P1: JDV
Westfall WL040/Bidgolio-Vol I WL040-Sample.cls June 20, 2003 13:27 Char Count= 0
TELECOMMUTINGUSAGEFACTORS 439regular working hours. Organizations also like after-hours
telecommuting because it increases responsiveness to
rapidly developing situations, generates additional hours
of work from their employees, and provides supplemen-
tal disaster recovery capabilities. All these benefits come
at negligible cost to many organizations, because much
of the after-hours work is done by employees using hard-
ware, software, and telecommunications services that
they obtain at their own expense. (Some employees ac-
quire these capabilities on favorable terms because of dis-
counts negotiated by their organizations, e.g., acquiring
computers or high-bandwidth telecommunications ser-
vices.)
Classic telecommuting appeals to some employees. The
benefits, especially reductions in the costs, stress, and
time associated with driving on congested roads, are ob-
vious. The decreased social contact, however, and percep-
tions that telecommuting will affect their prospects for
advancement (or continued employment in downsizing
organizations) are discouraging factors.
In the past, some advocates suggested “classic telecom-
muting” as a viable alternative to day care for working
mothers. The magazine of the Conference Board had a
cover picture in 1987 of a woman seated at a keyboard
and answering a telephone while her baby peacefully
napped in the background. The work of two researchers
(Christensen, 1988; Olson, 1987) has shown that telecom-
muting was not a practical substitute for day care in typ-
ical situations. Classic telecommuting could be an option
for employees with responsibilities for care of aging rela-
tives or family members with disabilities, but the viabil-
ity of such arrangements is obviously dependent on the
amount and type of care required.
Classic telecommuting is sometimes mentioned as a
possible means for integrating persons with disabilities
into the workforce. There are problems with this con-
cept. It may be unrealistic to suggest that people with
little or no work experience can develop into productive
workers away from the economies of scale and support
available in an on-site setting. Some types or degrees
of disability severely limit employment options, which
could be a major factor for many who are disabled
to the extent that commuting would not be practical.
These issues might be less of a problem for persons who
had significant work experience before their disabilities,
but the potential loss of benefits when taking employ-
ment represents a discouraging factor. Although there
have been pilot studies on telecommuting in relation to
disabilities, reports on outcomes have not been widely
distributed.
Among all the stakeholders, information and com-
munications technology vendors are unquestionably the
most enthusiastic advocates of telework. It increases de-
mand for their hardware, software, and telecommunica-
tions services. The impacts are greatest for their more
lucrative high-end offerings, such as laptop computers,
wireless devices, high-bandwidth wired services (e.g., DSL
or cable connections), and sophisticated communica-
tions software. Organizational consultants who advocate
telecommuting also have strong economic interests in the
topic, and these stakes could impair the objectivity of the
research that some of them publish.Table 1
Impacts of Varying Amounts and Rates of TelecommutingVOLUME
REDUCTIONS
PARTICIPATION USAGE RATE (% TRAFFIC, REAL
(% OF EMPLOYEES) (% OF DAYS) ESTATE USAGE)10 20 2
20 10 2
20 5 1TELECOMMUTING USAGE FACTORS
Two key factors predominantly determine the impact of
classic telecommuting at both the societal and organi-
zational levels. One is the amount of participation in
telecommuting, the proportion of employees who regu-
larly substitute telecommunications for travel. The other
is the rate of telecommuting, how often employees make
this substitution on the average. These two factors are
multiplicative, as shown in Table 1.
The rates in Table 1 were not chosen arbitrarily: the
first row represents 1 employee in 10 (10% participation)
telecommuting 1 day/week (rate of 20%) on the average.
This is typical of data from a number of studies of telecom-
muting implementations. The second and third lines rep-
resent more participation in telecommuting but at a lower
rate. Some of the more optimistic estimates of participa-
tion count as telecommuters people who avoid a trip to
the office as little as 1 day per month (3% rate). Usage
rates vary between organizations, between organizational
units, by type of work, and by geography. Therefore the
rates (20%×10%, and 20%×5%) in the second and third
lines in the table are actually representative of some situ-
ations.
The 20% usage rate seems to be relatively stable. Be-
cause classic telecommuting is done in increments of
1 day, this suggests that individuals and organizations
are most comfortable with 1-day-per-week arrangements.
Many knowledge workers handle a broad variety of tasks
in typical weeks, and the mix varies at different times of
the year. Some tasks are much more suited to telecom-
muting than others. Telecommuters can concentrate on
suitable tasks at home for 1 day and leave the remain-
der of their tasks, ones that can be done equally well or
better in the office, for other days in the week. The 1 day
usually does not have to be on the same day every week,
which provides additional flexibility relative to both the
temporal distribution of tasks and the telecommuter’s re-
sponsibilities to adjust to other employees’ requirements.
Being absent only 1 day means that telecommuters still
have plenty of opportunities to interact with superiors,
peers, and subordinates on a face-to-face basis and can
minimize the inconveniences for others when they are not
in the office.
The climate in some organizations, or in specific orga-
nizational units, may be unsupportive for telecommuting.
In other situations, often dependent on the attitudes of
individual managers, telecommuting is tolerated or even
encouraged. Situations specific to certain organizations,