Telecommuting in a recession
bevhunt
114 Posts
In the March 24 issue of Business Week, in an article called "Strategies for Surviving the Slump," John Challenger says that to shore up chances of surviving a recession, those employees who have been "telecommuting a lot [should] consider spending more time in the office." I'm assuming that is to keep oneself visible with management.
I think that telecommuters would be safer in a downturn because they take up less resources facility-wise.
Who is right?
Comments
I can definitely see Challenger's opinion and agree with him. Sure, a telecommuter doesn't require office space/office resources, but if a company has to downsize why bother downsizing someone physically in the building? You still have to pay rent and utilities, there wouldn't be much of a savings if any unless you took out whole floors or sections. And even then, there's still rent. Leases aren't easy to get out of sometimes.
And with a telecommuter you have the added expense of paying for their internet connection, phone, office supplies, fed ex and mail between them and office, etc.
Honestly, I think there is still a negative perception of those that telecommute, because in most cases it would be easy to scam the system. Especially if there are more distractions at home (children, personal phone calls, etc) that no one at the office really sees....whether they happen or not. And I think the general mindset is that since a person could spread a 40 hour workweek over 48 (assuming 1 hour commute each way to the office), it might look at times like they are being distracted. [The same negative perception seems to exist for those that come to work early and leave early, because no one sees them arrive, but always sees them leave.]
I worked at home on a flex schedule (1-2 days) per week for 3-4 years. I found that even with that small amount at home, I missed ALOT of what was going on in the office. If something happened quickly, I wasn't able to be there in just a minute or two, like those physically in the office. So they didn't get the value of my input. That said, my employers knew my value, and saw my output. Luckily I tend to be a very productive employee. My current CEO tells people that I manage to do a 50 hour a week job in 30 hours a week, which is what I work currently.
For morale sake, I think it is easier to layoff someone who is not in the office much anyway. There is not a constant reminder that they are gone.
I remember hearing a story of a consultant who would come into the office on Saturday, read the paper, drink a coffee, play on the 'net, etc. Just to be there and be seen. Got no extra work done, but was consistently viewed as a high performer who gave his all for the company because of this behavior. Was he truly? Well, he was a good employee, but definitely not one of the highest performers!
In the March 24 issue of Business Week, in an article called "Strategies for Surviving the Slump," John Challenger says that to shore up chances of surviving a recession, those employees who have been "telecommuting a lot [should] consider spending more time in the office." I'm assuming that is to keep oneself visible with management.
I think that telecommuters would be safer in a downturn because they take up less resources facility-wise.
Who is right?
[/quote]
Telecommuters have to overcome the human aspect of their position. Credibility is an issue for most telecommuters under most managers. A telecommuter who's being paid on a piece rate is as believable as their production. People whose work is hard to measure are in another basket altogether and I think that's really the crux of the matter. If your work is difficult to measure, there's going to be a nagging question about your work ethic if you aren't in the office for most managers.
Just like most things, there are + and - to telecommuting. I have the ability to work from home on occasion. To be honest, I am a lot more productive when I am home then in the office. It can sometimes take me twice as long to get something done in the office as it does at home because of interuptions. The negative side for me is that if I need to talk to someone and don't want to go back and forth via email, I can't just get up and walk to that person. I have to pick up the phone and call them. Sometimes when I work for home, if something is going on, then I am calling into the office 5 or more times a day.
Whether telecommuting works or not will depend on the person doing the job, the job itself and the company structure. Some jobs you just can't do from home because of the nature of the job and how the company operates. Other jobs you could do from home sometimes, and then some other jobs could be done from home every day.
Even in a recession, I think telecommuting will still play a role for some companies. It is a big issue in large metro areas where gas is expensive, traffic is horrible, and people have the infrastructure to telecommute.