The Death of Telecommuting

Much has been written over the past several months about the pending death of telecommuting. Companies and their management have been taking steps to reduce if not totally curtail telecommuting by employees across the USA. The move is not limited to any one market, sector or industry. At the same time, employees fear more and more that being “out of sight” will also lead to their being prime candidates for lay-offs as the economy continues to flounder. Is this the death of telecommuting or should companies and employees continue to promote it and why?

History

Three big reasons drove telecommuting going back to the early 1990s. The first was to reduce traffic congestion and pollution. In many cases this was a mandate by state, county and local governments to the largest employers. One of my former companies, AT&T, was in the vanguard for this very reason. Secondly, companies were looking to reduce overhead. Telecommuting mean less office space, lower overheads...and a healthier bottom line. Finally, in the battle for the best and the brightest, companies used telecommuting as benefit to new and younger employees – just like “casual Fridays” and eventually casual working environments.

A New Supervisory Dilemma

Most executives, middle management and supervisors learned their craft under the watchful gaze of their bosses over the years. They managed, to a large degree as they had been managed. Perhaps with the exception of sales people and service people “in the field” (with customers), most employees sat in offices for company locations near their supervisors. Meetings and daily face-to-face interaction were a way of life. With telecommuting, all of this changed – much to the discomfort of most bosses at all levels. All of a sudden their employees were working from home rather than the office. Meetings became conference calls. Team meetings were often quarterly, if that often. Globalization and remote or virtual “teams” added to the complexity of the situation.

Benefits

In addition to reducing pollution, reducing overheads and improving employee satisfaction, most studies about telecommuting found that employees working from home actually worked MORE than when they worked from an office. Additionally, they had fewer “sick days” and they had higher satisfaction levels with the companies. Higher satisfaction often translated into lower turnover – further reducing costs (hiring and training).

The “Bad Apples”

As with any benefit or privilege, some employees took advantage of telecommuting. They used it as an opportunity to avoid daycare for children (often against company policy). They used telecommuting as a chance to run a home business in addition to their regular job – and on company time if not resources. Employees spend hours shopping on-line, looking at porn or just doing as little as possible until they had a “deliverable” to the boss. Finally, some employees used telecommuting as an excuse to withdraw from their company culture – not meeting co-workers, only communicating with their boss as required and rarely showing up in the office.

The Answer

The ideal answer for any company is to not “throw out the baby with the bathwater”. They can continue to reduce pollution, keep overheads low and maintain high levels of satisfaction. It is up to bosses to be clear about telecommuting rules and responsibilities. These are sometimes called “telecommuting agreements”. One example is coming into the office one day per week and to participate in essential meetings and conference calls. Employees too have responsibilities. Maintaining “face time” with their supervisors, delivering on all performance objectives and building a professional network within and beyond the company environment are all essential. Additionally, many employees schedule weekly or monthly updates with their supervisors to review roles, responsibilities, project status, quality of deliverables and priorities. These meetings produce dividends for both the supervisor – at any level – and the employee.

Telecommuting is not yet dead. But unless companies and employees step up to the challenges and needs created by telecommuting, it may soon go the way of manual typing pools and company defined benefit pensions.


George F. Franks, III is the President of Franks Consulting Group, a Bethesda, Maryland-based management consulting and leadership coaching practice. Franks Consulting Group's clients include businesses, associations, non-profit organizations and individual leaders. Franks Consulting Group is on the web at:
http://franksconsultinggroup.com.
George can be contacted by e-mail at:
gfranks@franksconsultinggroup.com
Franks Consulting Group's free quarterly e-zine on career and leadership topics is at:
http://careerandleaderhip.com

Real Team Building

Much has been written about teams and team building over the past decade. Much of it has been either based on psychology or corporations. I have nothing against psychologists. And I myself, spent many years working for large corporations. But to understand teams and team building you need to understand what teams are, how they form and what makes them successful.


What are teams?

Teams are groups of people brought together to achieve a common goal, objective or purpose. Teams can be large. Teams can be small. Teams can be global or they can be local and co-located. Teams can be people who are all different. And teams can be people who are all of very different backgrounds. So what makes a group of individuals a team? Teams differ from groups of people in that they are brought together or they gather together to achieve a specific purpose as that group.

What do teams look like?

The very best teams have different educations, backgrounds and experiences. They come together to achieve a common purpose. They commit to subjugating their individual needs, goals and desires to those of the group. This does not mean that they do not have individual needs, goals and desires. They do. They just make them secondary to those of the group. The best teams often:
- Meet as a group face-to-face when forming.
- They have many events where they internalize their goals, objectives or purpose.
- They clearly define “success” for the group.
- They establish effective means of communications.
- They define what is common to all members versus what is specialized by individual to achieve their goals.
- They bond through socializing rituals (such as meals, activities or like events).
- They establish success rules (time lines, targets, rewards, roles, priorities, how to communicate outside of the team as examples).
- They define ways to maintain team effectiveness (future face-to-face meetings, regularly scheduled conference calls, group “touch points” and other communal activities).


What do the best teams do right?

The very best teams achieve their goal, objective or purpose through a singular focus, effective communication, flexibility, encouraging innovation by all and displaying respect for all members. Specifically they:
- Set high standards for all members and help one another achieve those standards.
- They do not tolerate those who do not carry at least their share of the “burden” (work).
- They respect input by all but do so in a crisp and disciplined manner.
- They make sure all members of the group know and have internalized the goal, purpose or objectives.
- They make sure all communication is clear, effective and timely.
- They insure that all members clearly understand all roles and responsibilities but are willing to modify them based on the needs of the group to achieve the objective.
- They do not tolerate egos based on prior performance. Every member has to earn their slot every single day.
- Members of the group treat the other members with respect and integrity. Lapses are not tolerated.
- A group mindset that “failure is not an option” is maintained from day one.

Why teams fail?

The list of reasons why teams fail is like a grocery list of human weaknesses and failings. The key reasons that teams fail include:
- Lack of a clearly defined purpose, goal or objective.
- “Team” members who spend less than 51% of their time working with the team.
- Lack of clear or timely communication.
- Team rituals (fun, awards, and other recognition) override the goal, mission or purpose as the reason for the team.
- Egos (putting self before the team rather than subordinating to the goals and needs of the team).
- Sub-elements within the team with agendas other than the goal, purpose or objective.
- Lack of respect for innovation.
- Lack of ability to change as needed (flexibility).
- Lack of integrity by any team member.
- “Failure” mentality as opposed to “success” mentality.

Many companies, organizations and other groups try to spend part of a day or a weekend together once a year to “team build”. Team building is not about a day or even a weekend. For a group to become a team and then to succeed as a team requires many elements – including time and often shared adversity – for an organization of any size. By applying the elements outlined in this article, any organization can more effectively operate at the “team” level.


George F. Franks, III is the President of Franks Consulting Group - a Bethesda, Maryland management consulting and leadership coaching practice. Franks Consulting Group's clients are businesses, associations, other non-profit organizations and individual leaders. Franks Consulting Group is on the web at:
http://franksconsultinggroup.com
George can be contacted by e-mail at:
gfranks@franksconsultinggroup.com
Visit Franks Consulting Group's free quarterly career and leadership e-zine:
http://careerandleadership.com