Telecommuting offers the possibility of:

• decreased sick time,
• improved job satisfaction,
• enhances quality of life by decreasing traffic/travel commuting time
• increased comeraderie
• enhanced focus & productivity
• improved internal communication
• increased computer literacy
• improved customer service
• decreased overhead
• is considered by many to be socially responsible (environmentally friendly, decreased contribution to smog and freeway congestion, family-friendly)

Virtual organizations offer potential for:

• Some, if not all, above-mentioned benefit
• Significantly lower overhead
• Ultimate flexibility and adaptability—more fluid than brick-and-mortar attachment allows
• Partner networks allow the virtual organization to compete for and service larger accounts or projects without incurring the inflexibility, the overhead of larger, brick-and-mortar companies.

Benefits in practice:

• Typically, the two highest costs for a company are facilities (office space, etc.) and payroll. Some percentage of virtuality or telecommuting allows a decrease in the former, and perhaps through increased efficiency, the latter.
• "A British Telecom Study reported by the Gartner Group indicated that the average telecommuter works 11% more hours than an office counterpart. They also found that reduced costs for office space and other overhead items save employers an additional amount equal to 17% of annual salary costs."
• Less stymied by external factors that might otherwise reduce productivity, such as inclimate weather (blizzards, etc.), urban traffic, personal illness or responsibilities
• "Bell Atlantic Corporation cited that 25 hours spent working at home are the equivalent of 40 office hours."

(Reference: "Selling Your Telecommuting Decision, International Telecommuting Association-ITAC")

International Telework Association & Council

Howard Rheingold's Virtual Community site

Is everyone right for telecommuting?

Telecommute America: California Style

This is often the case in discussions about virtual companies, virtual teams and telecommuting programs. Some business publications, such as Fast Company, have for years presented these trends as if they're commonplace, with everyone working from home or mobile offices. A world on the run, with the brick-and-mortar enterprise a thing of the past. Unfortunately, this often serves only to confuse the issue and obscure the truth.

What is the truth about virtual and telework? What's the difference between home-based business and corporate telecommuting? What are the pros and cons?

Understanding the terminology, the concepts, the illusions, and the reality more accurately allows us to intelligently make use of the options in our workplaces or businesses.

The pursuit of the 'virtual' office

What constitutes a virtual enterprise or company, and who is classified as a telecommuter?

The former term, 'virtual company', was used in reference to larger, more conventional brick-and-mortar corporations who for a short while attempted to catch the 'dot-com' wave by creating a hip, 'paperless workplace' where employees telecommuted or 'hoteled' — came in from time to time and plugged in at a random (sometimes mobile) work station.

The mobile, on-the-run, 'hoteling' approach didn't work as expected in most corporate cultures, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it was ill-suited for employees who joined a large corporation for the 'corporate family' dynamic. They liked the water-cooler chat in person, along with the stable, decorated personal offices more than a mobile cart or random 'plug-in' dock.

Other reasons that the super-virtual illusion didn't suit many large-corporate workplaces include the fact that it takes a certain, entrepreneurial personality type to self-motivate, self-discipline, and work in a more isolated fashion typical of home-based and entrepreneurial enterprises. Plus, most large corporations are addicted to serial in-person, on-site meetings.

For these companies, integration of more technologies also allowed for greater connectivity for employees whose work required frequent travel or collaboration with fellow employees located in other regions or countries.

In pursuit of this vision, the companies experimented with a heavier reliance on portable technologies and e-mail, extranets, intranets, and video-conferencing, among other things.

The term 'virtual enterprise' has also been applied — perhaps more accurately — to small, nimble, dynamic enterprises whose partners, employees, and/or collaborators all work out of professionally outfitted home-based or independent offices, and connect and collaborate electronically, and meet periodically at a "hub" or one of the participant's home office (if at all).

The added focus on using available technology not only allows the quick-footedness necessary to small, creative, innovative enterprises, but also allows an efficiency in cost and time — always an interest of small enterprises.

The term virtual team is often used to apply to a group of employees working on a project from different company locations or departments, again relying on e-mail, intra/extranets, video or web-conferencing, and other technological means of communication and work-sharing.

References to telecommuting programs include those in which a very small percentage of employees experiment with working anywhere from one to several days per month from home. In some cases, these pilot programs focused on sales persons, who frequently work away from the office anyway. Other workers to whom 'telecommuter' is applied are professionals who live in one geographic region but work electronically, with periodic trips to the company headquarters.

Potential problems with virtual work options

As suggested above, the potential benefits of an effective, efficient full or partial virtual work arrangement are significant, so why isn't everyone doing it? As you might guess, it's neither for all people nor all companies. Anticipating potential issues can help you determine when — and if — a virtual solution is an option for your workplace.

What issues might you consider before going virtual? Again, as hinted at above, there are a few issues that crop up when real people implement virtual work options in traditional business cultures:

Isolation. Many people aren't suited to working alone, and underestimate the degree to which they rely upon interaction with or even just the presence of other people, as well as the structure and pace set within a traditional workplace.

Discipline. Problems and reactions may arise due to lack of structure. Some virtual workers find they're ill-suited to drive the process, take responsibility for ensuring thorough communication and on-target expectations, and feel uncomfortable and unproductive without the parameters reinforced by being on-site and physically immersed in the organizational culture.

Mission. Some telecommuters don’t feel like they’re a part of a mission, an organization, when they work from home or even a small satellite office.

Again, for many, the 'team' concept relies upon working onsite and side-by-side, not virtually. Many leaders have been surprised to find that an 'out of sight, out of mind' mindset is part of the organizational culture. If it's not physical and visible, it's not 'real'. This becomes a potential challenge for keeping virtual teams 'on mission'.

Liability. Liability issues, perhaps affecting issues such as worker’s compensation claims from ergonometrically problematic home office space or liability from accidents that occur at the home while a worker is telecommuting (home office insurance coverage would seem a necessary component).

Miscommunication. New work arrangements create interpersonal and management challenges, as you might expect, ranging from problematic e-mail etiquette to perception/expectation mismatches and other communication-related issues.

Transition. Transition issues, particularly when unanticipated. Many people don’t think it’ll be any big deal, so don't anticipate problems. In fact, it's a completely different work experience.

Jealousy. Telecommuting or other virtual arrangements might not be appropriate for many positions, which may lead to intra-office jealousy between those who must be onsite and those who are able to telecommute.

Disconnection. If not accommodated for in advance, you could lose the ideas, comeraderie, etc. that results from impromptu, unplanned interaction (e.g. watercooler gossip, spur-of-the-moment lunch discussions). For those who are suited to working via technology, this is not a problem -- the 'virtual watercooler' is vibrant. But for those who need the physicality to make it real, this creates a 'disconnect' problem.

Expense. Companies might find technology & infrastructure investment prohibitive (equipment, furniture, alternate staffing). Included along with the capital equipment expenses is the cost of inefficiency, miscommunication, etc.

Control. Some supervisors and leaders may find it difficult to cede control, including decision-making and independent judgment, to the employees who work remotely. This will probably be less an issue when the worker only telecommutes one day per week or month than when the worker is permanently located in his home or mobile office.

Perception. For virtual organizations, there may be a perception that "virtual" means non-existent or frivolous, particularly among purchasers in larger corporate environments where the common understanding or experience center around brick-and-mortar facilities provided by the parent-employer. For many corporate employees, telecommuting is equated with 'being home', and there is a sharp distinction between 'work' and 'home' -- the latter being associated with leisure and personal pursuits.

Planning. Your situation is unique, and the most effective plan must be tailored to meet the needs and culture of your company. A good plan can help make the difference between a highly beneficial virtual work initiative and one that shakes your organization to its core, so don't hesitate to seek counsel from communication and process experts.