[ REALITy CHECK ]
The Reality
E
arlier this year, yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer sparked a debate across the country when she announced an end to telecommuting for company employees. With yahoo! struggling to be competitive, Mayer says she issued this directive as a way to bring all hands on deck. But many, inside the company and out, saw it as a blow for workplace flexibility. According to Fortune magazine, the telecommuting ban at yahoo! impacts only about 200 of the company’s 12,000 employees. But across the country, the number of telecommuters is significant. The 2010 World at Work Telework Survey estimated that more than 17 million Americans work from home at least one day per month. Why do companies offer this arrangement and what do employees gain from it? Research conducted by Ravi Gajendran, assistant professor of business administration, suggests that the benefits for the employee include improved autonomy, job satisfaction and performance, and reduced stress and work-family conflict. “Employees who have a little more autonomy are more likely to be satisfied with the balance between their work life and family life, and that translates into modest benefits for the organization,” says Gajendran. “Plus, there is no major downside to the arrangement.”
S
o does a ban on telecommuting from a company like yahoo! signify the end of this flexible arrangement for the millions of Americans who work this way? Gajendran believes that’s not likely. “I don’t see telecommuting being eliminated by companies across the board,” he says. “The benefits of this arrangement are modest, but they are numerous.” A ban on telecommuting may be more of a strategy for companies in a crisis, Gajendran explains. “The benefits of urgency and solidarity symbolized by people showing up to work possibly outweigh the costs of potential turnover among the likely minority of employees who telecommute. In a crisis, bits and bytes transmitted over wires are unlikely to create the sense of urgency and strong organizational identity required to pull together. Showing up to work is a test of employee commitment for an organization like yahoo!, which is in the midst of a do-or-die struggle.” Fortunately, for workers and employers, most companies are not in this urgent position, which is why Gajendran believes telecommuting is here to stay. But, he explains, working from home part-time rather than full-time may be the most beneficial for everyone. “There is evidence that low-intensity telecommuting, which we consider less than 2.5 days per week, may be a more effective strategy overall than high-intensity telecommuting. When employees telecommute only one or two days a week, they still have ample opportunities for rich, face-to-face interactions with their in-office colleagues during the rest of the week. This allows them to create strong relationships with their teammates based on trust and friendship. Research suggests that effective electronic communication depends on a solid foundation of rich face-toface interaction.” Despite Mayer’s edict on telecommuting, she may actually agree with Gajendran. In explaining her decision, she told Fortune magazine: “People are more productive when they’re alone, but they’re more collaborative and innovative when they’re together. Some of the best ideas come from pulling two different ideas together.”
•
Cathy Lockman
Assistant Professor Ravi Gajendran has conducted extensive research on virtual work arrangements, including telecommuting, virtual teams, distributed teams, and computer-mediated communication. The reality, he says, is that telecommuting is here to stay.
26
Pe r s p e c t i ve s S U M M E R 2 0 1 3
The Future of Telecommuting
The Reality Check
27