Froggatt Consulting, 1997 Telework Participation: Whose Choice Is It Anyway? Author: Cynthia C. Froggatt, Principal, Froggatt Consulting Publication: This article was published in the alt.office journal, March, 1998 If presented with a tool proven to enhance productivity, improve attraction and retention of high quality talent, provide disaster recovery options, and be environmentally friendly, what would your CEO's reaction be? "Implement the new plan immediately - we'll require that everyone participate!" or "Hmmmm, interesting idea, let's see if anyone wants to sign up." These responses are just two of the ways management has reacted to telework concepts. Virtual office strategies (improved mobility, enhanced connectivity from home) have been implemented successfully by NCR and Compaq, for example, on a mandatory basis. Typically, these virtual office programs are targeted at sales and marketing types and involve a re-engineering of the way their work is performed; this is a business-driven strategy designed to improve customer service and capitalize on real estate reductions. On the other hand, a large majority of organizations offer telecommuting as one type of flexible work arrangement available to employees - on a voluntary basis. Telecommuting (work from home one to two days per week) is usually, then, employee-driven; the goal is improved work/family balance and to be the "employer of choice." What virtual office and work-from-home programs have in common is that both involve an aspect of remote work and remote management. And, both offer the same potential benefits and are based on a shared belief: happier, more satisfied employees lead to improved customer satisfaction, higher productivity, and improved profitability. If telework (meaning all forms of remote work whether from home, the road, client site, or telecenter) offers so many advantages to organizations and individuals, shouldn't participation be required? Let's look first at the merits and potential pitfalls of typical mandatory programs as opposed to voluntary alternatives (see Table 1 below). Froggatt Consulting, 1997 Table 1: Summary of Positives and Negatives of Mandatory vs. Voluntary Participation in Telework Programs Mandatory Voluntary Positives - Achieve business goals (e.g. spend more time with clients) - Save real estate; simplifies real estate planning - Establish standards; requires that a full implementation and administration system be put in place - Consistent approach - Emphasis on effective performance rather than attendance - No one is left out - Better equipment and furniture provided - Improved emergency preparedness - Less middle management resistance - Compliance with Clean Air Act Positives - Empowerment - Increased morale - Higher productivity - Improved chances for success: better attitude - Automatically have buy-in: no resistance from participants - Potentially a lower cost strategy - Improved quality of life - Attraction and retention of staff - Ability to "screen" volunteers - Can be used on temporary basis during difficult time Negatives - Participant resistance could be strong - Some employees may resign rather than participate - Higher cost - Invasion of home and family life - May have negative effect on productivity - May invite Worker's Compensation abuses - Too much focus on cost savings - Usually requires new performance measurement techniques - Fear: one step closer to being outsourced or downsized? Negatives - Non-participant resentment could be a problem - Can't guarantee full operational benefits - Not assured of real estate savings - No control over participation rate - Middle management does not have to endorse program - May not comply with Clean Air Act requirements - There may not be standards for equipment and furniture investments to be made by the company - Need to confront "volunteers" who would not be good candidates (do not meet selection criteria How do these options get applied in real business situations? First of all, this is not a "one size fits all" situation; some organizations have both mandatory and voluntary offerings and many individual programs combine voluntary and mandatory elements. Typically, mandatory programs are driven by business process improvement while voluntary programs are a response to employee need for flexibility. Let's look at one of the best examples of a virtual office program where participation is mandatory. Froggatt Consulting, 1997 NCR Corporation At NCR, 2,500 employees of the U.S. Marketing division participate in the Virtual Workplace Program started in 1995 (that represents approximately 20% of the U.S. workforce). Dan Accrocco, NCR's project partner from the Real Estate department, explains that they have realized a 15-20% productivity improvement and incremental real estate cost savings of $12-13 million as a result of implementing this new way of working. The participants in the Virtual Workplace Program are responsible for sales and professional services and work primarily from a client site, field office, or from home. When they go into an NCR field office, a workstation is available (sharing ratios range between 7 to 1 and 10 to 1). This program was a comprehensive, integrated approach to sales productivity, re-engineering work processes, administrative services, and real estate with a lofty goal: to return NCR to profitability. Therefore, specific employees were not asked to volunteer, they were required to participate. According to Dan Accrocco, "If choice had been offered, most would not have volunteered." The effort was well-supported in terms of management commitment and funding: - representatives of real estate, information technology, human resources, and the U.S. Marketing Business Process Team were dedicated to the implementation effort; - all participants were fully equipped to work mobile and from home (at an average cost per person of $5,000.00); - training was provided for management and non-management; - the program has been closely monitored and refined since its roll-out. Have they achieved their goals? Yes, 1996 was a turnaround year for the company and this year NCR has met its performance objectives. Was there resistance? Yes, and it was dispelled through training and education programs as well as an appeals process. Keep in mind, participants can choose among at least three workplace options: client site, home, shared workstation in field office (a dedicated, on-site workstation is the only option that has been removed). This gives them the freedom to create a work environment that allows them to work where and when they are most productive. Given the success to date, participation in the Virtual Workplace Program has become a condition of employment for these sales and professional services job types. Eligibility will be expanded to include more job types over time (ones that are not required to be on the road for their work) and employees may be given the option to participate or not. There is clear commitment from management that as staff growth is experienced, investments will be made in new technology not bricks and mortar. Accrocco is now involved in evaluating the program and benchmarking with peer organizations that have implemented similar programs. Ongoing success, he believes, depends on continued cooperation among the business unit, Real Estate, Human Resources, and Information Technology and "commitment to providing excellent 24 hour support; people should not feel abandoned." People rarely volunteer for radical change... AT&T's alternative officing strategist, Marty Pospeshil has made the observation that, "Sometimes employees need an incentive to try the new way of working that a virtual office program offers; successful virtual workers often say they never would have volunteered, but after a few months of ïsticking it out' realized how beneficial it can be." Through her research on telework, Sumita Raghuram, Ph.D., of Fordham University, has found that "organizations (and people) that use voluntary teleworking are more likely to give it up after a short trial period (too much hassle) than those who commit themselves to go through it completely (we're all in it together). Feelings of isolation (perception of career damage) are more likely under voluntary programs." Raghuram points out that many voluntary programs do not adequately address needs of newcomers. Most mandatory programs have "buddy systems" or other arrangements for linking new hires with co-workers who are already teleworking (and therefore not as available for on-site informal interaction and learning). Typically, if a program mandates employee participation, it also mandates management support and provides the appropriate structure, training, equipment, network, maintenance, funding, etc. Likewise, voluntary programs often suffer from "voluntary, inconsistent commitment" from management (resulting in resistance, lack of funding, inconsistent implementation, etc.). Many voluntary telecommuting programs have been just one component of a flexible work arrangement policy (including compressed work weeks, flextime, etc.) that has been "on the books" for several years. Although available to the staff, telecommuting is rarely promoted or supported in a significant way. Often, it is only the most assertive or needy employees who request to work from home one or more days per week. Nortel has taken a very different approach to their voluntary telework program. Nortel's executives asked the question, "Is this good for business?" When the answer was a resounding "YES," management committed to actively promoting it, not just offering it! Let's look at the details. Nortel Tony Smith, telecommuting program leader at Nortel, says mandatory participation "would not have fit with the goals of the program" and was not considered by the strategy development team when they started in mid-1994. Voluntary offers better buy-in, he believes, and estimates that 20% of Nortel's employees could not work from home because of children at home, spouse working from home, lack of appropriate facilities, etc. There are now 2,500 telecommuters (working from home three or more days per week) which represents approximately 6% of the North America staff. By all measures, Nortel is meeting its goal: to improve employee satisfaction and productivity. Surveys of telecommuters, managers, and non-telecommuting co-workers have found the following: - 90% of telecommuters reported increased satisfaction; - 88% reported increased productivity; - individual productivity improved by 10-22% on average; - ability to work as a team was better in 40% of the cases. In the Nortel annual employee survey conducted by Gallup, telecommuters scored 10% higher on employee satisfaction measures than their non-telecommuting counterparts. In addition, telecommuters scored 9% higher in likelihood to not leave the company. The volunteers represent a wide variety of job functions including the following: Manager 20% Software Designer 18% Sales and Marketing 15% Tech Support 10% Software Support 7% Finance 6% Smith credits the following factors for the success the program is enjoying: - a 10-person, cross-functional team dedicated to the promotion and administration of telecommuting effort (with another 10-15 others working on tech support on a part-time basis); - promotional programs that include regularly scheduled educational programs and full-scale "home office" examples (with ISDN lines) that employees can test out; - demonstration of senior management acceptance - several Vice Presidents are active telecommuters; - senior executives who have challenged their business units to meet particular targets for involvement in telecommuting. Incidentally, the program does not mandate the equipment that must be provided for the employees' home or that the employee must give up their space at the office. Nortel is committed to providing telecommuters the tools they need to perform their job and has published guidelines for equipment and furniture that should be provided. Typically, the telecommuter relocates the computer, printer and sometimes furniture from their on-site office to their home office. The goal is to fully equip the employee in one place, not at both home and the office. While some telecommuters maintain an on-site office, most give up their office (after a brief transition period) opting for access to hoteling, touchdown spaces, or a business center designed to support mobile employees and customers. Again, this is a matter of education and training about this new way of working. Smith sees clear advantages to empowering the managers to develop solutions that work best for their employees and type of work. He advises that the shift to telework is a "culture change - people won't throw their career on something that is not tested, proven, and integrated slowly." For Nortel, capturing performance metrics has been important to promoting the program and sustaining credibility. Compaq's Hybrid Solution Bob Moore, Manager of Facility Planning, explains that Compaq is pilot testing a new approach to telecommuting participation described as a "Structured Optional Program." The concept of working from home three or more days a week is made available to management through literature and other materials. The department manager, then, can volunteer their group or part of their group for telecommuting. According to Moore, "this avoids having to screen for people who may volunteer for the wrong reasons such as reducing need for day care, etc. and enhances management buy-in." When a manager selects the option, it is with the understanding that dedicated workspaces are a thing of the past. The department opts for a 2 to 1 workstation sharing situation or a free address situation where, for example, 5 workstations are available to 15 people on a first-come, first-served basis. Like Nortel's approach, the responsibility lies with a cross-functional team to encourage involvement in a new concept that promises benefits to the organization and individuals. By the way, this program followed on the heels of a successful experience with virtual office for the sales force. Several hundred Compaq sales people work either from home, client site, or on the road. With the exception of a few regional sales offices, all on-site workspace was eliminated resulting in a savings of 350 gsf/person. The staff continues to produce high sales without loss in satisfaction or productivity. Where do we go from here? The case studies highlight the paradigm shift inherent to telework programs: it's about giving employees the autonomy and structure to choose where, when, and how they can perform most effectively. The way in which organizations involve employees in the change initially, through mandatory or voluntary participation, is a matter of what fits with the corporate culture and business goals. NCR, Nortel, and Compaq have developed telework programs designed to capitalize on the positives of both mandatory and voluntary programs while minimizing the negatives. They have responded in three very different ways to the question: how can structure complement autonomy? Their success demonstrates that this is not a black or white, right or wrong set of choices. In designing the program, organizations need to carefully consider which aspects should be required vs. optional. For instance, will participation be mandated for certain job types? If so, what choices will be offered to the employee regarding workplace, equipment, work hours, etc.? If participation is optional, will volunteers be required to make the business case for being allowed to telework, supply their own equipment, or give up their dedicated workspace? The telework strategies (and the inherent choices) need to be seen as win:win by employees and management; participative processes that address individuals' needs and organizational goals create a framework for success. When business leaders see significant benefits to telework options, they need to provide education and incentives to encourage appropriate use of these new work directions. Clearly, the long-term effectiveness of a telework program depends on continued support and commitment from management (through their actions and dollars). Ongoing evaluation and refinement of program structure, workplace options, equipment provisions, socialization alternatives, administrative support, and performance goals and measurement will ensure high performance. In closing, I would invite you to consider this issue from a different perspective: currently, most organizations mandate that employees be at an office between the hours of 9 and 5, Monday through Friday - how would the work environment be structured if working on-site, in company-operated facilities became voluntary/optional? What changes would we see in the future? Would more effort be put into training employees to use time and place more effectively? Would a broader range of work places be made available to an organization's full-time employees, contract/outsourced staff, customers, alliance partners, shareholders, suppliers? How would we define the "work environment"? About the Author... Cynthia C. Froggatt, Principal, Froggatt Consulting, has more than twelve years experience consulting on new work directions and strategic facilities planning with clients such as Mercedes-Benz, AT&T, McGraw-Hill, Nova Corporation, The New York Times, The News Corporation Ltd, NBC, and Dun & Bradstreet. Her approach to projects emphasizes employee participation and non-traditional solutions to leverage human resources and optimize capital investments. She has a master's degree from Cornell University's Facilities Planning and Management program and has taught programming methods and environmental psychology courses at Cornell University. Ms. Froggatt teaches half-day and full-day seminars on the virtual office and other new work directions for IFMA and other groups. She leads focus groups and roundtable discussions with user groups to facilitate the change management process. Her virtual office is in New York City. Cynthia can be reached at c.froggatt@worldnet.att.net or 212.749.4989 phone or 212.749.4319 fax.