Benefits and Drawbacks of Telecommuting - Research Paper Example

Benefits and Drawbacks of Telecommuting Executive Summary In spite of several telecommuting offers being encouraged on an organizational, environmental and economic level, many people from managers to employees still have a difficult time accepting the concept of working from home. The following report reveals that less than 9 percent of people offered the opportunity actually take advantage of it. The purpose of the research is to discover the benefits and drawbacks of this type of working condition to try to learn why more people are not telecommuting today. Many people and organizations are experiencing the benefits gained for both parties that telecommuting offers. However, there are some occupations that cannot be accomplished by means of alternative scheduling or location. For example, a factory employee cannot work from home and a police officer or fire fighter can’t prescribe their own work schedule. Yet even with high gasoline prices and ever-crowded freeways, many employees who could take advantage of alternative provisions often don’t. A human resources department would serve its company well by encouraging telecommuting where possible as overwhelming evidence has shown that these techniques lead to greater levels of productivity and employee retention. A company wishing to create such an environment in their workplace must develop new ideas rather than what has been tried and subsequently failed in the past. The federal government, for example, has experienced typical results of most corporations. In an effort to diminish the nation’s energy consumption, improve employees’ quality of life and lower it’s overhead expenditures, the government introduced the option of telecommunicating to almost two million federal employees in 1990. Today, reports indicate that less than 9 percent of the eligible employees are using the telework option (Berry, 2009). Executives in the corporate world have been slow to move in this direction. “Management culture is out of step,” according to research psychologist Wendell Joice, PhD, of the U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of Government-wide Policies, “Some managers may not trust their employees to do their work. Some may just be lonely. Some may not like change” (Clay, 1998). This discussion describes the pros and cons of employers offering telecommuting situations and concludes with possible methods to overcome some of the barriers that have prevented the growth of viable ways to enhance the lives of employees and improve the efficiency for employers. Over the past 30 years or so, the positive influences of telecommunication has become an increasing focus of many employers because of the emergence of changing work and family concerns. Women make up a greater percentage in a workforce that has also aged and become more culturally diverse. In a study involving more than 300 women, employees examined the relationship between conflicts between work and family and employees’ perceptions of their employers’ commitment to this situation. This research concluded that “employees whose employers seemed to put work first had more work-family conflict, no matter how many family-friendly benefits, such as flexible scheduling or dependent care, were offered” (Clay, 1998). Research conducted by many other groups such as the Families and Work Institute supports these findings. The institute’s ‘1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce’ goes further by disproving a widely and long held belief by employers that their active encouragement and implementation of family-friendly policies will undermine their commitment level and loyalty toward the company. The conclusions were based on surveys of nearly 3000 employees nationwide. It found that, by a large margin, the main aspect in job satisfaction came in the form of employer support which includes sympathetic managers and flexible workplace policies. While these findings are not a secret and are backed-up by many similar studies, the majority of companies were found to offer competitive wages and benefits but the amount of support they offer varies widely. “Those variations have a big impact on the bottom line,” according to James T. Bond, the institute’s vice president of research. “The study found that the more support employees received at work the more productive they were and the less likely they were to quit. In short, they were willing to go the extra mile for their employers” (Clay, 1998). As this research indicates, alternative work provisions most probably will have a positive bearing on the bottom-line. Lori M. Berman, PhD, an associate consultant at the Hay Group in Arlington, Va., studied more than 500 federal employees who used flexible work schedules, part time and telecommuting work options to determine what impact alternative provisions has on employee attitudes and behaviors. Not surprisingly, these working arrangements reduced absenteeism. “Flextime allows you to rearrange your schedule to take care of non-work responsibilities without having to call in sick,” Berman explained (Clay, 1998). In the study, Berman established that the cause and effect conclusion was determined by two variables; employees’ feelings about flexibility of their work schedule and the degree to which their jobs satisfied their psychological requirements. The higher employees rated their employer based on these two variables, the more likely their managers were to rate that employee’s job performance at a high level as well as their sense of commitment toward the company. “Companies today want to know that alternative arrangements have a direct impact on the bottom line,” explained Berman. “Changing just one thing in a huge company may not affect performance directly, but it still affects performance indirectly through mediating variables” (Clay, 1998). The evolution in these workplace demographics as well as the changes in societal values regarding family life reproves the fact that open workplace policies will become increasingly vital for improved productivity, recruitment and the retention of employees. Open workplace policies assist in effectively dealing with the growing requirements of a diverse workforce that finds itself under constant pressure to deal with child care and other family responsibilities while also dedicated to development and advancement in their chosen occupation. The execution of such policies will enable employers to promote a work environment that meets the growing needs of their employees. The benefits of schedule and location flexibility in the workplace are widely acknowledged and well researched. Recent research involving major companies reveal that morale and productivity increases when employees are routinely assisted in resolving work and family conflicts. The study involving the Johnson & Johnson Corporation found that absenteeism dropped by half for those employees who worked flexible shifts. It also found that “58 percent of the employees surveyed said such policies were very important in their decision to stay at the company. This number jumped to 71 percent among employees using the benefits” (Galen et al, 1993, p. 82). Flex-time includes part-time, changing times and job sharing employment. This type of scheduling has been universally shown to improve working conditions by permitting modifications in traveling times and allows management to focus more on their own responsibilities rather than dealing with a constant absentee problem. “Flexible work schedules increase employee responsibility, independence and growth potential, thus motivating the employee” (Friedman, 1991, p. 51). Job sharing and part-time employment enables many employees to balance a family and work while some may prefer flex-time work as an alternative or predecessor to full retirement. According to the Progressive Policy Institute’s Mandate for Change, the federal government should take a leadership role in flexible work provisions, including telecommuting. “The federal government, which as one of the nation’s largest employers led the way in the use of flex-time schedules, should begin to offer telecommuting options to qualified interested employees. In addition to the parenting advantages that telecommuting provides for families with small children, it offers economic and environmental advantages for society by reducing the number of commuters” (Kamarck & Galston, 1993, p. 174). Flexible work arrangements that include telecommuting will conserve energy, reduce air pollution and reduce the dependence on foreign oil. The evaluation of the federal government pilot program found that “vehicle usage decreased for 82 percent of participants during rush hour and 35 percent of participants during non-rush hour; sick leave usage decreased for 45 percent of participants” (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1993, p. 5). In addition, the evaluation found that “more than 90 percent of the supervisors and 95 percent of the participants judged that job performance was either unchanged or improved” (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1993, pp. 3-4). The program not only produced an overall improvement of job performance, it proved a means for reducing operating and health care costs and reduced usage of sick leave benefits. The study of the program found that the actual organizational costs of its implementation were negligible (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1993, p. 45). “The federal government should be viewed as a model employer in the availability and flexibility of quality of work programs that emphasize the tools employees at all levels need to manage their work responsibilities and personal lives more effectively” (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1991, p. 82). Unlike private industry, federal organizations are hindered in their efforts to address employee needs because most policies affecting workers are determined by federal law. This has slowed the advancement of governmental policies which promote flexible work environments. In a recent survey conducted of federal employees by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, just 53 percent of employees believed that their particular department heads understood and supported their family issues and concerns. Close to 38 percent of employees said that their department did not provide dependent child or elderly care facilities except for the Employee Assistance Programs which fell woefully short of their needs. More than three-quarters of employees who have dependent care needs who are currently working fixed schedules want to have flexible work schedules implemented (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1992). The success rate of flexible working programs and other benefits to employees such as child care assistance in the private sector indicate that these programs could well become typical employment policies in both private and public employment arenas. Consequently, while the implementation of flexible work programs may today present an employer a competitive advantage, employers may need to offer these programs just to prevent being caught in a competitive disadvantage in the future (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992, p. 15). Research by Tammy D. Allen, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Florida, found that organizations seldom ‘walk the talk’ of family-friendly workplace policies. “Even though a lot of companies have implemented flexible scheduling options, often the company’s culture doesn’t change,” she said. Referring to a recent Gallop poll, Allen commented; “Although 72 percent of large companies have family-friendly policies, 41 percent of their employees believe that using the benefits would harm their careers” (Clay, 1998). A study involving 1,300 professionals in a U.S. telecommunications company confirmed that employees are more likely to take advantage of flexible working arrangements if other people within their company are already engaging in the practice. It’s not simply the manager’s attitude toward alternative employment ideas that has a great effect on workers’ motivation to gain the benefit of flexible scheduling options. Ellen Ernst Kossek, PhD, an associate professor in the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University coined the term ‘the power of peers’ to illustrate the phenomenon she discovered during the study. “Customers’ perceptions also contribute to underutilization,” said Kossek. “When she asked a banker if he would assign a big client to two job-sharing employees, he explained that doing so would signal that the client wasn’t valued. In reality, research shows that job-sharers actually outperform individuals” (Clay, 1998). Research utilizing the Office of Management and Budget’s database examined 27,000 federal employees’ to find how alternative work measures altered their opinion of their jobs. The study found that flexible work schedules had a decidedly constructive effect on employees’ overall perceptions of management’s interest and support, job satisfaction and a comforting sense of balance of family and work. The study, however, did not take into account that the satisfaction level may have been greater if the employees had been on a flexible work schedule long enough to take it for granted. “While people generally respond positively to innovations, their enthusiasm tapers off as the innovation becomes an expected part of people’s environment,” said Louis C. Buffardi, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at George Mason University. “People seek out control over their lives. The more controls you have, the better off you are in terms of how you approach your work and in terms of your mental health” (Clay, 1998). This paper has supplied clear evidence regarding the advantages that alternative and flexible work schedules offer both employee and employer. This arrangement must be initiated, implemented and supported by supervisors within organizations who understand the inner-workings of the practice. For example, managers must adapt and realize that existing policies regarding specific work duties will cease to apply to employees once they convert to flexible work schedules. In addition, various other policies and procedures may be unsuited to the flexible schedule a company is implementing. For example, “procedures on scheduling employees for a basic 40-hour workweek would preclude the use of flexible schedules designed to permit an employee to vary the length of a workweek. Therefore, you should review the policies and procedures for appropriateness and effectiveness” (Magee, 1991). Successful alternative work schedule programs should promote inter-organizational partnerships and cooperation between management and employees. Most organizations publish a newsletter which can be utilized to showcase success stories such as one describing an employee who is successful at work and at home as well because of an alternate work schedule. Instead of instilling a ‘company first’ mentality, organizations should honor employees who effectively balance work and home life. “The traditional notion that time at work equals productivity still prevails. That has got to change” (Clay, 1998). References Berry, John. (2009). Status of Telework in the Federal Government. Washington D.C.: Report to Congress. Clay, Rebecca A. (July 1998). “Many Managers Frown on Use of Flexible Work Options.” American Psychological Association (APA) Monitor. Vol. 29, N. 7. Friedman, Dana. (1991). Linking Work-Family Issues to the Bottom Line. New York: The Conference Board. Galen, Michele; Palmer, Ann Therese; Cuneo, Alice & Maremont, Mark. (June 28, 1993). “Work and the Family.” Business Week. N. 3325. Kamarck, Elaine Ciulla & Galston, William A. (1993). “A Progressive Family Policy for the 1990s.” Mandate for Change. Will Marshall & Martin Schram (Eds.). New York: Berkley Publishing Group. Magee, Edward I. (July 1995). “Negotiating Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules.” Labor-Management Relations Division Office of Labor Relations and Workforce Performance. Washington D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Human Resources Systems Service Office of Labor Relations and Workforce Performance Labor-Management Relations Division. U.S. General Accounting Office. (April 1992). The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal Work/Family Programs and Approaches, GAO/GGD-92-84. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). (November 1991). Balancing Work Responsibilities and Family Needs: The Federal Civil Service Response. Washington, D.C. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (April 1992). Report to Congress: A Study of the Work and Family Needs of the Federal Workforce. Washington, D.C. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (January 1993). The Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot Project Work-at-Home Component. Washington D.C. Read More