A Critical Look at Telework

If you are at all interested in the role of telework for your organization, for your team, or even for yourself, I recommend taking a little bit of time to read over a recent research piece titled, 'The hard truth about telecommuting', published in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Monthly Labor Review June 2012 issue.

In the piece, authors Mary C. Noonan and Jennifer L. Glass review the results of their recently completed research that examined the prevalence of telecommuting in the US workforce, the trends in adoption of telecommuting over time, and most interesting to me at least, how telecommuting arrangements tend over time to increase the total amount of hours worked, rather than simply substitute 'home' hours for 'office' hours. Mr. Brady - Working from home

If you are someone that currently or in the past has done at least some remote work for your organization, the study's most damning conclusion about telework probably will not be very surprising - that between half and two thirds of telework arrangements simply serve to add working hours to the work week, and doe not simply trade hours worked at home for hours that are normally spent working in the office.  Details from the BLS piece:

Fully 67 percent of telecommuting hours in the NLSY (data) and almost 50 percent in the CPS (data) push respondents’ work hours above 40 per week and essentially occur as overtime work. This dynamic suggests that telecommuting in practice expands to meet workers’ needs for additional worktime beyond the standard workweek.

As a strategy of resistance to longer work hours at the office, telecommuting appears to be somewhat successful in relocating those hours but not eliminating them. A less sanguine interpretation is that the ability of employees to work at home may actually allow employers to raise expectations for work availability during evenings and weekends and foster longer workdays and workweek.

These findings, while not terribly surprising, particularly when considering how the rapid advances in mobile technology have made 'working from anywhere' a possibility and reality for so many of us, also raise some important issues for organizations or leaders that are supporting or offering telework to their teams. Namely, any telework program that promises or at least suggests the promise of how telework will be a simple 'shift' of work from one location to another is an outcome that is unlikely at best and misleading at worst.

A more honest and realistic approach and pitch to telework is one that more of less frames it as 'This job carries high demands and expectations AND we know you have a busy life outside of work too,' Here's how telework fits - that 'extra' 5 or 10 or 20 hours we need from you? Take them as and when you need them - the office, your house, at Starbucks -whatever.'

And the thing of it is - when framed in that manner, telework stops sounding much like telework and more like just plain old 'work.'

Here's the last observation I have about telework, and this is largely from my personal experience - the irony of telework is people at work think you are more or less free to 'work' all the time or at any time, while your family and friends at home see you working from home and think you are 'free' all the time.

What do you think - has telework simply become 'work more from home in your previously free time?'

Shopping: The Nation's Newest Contact Sport

If you braved the jungles of America's malls and big box stores over the just concluded Thanksgiving holiday weekend you probably don't need to hear any more tales of camp outs outside Best Buy stores to snag discounted TVs, turkey and stuffing fueled midnight mad dashes through the aisles of Walmart, and assorted reports of shopping-related mischief and mayhem.What's 'Cyber Monday?'

After reading some of the most recent stories of 'competitive' shoppers pepper spraying their rivals to score an X-box game, a frenzied fight over $2 waffle makers, or Walmart store security also playing the pepper spray card to get some unruly bargain hunters under control, you'd be completely thinking rationally and probably wisely if you decided not to venture out into the retail jungles this weekend. Aside - what the heck is it with pepper spray lately? We've gone from pepper spray being something no one's ever heard of just a few weeks back, to it being the 'go-to' item of choice for crowd control and the most trendy subdue your adversaries substance.

In fact, with today being designated as 'Cyber Monday', the most active and profitable online shopping day of the year, with many online and traditional retailers offering steep merchandise discounts and free or low cost product shipping, eschewing in person and 'real life' shopping in favor of the online approach is becoming more and more popular. I'll bet lots of folks figured they'd hit up a few of these Cyber Monday deals from the office today. In between status meetings, planning sessions, and catching up on email that may have come in from the rest of the world that unlike the USA was not on holiday for a few days, scoring an online deal here or there at work doesn't seem like to much of an issue for most workers and organizations.

Except of course when employees doing a little Cyber Monday bargain hunting is looked at like the potential time waster that is worker access to social networking sites from the office. According to a recent survey conducted Robert Half Technology, and reported on by the Los Angeles Times, "60% of more than 1,400 chief information officers interviewed said their companies block access to online shopping sites -- up from 48% last year.  And an additional 23% of CIOs said that although their companies do allow access to shopping sites, they monitor employees for excessive use."

That is a drag for folks at those companies that figured they'd be able to save a little bit of time, (and possibly a shot pf pepper spray in the grill), by scoring a few items online while at the office. I won't argue that companies are not within their rights to block online shopping sites from being accessed via their locations and networks. After all, it really is not part of anyone's job description to be shopping online when they are supposed to be working. 

But what online shopping does do for people is give them back a little bit of their time. Time saved driving all over town, fighting off crazed 'competitive' shoppers, going to one place only finding they have to try another in search of what they're looking for. For whatever cost and risk avoidance benefits online shopping provides, this time savings is perhaps the most valuable one of all.

Organizations, at least the ones that are actively blocking this online shopping activity, would do well to at least consider this value and benefits to their staffs. Sure, the work has to be done, and excessive goofing off or abuse of the system has to be kept in check, but loosening the reins, even if it was only a temporary measure, might go a long way into improving morale around the shop this holiday season.

The last few years have been tough on organizations and employees alike, a small and simple gesture that gives people one the most scarce and precious gifts - time, is likely to be one that is not forgotten, and one that pays off in the long run. And no one has to get pepper sprayed.

If you must have a dress code policy...

I know, workplace dress code policies have (mostly), gone the way of the IBM Selectric and the Inter-office mail envelope as relics of a bygone age. In our more modern, progressive, and enlightened workplaces, most organizations have come to understand that with all the many thousands of things to worry about, that articulating specific dress code standards and policies is a colossal waste of time.Love the 70s

The vast majority or workplace dress code discussions have been distilled into short phrases - 'business casual ', seemingly the dominant one these days. What exactly does business casual entail? Who knows for sure, just walk around the office for a day or two and generally you can sort it out. Mostly, dress code standards are arrived at organically and are largely self-policing. Wear something inappropriate to the office some time and chances are someone will tell you about it, if not to your face, in a snarky comment on Facebook.  

Dress code policies are boring, and writing about dress code policies as I am right now, possibly represents the nadir of my adventure in blogging. But I had to come up with a hook to feature some fantastic workplace dress code policy imagery I came across recently. Fantastic workplace dress code imagery? That does not even make sense.

Well, take a look at the image on the right that accompanies this post, as well as the rest of the collection of dress code policy images from the British Postal Museum Archive described on the How to be a Retronaut blog. 

These dress code policy posters are, quite frankly, awesome. And not only do they look cool, but they also serve the purpose of transforming what would be a typical, boring written policy (that no one ever reads, except as a preface in an employee disciplinary hearing), into a vibrant and effective tool for educating the target workers as to the desired workplace behavior.

Additionally, the dress code posters attempt to connect the policy to real-world examples, demonstrate the potential negative ramifications of violations of the policy, and even have a little fun at the same time. Are these vintage posters really that groundbreaking and meaningful in the overall canon of workplace thought and theory? 

Not really. 

But they do remind us that even the most mundane and tedious parts of the job of Human Resources, the parts that still sometimes include writing and enforcing workplace dress code policies, can still be creative, can still be personal, and can (for shame), still be even a little fun.

No one reads your policies. Maybe it's time to get a little more imaginative in their presentation and communication.

Have a fantastic week!

The Unfamiliar and Scary

Submitted for your consideration, three pieces of news from the last week or so:

Maryland Department of Corrections subjects job applicant to a social media strip search by making him turn over his Facebook login and password.Flickr - soonerpa

New Jersey Police Chief offers tips and advice to parents on how to hack into their kids' social media accounts, to snoop and spy, sort of the 21st century equivalent of reading their diaries, (man, that is an old fashioned reference, does any kid keep a diary anymore?).

Spanish nun who had served for over 35 years expelled from her order due to 'Too much Facebook.'

While the three stories all have social networking in common, specifically Facebook (aside, are we getting close to Facebook becoming the generic term for 'social networking', like 'Kleenex' now essentially means any facial tissue?), this post really isn't about Facebook at all.

To focus too much on how organizations, be they public or private, approach and adapt to Facebook, Twitter, and whatever comes next is, I think, to take too narrow a view of what is important and common about the above three situations. 

It is sadly for leaders and institutions of limited courage and vision a short and straight path from the unfamiliar to the scary.  What they don't understand, what they can't reference in a policy or by past experience, what in their narrow world view seems at all out of the ordinary can quickly evoke feelings of discomfort, angst, anger, and in the cases we see above, result in seemingly irrational reactions. 

Yesterday I posted about trust, or at least a form of trust.  I more or less said that external measures of influence can only be guides at best, and that ultimately the value and influence one exerts upon you is a highly variable, highly personal evaluation. And I think we all can kind of agree on that, at least in theory.  'Trusting' an algorithm to give you sound advice that is to be used as a meaningful measure inside organizations does seem like too much of a stretch.  We love our machines, but we are not quite ready to trust them. Even you Watson.

But in the cases above, trust between people is lacking, and in the kinds of relationships we would normally expect trust to be assumed, a given, and only to be withdrawn in the case of some kind of egregious action.  A long time employee attempting to obtain a better role in the organization, a public safety official (who we ought to be able to trust), advising parents to spy on their kids (who the parents ought to be able to trust), to finally, of all things, a nun who somehow ran afoul of her order by discovering a new way to spread the good word.

I don't want to be too hard on institutions and their leaders, often challenged by a flood of new tools, technologies, and issues that they simply can't process quickly enough to adequately address in their customary manner.  It has to be difficult for the Mother Superior of the 'Facebook nun' to know just what exactly she should do.  

But in these cases the leaders, the decision makers might be absolved from nuanced understanding of this new world, they are not absolved from retreating immediately to a position of fear and mistrust.

The unfamiliar might indeed be scary, but people are still people, and by placing your trust in those that you know you have earned that trust, the unfamiliar becomes less scary, and more exciting. 

Open Door Policy?

Come by any time, you know I have an 'Open Door' policy.

I mean, unless I am in one of my 8 standing weekly meetings, or 10-12 ad-hoc meetings that pop up every week.

Or if I am on the phone.  

Or if I am intently responding to one of the 79 e-mails in my inbox marked 'Urgent'.  

Aside - if you send e-mails and mark them as 'urgent' and the subject matter does not involve  bodily injury, hospitalization, or natural disaster, then you are half a jerk.

Or if I am setting the roster for my fantasy sports team.

Or if I am actively monitoring our employer brand on the Social Networks playing Mafia Wars.

Come to think of it, I am not sure I really have an 'Open Door' policy after all.  

In fact, I had better close the door and enact a new policy :

Sign outside Frank Sinatra's residence circa 1965

If that is the 'true' policy, better to be upfront about it, don't you think?