The Telecommuter Manifesto

Welcome to The Telecommuter Manifesto, a blog about all things telecommuting. Take some time to read my latest blog posts, browse the categories, and subscribe to my feed via RSS or Email. Thanks for visiting!

Of the many different types of telecommuting, one that gets very little attention is performing work for a remote branch of your employer.  Besides being a telecommuting job in its own right, this type of assignment can serve as a wonderful bridge to a full time telecommuting arrangement.

Performing work for a remote branch may not seem like telecommuting at first.  You still need to commute to you regular office to perform your work.  You’ll still need to deal with work distractions and office politics.  In fact, from the perspective of your boss, it won’t look like a telecommuting job at all.  From the perspective of the people you are working with at the remote location however, you will have all the appearances of a telecommuter.  This is where the power of this approach lies.

Successfully performing work for a remote branch might give you leverage to convince your boss that you could be an effective telecommuter.  If so, then by all means go that route.  But the alternative, and possibly less resistive path, is to make a case for a full time telecommuting assignment working for the boss at the remote location.  After all, to them you already are an effective telecommuter.  It’s much easier to argue that you will continue being successful at doing something than start being successful at something new.  By appealing to the people seeing you from the perspective you hope to continue, you strengthen the case for your argument.

This is the path I took towards full time telecommuting work.  It began with a remote work assignment.  My local boss was happy to have found work for me since that meant that I wouldn’t be idle and using up department overhead funds.  The remote group wsa happy because they found someone to perform necessary work without having to recruit and hire a new employee.  Over time, they came to appreciate my work and the significantly higher efficiency that can come from a telecommuting employee.  Rather than approach my local boss about the possibility of a full time telecommuting arrangement, I started by floating the idea to the manager at the remote site.  My hard work and efficiency was appreciated the most there, so they were thrilled at the prospect.  When I finally approached my local boss about the idea, he had two options: sign-off on it and keep me in his department or say no, in which case I’d simply transfer to the department of the remote manager.

Using your skills where they are most needed, and appreciated, benefits you as an employee and your company as a whole.  If you feel that telecommuting could increase these benefits but suspect the idea will face some resistance, consider performing work for a remote branch to expand your options and strengthen your case.  It worked well for me.

This post is an adaptation of one I originally wrote on my personal finance and investing blog, Richer by the Day.  Telecommuters are even more likely to face the productivity paradox than office workers, but have some different tools to deal with it.

When you work for a company, you’re likely to encounter the productivity paradox, which can be summarized as follows: The more work you do, the more work you get. Being more productive, while beneficial to your company, is likely less beneficial to you. Ask most bosses if you can work fewer hours as long as you get your work done and the answer will probably be the same: if you can get all of your work done in fewer hours, think of all the extra work you can get done if you put in the full amount of time. The trouble with many jobs is that there is not a direct correlation between the effort you put in and the pay that you get out. Working twice as hard won’t get you twice the money and may just serve to raise expectations or wear you out.

As a telecommuter you will likely see gains in your productivity.  That begs the question of how you’ll manage the productivity paradox.  Will you burst through your work in less time and use the excess for your own pursuits?  Will you raise your output beyond what an office worker could hope to accomplish to become the most valued employee?  Or will you squander your productivity gains to keep up the appearance of your pre-telecommuting level of productivity?  Depending on your work situation, only some of these options are possible.  If you are required to work a set number of hours per week, for example, getting your work done in less time doesn’t help you if you are chained to your desk until the work day is done.

In my original discussion on the productivity paradox I suggested that after you meet the requirements of your job, extra time is best spent elsewhere. If you were considering putting in an extra 10 hours a week at work, you likely would be better off using it to build an alternative income source. Whether you start a business, take on freelance work, or even just spend more time researching investments, activities that more closely correlate your compensation with your added effort may be the way to go.

Telecommuters whose jobs are task-based, rather than time-based, are most able to avoid the productivity paradox.  For them, the added productivity of telecommuting will allow tasks to be completed more efficiently and quickly, freeing up even more time for persuits that directly correlate their efforts with their earnings.  Time-based telecommuters are even harder hit by the productivity paradox than office workers.  Without proper monitoring of how productivity gains are exploited, such workers may quickly burn out or take actions that jeopordize the continued management support necessary to remain a telecommuter.

photo credit: Nevada Tumbleweed

One anti-telecommuting argument often used by management is that having too many telecommuters leaves the office feeling like a ghost town.  The downside of this, they say, is that customers visiting the site will think that the company is either understaffed or inefficient.

This is similar to a phenomenon I experienced in graduate school.  Alumni donations funded a new computer lab.  Though the new lab was impressive, there were too few computers for all the students that needed to access it.  The obvious solution to long lines of students waiting for the short supply of computers was to allow remote access to the lab.  That way, many students could be logged in to each computer at any given time.  Despite the wild success of this change and unanimous support by students, the department decided to eliminate remote access.  Why?  When alumni came to see how their donations had been used, they were upset to see the computer lab sitting empty.   Remote access was restored after some of us designed a scoreboard-like device that hung prominently in the lab and displayed how many of the computers were being accessed.  Seeing that 30 students were using 10 computers ended up being more impressive than a packed lab with a line out the door.

One of management’s arguments about telecommuting may be correct.  The reality is that a company with many telecommuters and a large office space is inefficient.  The solution is not to hurt productivity and force workers back into the office but rather to reduce office space.  Doing so will have costs, but a smaller site also has lower operating costs.  That transitional period between when telecommuting policies are implemented and steps are taken to capitalize on those policies can be somewhat awkward.  A company can save money by downsizing to a smaller office space, filled with the remaining employees who do not telecommute.  A small, buzzing office, coupled with comments that an additional 60% (or whatever) of the workforce telecommutes, certainly stands to impress.  Such comments can go a long way even if you decide to stay in your larger office space.  Companies might even go so far as to display how many workers are currently logged in remotely, much as we did with the computer lab at school.

Giving the impression of being a smaller, more agile and customer centric company which embraces newer technology and policies to keep employees happy and efficiency high does much more to add to customers impressions than a more sparcely populated office takes away from them.