Recently there has been a considerable amount of discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of remote working. It began when Yahoo! ended its program. Best Buy followed rather quickly with the announcement that it too was ending its program. Both Yahoo! And Best Buy were criticized by numerous writers and academics based on the view that remote working makes jobs more attractive and people more satisfied. Critics of remote working have an involved, high performance workforce organizations need face-to-face work relationships. On the other hand, Unilever has over 100,000 of its 171,000 employees working where they want, when they want, and they say it has many advantages. Who’s right?
There is a great deal of research on the effects of remote working and on the nature of the work environment that people come to. The research does not lead to a simple one way is right and the other is wrong answer. Rather, it clearly establishes that under certain conditions, remote working is in fact preferable, while it simply is not in others. In other words, it all depends! What does it depend on? Not surprisingly, it depends on the nature of the work and the type of physical environment that individuals are coming to, the skills of managers, and an organization’s performance management system.
Let’s start with the nature of the work. Let’s also start with the assumption that it’s usually good for people to come to a place where other workers are present that they can interact with and learn from and the technological support they need to do their work is readily available. Clearly in cases where these conditions exist, it is typically better to have people actually come to a workplace. But when shouldn’t they be required to come to an office or business location in order to work?
Research on work design and job characteristics clearly indicates that a key driver of the effectiveness of remote working is the structure of the work. Simply stated, when individuals can independently do a whole or complete piece of work, it may be wise to give them the option to work remotely at least part of the time. This of course depends on them being able to have the support technology that they need in order to do the work. If they have that, there may not be a good reason for them to come to a company workplace if they can be held accountable for their performance when they work remotely.
The simple fact of the matter is that often a major reason or the major reason for bringing an individual to a work location with a supervisor present is to control their performance. If they can do the work independently and their productivity can be measured, then there is no compelling reason to have them come to a work location. When work has clear measurable goals, they can substitute for the observation of somebody’s work and be effective motivators.
There is one other point I should add here, which has to do with internet-based work. With it, performance monitoring is often possible even if the person is in a remote physical location. ODesk, the remote I.T. contracting organization, has done a good job in combining clear contract goals and electronic observation of software engineers. It has a minimal office space, but a large number of employees around the world working independently and effectively.
The second issue with working remotely is interdependence. Creativity and the sharing of information is often lost when people work independently because they are not stimulated and informed by social interaction. This is the often cited water cooler metaphor issue. If the work to be done is a creative activity and/or if it is interdependent, it may be best done in a company location that facilitates interaction. This was part of Yahoo!’s explanation as to why it was eliminating remote work. This argument was particularly compelling before the internet became so powerful. Today, it is possible that the internet itself can create the kind of social activity that used to take place at the water cooler, and that, as a result, creative work and interdependent work of many kinds can in fact best be done by employees in remote locations.
I should also point out that all too often when employees come to work, they are put in physical spaces that, in essence, cause them to behave as if they are working remotely. Closed door offices spread out over multiple floors with a lack of social gathering places often create communication patterns that are equivalent to remote working.
Finally, the skills of managers are critical. With managers who can set meaningful goals, monitor performance results and provide feedback, remote working can produce good results. Without skilled managers, it will be a failure.
Overall, it is clear that there are a number of key factors that need to be considered when deciding where people should work and how they can be held accountable for their performance. Unfortunately there is no simple answer, but there are good answers when the type of work being done is taken into consideration. Clearly there are many cases where remote working is ideal, while in many others it makes no sense at all. One thing is clear: the office cubicle is rarely the best way to “house” employees; it is costly and doesn’t encourage information sharing and teamwork.