The Value of Telecommuting

A lot of people are quite upset over the fact that Hewlett-Packard is cutting back on telecommuting. (That's decision-maker Randy Mott, H-P CIO, to the right, from the company's Web site.)

I'm not.

This is not an either-or proposition. There are many times when telecommuting is preferable to getting in the car and going to work. But there is something to be said for the idea of exchanging experience, of learning by seeing colleagues, and of passing along what you know face-to-face.

My lovely bride, for instance. Usually works in the office. Sometimes works from home. Gets more actual work done at home. Has more productive meetings at the office. And when people are working in cubes, the location of those cubes does not create training.

What's wrong here is the framing, not the policy.

When you have a project that needs to be done, that is mainly your responsibility, then you need the time and quiet of a home office. People in home offices often spend more hours at their desks than people with desks. (That's Ricky Gervais, originator of The Office on the BBC, from the Beeb's Web site.)

There are also times when you need to be at the office. When you're working on a group project. When there is specific training to be done.

The Mercury-News story (and the commentaries which followed it) were wrong in making this about or when it should be about and. There are times to be alone, and there are times to be together.

By the same token, many of the advantages Mott sees in making everyone schlepp to the office might be gained through "shared teleworking," where a single junior employee goes to the home of a senior, and they get the work done together.  A lot more can also be done by apportioning work among a number of satellite offices, with fast data links, so workers have shorter commutes most of the time, don't have to trouble with the expense of a home office, but still have that home-office as back-up.

In the end it doesn't matter that much where work is done. So long as it's done. And so long as you can defend it, explain it, and implement it.

I would  feel sorry for Mott, and H-P, if they really feel this is an or thing, or that the expenses of working and dressing for work don't matter.  They may not matter to the company, but they do matter to morale, and to long-term productivity.  Not to mention the country, and the air.

If Mott does think this is an or question, he's re making himself vulnerable to someone else who has a Clue.

Comments

[Jesse Kopelman]

You can now do video conferencing for free. It's as simple as that. There are very few times when it is more productive to be in the office. Most people I know who have a choice and chose to go to the office do so because they do not have peace and quite at home (usually due to young kids). The only reason to have your employees come to the office more than 2 days a week is because you are a bad manager who is unable to believe that people are doing work unless you can look over their shoulder.

[Edward Vielmetti]

It all depends on what you mean by productive, I suppose. If you think that sending more email makes you more productive, sure, work at home.