Internet’s Future: Catalyst for Workplace Sea Change

interesting... this may seem semantic, but i think there's a huge difference between "rules" and "expectations".  i believe the former usually stifle, while the latter set the sorts of boundaries you're talking about.

i agree that there's more to leadership than starting campfire-songs, but i absolutely believe that the primary goal of leaders of any unit larger than 1 should be to create an environment where their leadees can be as productive as possible.  in a knowledge economy, this means they need to be able to think, learn, and adapt without specific direction.  expectations can be abstract enough that they can be adapted to most situations.

this ties right back into all sorts of issues that are coming up as the Internet evolves into a pervasive tool, meeting place, communications device, etc.: 

• rules don't work for filtering spam... everyone agrees that the technical solution to spam will involve adaptive thinking (AI) that takes "expectations" set by IT wonks and corporate managers that are "interpreted" and "implemented" by intelligent systems to produce specific "results". 
• centralized management, exploitation, etc. of content (like the first 60 years of music industry control of Rock music) only works as long as distribution can be finitely controlled... once a hole is exploited, a new model for making money (and using that money to foster talent) is necessary.
• who decides which new social-networking and digital content web sites and tools have business application?  rules will inevitably be behind the curve of new sites and tools.  expectations re: what is considered productive professional conduct (based on results) will apply to all tools.

does expectation-based management require a lot more from managers... yes.  does it produce more effective and self-sufficient employees... yes.

what's the old Chinese proverb?  "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."  or for the more militaristic... "A leader leads by example not by Force." [Sun Tzu]

No, I think ALL employees need six months in the office, whether good or bad. The six months let's you work out which category people fall into.  

"having rules doesn't necessarily set a bad culture, but it does start off by telling a new employee that you don't trust them."

No, it doesn't. In my experience of managing 100 or so people over the last seven years I found most employees WANT rules -- because they equal structure, and people need structure.  Good leaders set guidelines/rules. Bad leaders, especially in online companies, light the campfire, hug their bunnies, and sit around singing kumbayah, and hoping "people will, like, work it out for themselves."  

No rules: corporate anarchy.  

Running a company is like being a parent -- you have to give your kids rules or they run around eating cardboard and dropping rocks on each other's head.

Light Reading was successful because it had a systemic approach to making money online. Rules rule!

all good points... but your 6-month rule is still designed assuming that folks will not be responsible and worthy of trust.  it's a fine line to walk in management, but managers who effectively balance trust and accountability produce a culture where everyone focuses on getting the work done rather than following rules.  having rules doesn't necessarily set a bad culture, but it does start off by telling a new employee that you don't trust them.

of course there will be bad apples occasionally, but i'd adjust your closing statement to:
"For an employer, the problem with telecommuting employing is what happens when you hire a stinker."

... in person, at a remote office, or at a home office, that's usually a difficult situation.

ok, ok . So maybe my msg title "telecommuting is for slackers)" was a bit of an exaggeration. (Sheesh -- everyone is so darned literal around here).

But I'm still sticking with my "six months in the office" rule because

• you can't train someone to do most jobs over the Internet 
• you can't inculcate someone in yr corporate culture over the Internet (assuming you have a corporate culture, and that it's worth inculcating)
• you can't get a bead on what someone is really like over the Internet

I actually agree with you, and that Williams character (you more than him), but you're both obviously hard working and most excellent members of your workforce. 

For an employer, the problem with telecommuting is what happens when you hire a stinker.  

"Telecommuting is for slackers" is too general of a statement.  A slacker is a slacker, whether at a desk or on the couch.  I completely agree that it's much easier for someone who telecommutes to sign onto AIM and spend the day watching reruns and eating (drinking) leftovers.  For someone already prone to slacking, telecommuting can be a curse. However, I don't think it's as simple as telecommuter = slacker.

When I work from home I usually end up signing on early and finishing up late.  Cutting out travel time, for me, means there's more time to work. This could just be because I'm an absolutely stellar employee, of course. I mean, after 10 hours at my desk here I am at home contributing to this message board post. So, yes Insultant, the ability to sign on and work at any time of day is cutting into my social life! I could be watching reruns and eating leftovers right now. But I digress...

I don't disagree with your (somewhat tyranical) rule that employees need to wait 6 months before having the privilege to telecommute. Because it is a privilege. And an employee should earn your trust before they receive that privilege. But once that trust is earned, the option should be out on the table. Telecommuting can be beneficial to both the employee and the employer. Writers, for example, can potentially get a lot of material by working outside of the dismal office confines. Stellar employees like me can log 12 hours rather than whatever they would have had they spent those couple of extra hours on the train. And rather than taking a sick day or an hour off to go to the doctor, a person can work from home and kill both the birds with the rocks, or whatever they say.

Ralph,

It's refreshing to see a company like GM not afraid to embrace new ideas.

There are enough reasons now for telecommuting that it should be an option if at all possible.

 As InformationWeek writer K.C. Jones reported Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican, is promoting the idea of a "National Telework Week." He's already approaching the idea to President Bush and wants more employers to consider the option.  

In addition to increasing opportunities for people with disabilities, it helps fill the nation's labor market shortage. Wolf also said that companies reap benefits including, cost savings, lower absentee rates, increased retention, higher productivity, and improved morale.

i disagree completely.  whether folks are working in a cubicle, at their desk at home, or at Starbucks, they can and will slack off if they are so inclined and can get away with it.

some of us are productive regardless of where we work, some folks are only productive with direct oversight, and some won't ever be very productive.

banning telecommuting or treating it as a "limited privilege" is missing the point and just governs to the lowest common denominator (punishing excellence along with mediocrity).  in a fully-connected world, many more people will telecommute than do now.  heck... outsourcing is just telecommuting at a functional level.

in all these situations, what's most important is accountability.  the best bosses i've had have been able to manage me in a way that didn't crowd or stifle me with unneccessary oversight and manage someone who needs lots of hand-holding.  if you manage to ability, set very clear expectations, and focus evaluations on productivity and other measurable outcomes, then the geographic location of an employee really doesn't matter.

As a former employer, and former CEO of an online startup, I found the biggest the biggest problems with telecommuting were:

1. TES (telecommute entitlement syndrome) where people expect to work anywhere they damn please, because, like, well, BECAUSE, yeah?!  

2. slackers   

Item 2 was a real problem.

Telecommuting is just about the perfect environment for people who don't want to work hard. Or, at all. The irony is that you hear lots of moaning about how being "always on" eats into people's personal lives (oh boo hoo) when a lot of those same people are actually using it as a way to do a bunch of personal stuff.

Message to goldbrickers: being "on IM" doesn't count as working, particularly when you don't respond to messages because you're having a three hour nap on the couch after drinking a bottle of thunderbird.

In the end I made it policy that everyone who came into the company had to work in an office (a real one with, like, a chair and everything!) for the first six months, and earn those telecommuter priviliges. Not a very popular policy.

Insultant

  

Modza,

I disagree. Not only is Ralph right when he mentions that our psychology must change, but the process is already taking place...the change is inevitable.

Yes, I agree that physical interaction, especially at work is important. But telecommuting offers benefits that are measured in a satisfying work-life balance.

The social aspect of coming in to the job and working with your office colleagues is important, but occasionally working from home via a broadband connection offers the best of both worlds.

James

Employees have always been able to take their work home, with or without the Internet. When this involved carrying files and folders, those people were known as dedicated overachievers. Now, if you aren't checking email at 11 p.m. there's a good chance you are missing something.

As a somewhat recent post-grad, I came into this Webbified workplace where communication is through IM and email, and where I can do the same job at my desk, at home, on top of Mount Olympus, etc. There is no difference between "going online" and "living online." I am always online, and if I am not online, I am looking ahead to the next possible second that I can gain some Internet access and find out what I've missed.

But then again, existing online makes everyone sort of invisible. On AIM, "I am away" can encompass many meanings from grabbing lunch to running an errand to spending the rest of the afternoon at the gym.

This is already a huge change from the workplace of our forefathers (parents) who worked 9-5, at a desk, in front of each other. I suppose further changes in the workplace will arise if we integrate more into the virtual world of Second Life. But, if I knew we were just going to end up hiding behind IM, email, and avatars, I wouldn't have bothered with those public speaking courses in college.