Telecommuting risks remote but real

By Mary Helen Gillespie, 8/15/2005

Let's be honest: telecommuting is not all it's cracked up to be.

For a manager, telecommuting poses a virtual workplace nightmare, including the twin evils of lower productivity with higher costs. The tangible benefits may accrue under balance-sheet headings like cheaper leases due to less office space. The intangible benefits like higher staff morale often vaporize however after first being inflated by myths of all shapes and sizes:

"Just because I get to wear flips-flops at my desk, call into all meetings and avoid rush-hour traffic jams five days a week, I still have to work twice as hard as those people who leave their houses before dawn just to show you, the boss, that I can do my job from my kitchen counter/guest bedroom/living room/cellar/bathroom/RV with my cell phone/laptop/desktop/Blackberry/secret decoder ring."

In addition, statistics gush about how telecommuting can save billions of dollars annually on everything ranging from the employer's bottom line to Mother Earth's pollution levels.

Hip-hip-hurray for lower absentee levels, a greener planet and the rest of the hoopla. But from a management perspective, the true validation of telecommuting is elusive if not impossible to calculate.

No one is disputing the advantages to plugging in from the sunroom during the raging snowstorm or emergency vet appointment.

But the question remains: Does telecommuting really work? Right about now, I'd venture to say not. It's basically a boatload of trouble.

And as the novelty of managing remote employees becomes more mainstream, the more likely these negatives become embedded in the work culture. This holds true even if an organization has a formal fancy-schmancy policy outlining its Official Telecommuting Do's and Don'ts in exact, excruciating and legally defensible language. These black-and-white ground rules are great. The reality, of course, is execution and enforcement of said policy will be tangerine and fuchsia with a dash of magenta.

Most telecommuting policies focus on the technology requirements, and rightly so given the identity theft explosion. Cyber hacking is out of control. As are the costs of data security. So when employers toss a laptop at a prospective telecommuter, they also need to look beyond the screen and determine what the actual cost per user will be to provide 24/7 secure remote access. These systems will require frequent if not constant service upgrades that will suck up a good deal of cash while trying to stay one step ahead of the criminals. Related telecommunications costs include telephony charges. And all these expenses need to consider whether the employee will be telecommuting full or part time. Suppose he or she is working remotely only two days a week? The fixed costs are the same.

So long story short, depending on the size of the enterprise, and its goals, it could be much less costly to house an employee on site, especially when weighing the potential risks of security and technology breaches.

Then there's the people part. In certain management circles, telecommuting is considered a very effective tool to recruit and retain skilled workers for knowledge-based industries.

We're all professionals here. No one wants to micromanage capable, competent adults. Immature, irresponsible knuckleheads who lie, cheat and steal from their employers are just as likely to be sitting in the next cube as they are to be cybering in from home. Real-time supervision can't control a rogue employee determined to act inappropriately or to underperform.

As noted earlier, many organizations will require telecommuters to self-comply with technology and operational standards. With very few exceptions, managers do not visit the physical premises of their telecommuting employees. Just the thought of an on-site inspection by an employer of a home office gives me the willies. But unless there is a webcam aimed precisely at the employee's workspace, the manager has no concept of what the actual working conditions may be. Thus potential distractions, workflow bottlenecks and other productivity hazards remain uncorrected, and may, over time, even flourish. Sure, the performance reviews get done based on the electronic behavior. But what managers often can't do are the little things -- like suggesting a class to upgrade office skills, commenting on body language in work encounters or ordering ergonomic enhancements to the home workstation. And little things can add up to big things very quickly.

Managers coach as well as control. Presumably their value to the organization comes from encouraging teams to soar above the ordinary, offering improvements, enhancements and cost saves. This may sound like a fairy tale, and you are allowed to snort as you read this. But truly, if we're not here to make things better, then why are we here?

And the point of all this is the acknowledgement of the limited effectiveness of a leader who is responsible and accountable for professional relationships that exist only in a wired world, not in the real world. In some cases, these folks have never even exchanged a handshake, a smile or even a glance among themselves. Such very basic intimacies reflect the humanness in each of us. Without it, well, we are basically trying to push buttons that manage robots.

It may be politically incorrect to trash telecommuting. But I just did.

Mary Helen Gillespie is president of Gillespie Interactive, a strategic management consulting firm. E-mail Savvy Manager thoughts at maryhelen@bostonworks.com.