Telecommuting in Organizational Administration - Essay Example

Telecommuting in Organizational Administration Name Institutional Affiliation Date: Telecommuting in Organizational Administration As technologies advance and more people become accustomed to the new advancements in information technology, the nature of daily engagements equally changes. This situation is much reflected in the work environment as organizations gradually adopt telecommuting form of work arrangement. Telecommuting, also known as telework, eWork, flexiwork, or remote work, describes a working arrangement where employees do not necessarily have to go to a central working station. Instead, these employees, who are commonly referred to as telecommuter, teleworker, or home-sourced employee, are allowed to work from their homes, personal offices, or any other location that is not the official working environment for the organization (Johnson, 2002, p.76). Despite the prominence of this form of work arrangement, it is undeniable that the anticipated adoption rate has hardly been achieved. Some people argue out that this development could be a factor of unpreparedness of organizations to adopt the systems, whereas others assert that it is because it makes employees feel less empowered. In my view, I tend to think that these are just but a few of the factors that have hampered the growth in adoption rate of telecommuting. Instead, there is a plethora of other reasons that combine with the aforementioned thus limiting the growth rate of telecommuting. In this paper, I seek to analyze how organization unpreparedness and fear of loss of employees’ empowerment discourage telecommuting as well as discuss other factors that contribute to the same low degree of adoption. Telecommuting is a highly structured and complicated form of work arrangement that demands for absolute preparedness of organizations. This is in the sense that the organizational administration should be customized in such a manner to permit voluntary choice of work environment for most, if not all, of its employees. Achieving this kind of work arrangement, therefore, calls upon involvement of various stakeholders in the structural modalities. This is to imply that organization must be ready to burn the midnight oil just to ensure that all managers as well as employees are at par with the new work arrangement before setting the wheels rolling. This is not an easy exercise per se. In as much as most people would be lured to its adoption, it is necessary to understand some serious sacrifices that have to be made before efficiency is achieved. Any transformational procedure is bound to experience some hiccups before full take-off finally takes place. It is at this transitional stage that most organizations are not ready to take the responsibilities associated with telecommuting (Offstein & Jason, 2009, p.199). Secondly, the low adoption rate amongst organizations can be linked to the fear of loss of control that employer’s as well managers have regarding telecommuting. According to the statistics carried out by the Reuters, nearly 75 percent of the managers interviewed claimed that they trusted their employees. However, they equally indicated that they needed to see them as frequent as possible “just to be sure” that all is well (Rainer & Cegielski, 2010, pp.23-24). This statement can then be interpreted that employers trust is pegged on the ability to see their employees. As such, it is equally correct to surmise that the challenges to the sustained adoption rate of telecommuting amongst organizations include distrust emanating from employers. The other barrier to the continued adoption rate of telecommuting system of work arrangement can be linked to the concept of disconnectedness that employees experience. In telework case scenario, both the employees and supervisors have to work twice as hard just to ensure that relationships with co-workers are not jeopardized. A brief isolation from the events happening in the company’s premises may cause an employee to miss much of crucial events that happen on daily basis. Similarly, this form of work arrangement is bound to generate hatred between employees who telecommute and those who do not. In fact, the telecommuters are likely to experience the feel of disempowerment because they do not feel distant away from the company. On the other hand, those who do not telecommute may feel that they deserve more of the company’s stake and as such develop a negative attitude towards those telecommuting and are regarded highly in the company. The fourth barrier to the adoption of telecommuting can be linked to the fact that most organizations have come to perceive it as more of a complementary undertaking rather than an absolute substitute for work at the central workstation. This ideology has driven most employers to incorporate this system of work arrangement on a partial basis. In this sense, an employee is only allowed to telecommute if he or she has sufficient reasons to warrant for this kind of work arrangement. Such reasons may encompass factors such as maternity leaf or frequent missions that demand for constant travelling. Otherwise, such employees are required to report back in the work place as soon as they are done with activities that keep them away from the central station (Johnsons, 2005, p.38). Another factor that has hampered the development of telecommuting and full adoption of the system arises from the security concerns of teleworks. Most of the teleworkers operate in environments that are remote from the organization. Unlike within the premises of an organization, teleworkers cannot be guaranteed full security. This is to therefore imply that the companies risks losing some of its private or confidential information in the events the teleworker is attacked or losses an equipment that contains those information. A case in point happened in 2006 when an employee belonging to United States Department of Veterans Affairs lost a laptop. The loss of the laptop computer is up to date regarded as “probably the largest loss of Social Security numbers.” In as much as the employee was not a telecommuter, the events brought to attention the risks that are associated with employees working off-site. Nonetheless, a significant percentage of managed dealing with matters of security in organizations still insists that telecommuting does not pose much risk. Instead, there greatest security concerns arise from non-teleworkers who occasionally carry out of their offices. This is because such people lack the training and technologies that the teleworkers bear (DuBrin, 2011, p.76). In addition to factors already discussed above, it is widely believed that the other reason associated with the low adoption rate of telecommuting arises from fear of losses during the transition period. A significant proportion of the managers perceive that the teleworkers is bound to suffer from a drop of productivity especially within the first few months of transition. This drop takes place as the worker, co-workers and the managers struggle to adjust to the new form of work arrangement. It is also widely believed, more so amongst the employees, that telecommuting can negatively affect a person’s career advancement. Based on a recent research conducted on estimated 1,300 executive officers across the globe, majority of the respondents assert that those telecommuters as less likely to be promoted as compared to the non-telecommuters. It is both unreasonable and unfair for a company to promote a person to higher ranks if such a person has not been measured and seen consistently within the workplace. Furthermore, a reduction in productivity due to constant procrastination that may be occasioned by absence of close supervision may equally result to poor productivity of the employee. These factors notwithstanding, there are organizations that have already rolled out the system and are currently reaping the benefits of telecommuting. Their success rates are linked to the fact that they were ready to take up the initial risks including probable losses of profits. They subjected their employees to training and furnished them with the necessary technologies that guarantee the success rate of the program. On the other hand, there are those organizations that have attempted to initiate the program and suffered from failure in addition to massive losses. These failures could partly be attributed to the reasons already discussed above. Nonetheless, it is illogical to live in the assumption that telecommuting can work for all organizations. This simply implies that there are those organizations that whose employees can easily and efficiently serve as telecommuters. On the other hand, other organizations require constant presence of employees at the workstation to ensure efficiency in the running of the daily activities of the organization. In this view, whereas telecommuting is a prominent trend in organizational administration, it is crucial to understand that its appropriateness is a combination of several other factors, which include the nature of service offered by the organization (Charlton, 2009, p.45). In conclusion, in spite of the prominence of telecommuting, this system of work arrangement has not achieved the anticipated adoption rate due to the unpreparedness of the organization as well as employees’ feeling of disempowerment. However, in addition to the reasons stated here, other factors work in combination to hamper the adoption rate of telecommuting. Among these factors include security concerns, lack of personal touch between an employee, employer and co-worker, fears of stunted growth in terms of promotions, and the perception amongst some organization that telecommuting should be considered rather as a complementary undertaking than a replacement of the workplace. In these regard, there is still much that needs to be done to guarantee to both the employers and employees that telecommuting can still be a viable alternative to the workplace setting. For instance, structures should be initiated to ensure that the employee appraisal process takes into consideration telecommuters and non-telecommuters. Furthermore, a system should be instituted to ensure that the teleworkers do not feel far removed from the day-to-day activities of the organization. Lastly, organizations may roll out a system that permits employees to make a choice of whether they would like to serve as telecommuters or non-telecommuters. However, this should be based on employees past performance at the workplace and should be much anchored on the personal responsibility (Basole, 2008, pp. 12-34). References Basole, R. C. (2008). Enterprise Mobility: Applications, Technologies and Strategies - Volume 2 the Tennenbaum Institute Series on Enterprise Systems - Book Edition of INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS Management. London: IOS Press. Pp. 12-34. Charlton, P. (2009). Analyzing the Effects of Telecommuting Practices of Professional Staff on the Cultural Strength of an Organization. London: ProQuest. Pp. 45 DuBrin, A. J. (2011). Essentials of Management. New YorK, NY: Cengage Learning. Pp. 76 Johnson, N. (2002). Telecommuting and Virtual Offices. Sydney: Idea Group Inc (IGI). Pp. 134 Johnsons, D. (2005). The Long Road to Telecommuting. JohannessBurg: Goldwing Press. Pp. 38 Offstein, E. H., & Jason, M. M. (2009). Making Telework Work: Leading People and Leveraging Technologies for High-Impact Results. Texas, TX: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Pp. 199 Piskurich, G. M. (1998). An Organizational Guide to Telecommuting: Setting Up & Running a Successful Telecommuter Program. Chicago: American Society for Training and Development. Pp. 16-19 Rainer, R. K., & Cegielski, C. G. (2010). Introduction to Information Systems: Enabling and Transforming Business. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 23-24 Read More