For some organizations and sectors it is now fairly ubiquitous. They know that it cannot deliver benefits for both business and employees. But there hasn’t been the big breakthrough that so many people hoped for. Part of the problem is that many middle managers feel that they can’t control employees without face-to-face contact. There are also factors like security of remote communication, and there are always people who can’t or won’t do it, for example because they don’t have the space at home, or think they’ll miss the social contact. These issues have to be taken seriously, of course, but the evidence is that they can be overcome by well managed schemes.

 

 

The IT industry is fairly advanced, because they are used to virtual environments, and there’s a sense that these organizations should practise what they preach: If they are saying IT can save the world, they have to demonstrate that in practise.

 

It’s also reasonably advanced in some of the very routine jobs. In call-center type work, or benefits processing in local government, employees often value working from home, because it helps them cope better with the drudgery.

 

Teleworking can also help growing companies. It can allow them to avoid additional office costs, and extend their reach across the country, or internationally. Some very innovative companies have reached a good size without ever setting up a central office.

 

 

Most employees say that it’s improved. The reasons include greater ability to concentrate, and to undertake tasks at times that best suit their ‘body clock’. This is corroborated in one area where performance is easy to measure, which is repetitive tasks such as electronic form filling. Homeworking usually results in increased productivity (forms handled per hour) and reduced mistakes. Several local government bodies in the UK have reported 10-15% productivity improvements for this kind of work.

 

 

In terms of recruitment, it’s easier to pull people in, because you are offering more attractive employment packages and/or the opportunity to change jobs without moving house. It can also assist retention. Another measure is absenteeism – our surveys show that when people are mildly ill they’re often willing to work from home, but not to travel to work. They can also work when there are travel problems. Another ‘unofficial benefit’ for employers is that teleworkers tend to work longer hours. They generally accept as a price for bigger personal benefits, especially greater control of their time. Working around child care is an obvious example. Many also feel they can concentrate more effectively on the things that really interest them about their job, because they have fewer interruptions at home and this makes work more intrinsically satisfying and less stressful.

 

 

Avoided commute travel is the obvious benefit, and is especially great when it occurs at congested times. Some - but generally only a small proportion – of the benfits can be offset though by additional trips, e.g. by spouses or children using an available car that would otherwise have been parked at work. Space savings through hot desking and other means can also be a big environmental, as well as financial, benefit. The more efficiently we use existing buildings, the fewer new ones we need.

 

I don’t think anyone should stop going into this because they have doubts about the environmental benefits, but organizational policies can make a difference to the benefits.

 

 

Environmental factors – especially travel - are often part of the case, and occasionally the main driver, but business benefit is usually the main reason.. Also, not everyone is convinced. People often wonder whether the increased carbon and energy associated with working at home, for example, using appliances and heating, offset the benefits. The answer varies according to an individual’s house and office characteristics. A modern flat, per square meter, is five to eight times less energy-intensive than a prestige air-conditioned office. Overall, though, there are definitely positive. The serious debate is whether they’re marginal or substantial?

 

It won’t be suitable for everybody. If you have young employees, for example, graduates, you need to be careful because, at that stage in their career they need to learn a lot from colleagues, and require more support, so there’s a bigger premium on face-to-face. You must have a good management by objective policy, where you are setting the output specifications for work: you know what they are, managers know what they are, employees know what they are. Then you can monitor the outputs, rather than just monitoring what people are actually doing day by day. Very often that will require training, particularly of managers. It has to go hand in hand with changes in organizational culture. If they are already in place, it’s a quick win.

 

You also need potential routes back in case people don’t like it. Teleworking is not a right. It’s very important to set it up on a provisional basis in employee contracts, so that either employee or employer can change it if it’s not working out. The best plan is always to start with pilots in areas where there’s employee and manager interest. This can generate evidence of benefits, highlight any issues, and often leads to other staff demanding the same benefit.