I was considering a job offer, I was told by an executive of the company that I was being recruited to fill the position of team leader which had just become vacant. When I came on board there was tension between myself and the only other senior level member on the team. He resented me and challenged my claim to the position. I didn’t see myself as management material so I eventually gave up the title and instead demanded and got something even better. What could be better than working from home every day? You see, when you are considered a key player on the team, you can make those kinds of demands and still keep your job.

I know that this notion that employees ought to pressure employers into adopting mass telecommuting may sound crazy to many, but that is an understandable reaction. You see, in the dynamics of the employee-employer relationship, many employees consider themselves to be much too less a party to matter. It is this mindset combined with the threat of firing that inherently keeps many employees in line. I won’t say I made a career of poking the bear, but whenever I did, it was well worth the risk, professionally. Once you fully understand this natural worker leverage thing, once you know the monetary value of your services to your employer, a figure which is usually higher than what you are paid, some clarity can then emerge. Making it seem less daunting a task to push management around a bit when it is necessary. Suffice to say that if you want to work from home all the time, it helps if you are exceptionally good and reliable at your job. Otherwise poking the bear can land you at home on a one way ticket. Remember that teleworking is still a privilege, not yet fully a right.

If all else fails, be prepared to go elsewhere. If your employer still won’t budge, consider working elsewhere where the management style is more progressive and the mention of telecommuting does not send out shockwaves. Sometimes there are conditions in our lives that leave us with little choice but to telecommute. There have been times when my need to telecommute was so great as a result of personal circumstances, that I felt no amount of money thrown at me would be enough to keep me boxed in an office. I never think twice about parting ways with any organization that chooses to be inconsiderate when it comes to telecommuting.

A purist approach to Mass Telecommuting

Whenever I think of mass Telecommuting, it always manifests in it pure form. I feel that Mass telecommuting in its pure form involves working from home most of the time for most people. Not just some of the time, or 20 percent of the time. I think everyone should work from home every day as long as the job description allows it. Face time as they call it, is not unnecessary, but it is not as relevant to every job description as managers like to claim.

Take the field of computer programming for example, here I find that face time is overrated. Either you know how to write a useful computer program or you don’t. Face time ain’t got much to do with writing useful computer programs. Perhaps face time is more important for the systems analysts. They are the ones who interface between the programmer and the end user, and document the end user’s needs. This document is primarily what the programmer needs to do the work. A good Programmer can take this document and fly with it and not require much direction. Questions or gaps in the document can be resolved just as well via phone or email. I have done my work from home this way for the last four years and since that time, no employer or client has complained to me about the quality of my work. Mass telecommuting applies not just to computer programming alone, it easily applies to so many other fields as well.

Some will argue that face time is important if you want to make it to the top. There is some truth to this, but the reality is that there are only a few vacancies at the top. So even if everyone invests a lot of face time with the boss, majority of them will still not get that promotion. How can face time improve your chances of clinching that upcoming promotion, if everyone around you is also face timing for the same promotion? In that case, the decision to promote may be based on other factors that have nothing to do with face time. That is one of the issues I have with this face time business, all that lobbying may not get you anywhere far because there just isn’t much room at the top or in the budget. As far as I am concerned, if you set the promotion thing aside for a moment and instead convince your manager to allow you to telework most of the time, you are already at the top. I was once offered a promotion to director. At that time, I was already telecommuting full time and I knew that given the culture of the organization, accepting the promotion meant that I would have to be in the office a lot more. I turned it down. I told my boss to offer the promotion to the next person in line who was by far my junior and I assured him that I would have no problems taking orders from the junior counterpart. Here is how I saw it, having director attached to you name may be nice especially if you worship that sort of thing, but telecommuting by far offered the real and substantive rewards.

It not just Face time, meetings too can be irrelevant at times. I wonder whether all meetings held at the workplace are necessary. Sounds crazy, but I am not saying that meetings are not important. I am simply saying that employees don’t have to be rounded up into the conference room like sheep every single time the boss gets the sudden urge to ramble in front of an audience. Isn’t that why we have phones, email, teleconferencing and video conferencing? Calling meetings that are uncalled-for is just one example of how management underutilizes available technology in communicating with employees. In fact some managers show up in the conference room with their minds already made up. The meeting then becomes merely a farce disguised to appear like a consensus platform. Some managers will ask for ideas, shoot down every single one and proceed with theirs.

A more conservative approach to Mass Telecommuting

I have for long felt the inevitability of mass telecommuting or some semblance of it. Employers spend millions on technologies like email, VPN, teleconferencing and video conferencing capabilities but hardly put any of it to good use. It just seems like they monkey-around with these tools and after 12 months, they swiftly sign a bigger check for newer ones that will also go under-leveraged and under-utilized. So as you can see, the technology to start implementing mass telecommuting is and has been at employer’s fingertips. It is the willingness of employers to fully leverage these tools that has been absent. Employers are typically slow to act when it comes to anything that will offer real benefits to their workers, much less an idea such as mass telecommuting. Having said that, I do concede that rather than sending workers off to work from home on a massive scale employers are more likely to embrace something more conservative, something that gives them a sense that they are still in charge. Striking a balance between the current trends in telecommuting and all out mass telecommuting may seem more realistic to employers, at least the progressive ones. In that case, allowing all NSE workers to telecommute say 60 percent of the time can also make a difference economically and environmentally.

No Cameras Please

If you are a smart boss, you should not have to micro manage your followers in order for them do what they are told. Mass telecommuting or teleworking calls for a more progressive style of leadership. I am appalled when I hear of employers who resort to monitoring or recording the keystrokes of their teleworking employees. Employers and managers love to tell you how much confidence they have in you, but then their actions always tend to suggest the opposite. Managers are so distrustful sometimes that they will storm into your cubicle at work unannounced, just to see what you have up on the screen. On at least one occasion after I had just recently began to telework, I got a phone call from the boss and he asked me to look up some information for him. I immediately saw through it. It was just a decoy to see if I was actually working. You see, the information he claimed he needed was right there at his fingertips. We don’t need Gestapo style tactics when it comes to managing telecommuters and teleworkers. Most employees will still get the job done if they are allowed to work from home without surveillance. Video cameras, keystroke recorders and ad hoc dummy phone calls are not necessary because, for the most part, the desire to keep ones job along with the fear of losing it remains the ultimate check and balance which will ensure that the work gets done.

Conclusion

Crude Oil is nearing a hundred and fifty dollars per barrel. Cut down its demand and prices should drop. We know that the demand can be reduced by introducing alternatives. But rather than starving ourselves in order to produce enough ethanol fuel, let’s leave the corn alone for the moment and see if we can have a small impact by changing some of our own behaviors like driving to the workplace every day. HOV lanes, carpooling, mass transit, flextime and one-day-a-week telecommuting are all good steps but not enough. We must re-think this whole business of where and how we accomplish our jobs. Every worker does not have to partake in this ritual of filing into the workplace like zombies every morning. There are already a lot people on bicycles and other unidentifiable moving objects on the main roads competing with cars during rush-hour. The last thing we need is grown men and women dressed in business attire switching lanes on pogo sticks. Employers must send workers home. There is something in it for both employers and employees. It can also benefit the economy and the environment. Forget about leasing extra space on the 4th and moving the entire department down there. That is unnecessary, save the extra rent money and move the department out of the building instead.

Managers need not fear that mass telecommuting will trigger a total exodus from the workplace. If it means that much, there will still be folks left to micromanage no matter what. As mentioned earlier, not ever one can work from home. Many are ineligible to telecommute based on job description alone. Furthermore, if given the option to telecommute every day, some might even choose to stick around the office. There are still many who believe that the only way to get ahead in the workplace is by being noticed. Then you have those whose sights have been set on that corner office for years. Others may still keep coming in because they see the workplace as an extension of their social life.

Now imagine for a moment how different life would be for you the employee if you had the option to telecommute every day. What difference it would make if you took more control of your work environment and schedule? If you didn’t have to drive to the workplace every day, would it save you money on gas and auto maintenance? Would it save you money on daycare? Would it leave you with more time to raise your kids or be with your pets? Would it mean that in some small way you are helping the environment? If you could escape rush-hour traffic would it reduce stress? Would it lead to a healthier and maybe even a happier life if you could keep your job but no longer have to “turn yourself in” every day from 9 to 5? Would it?