The Telework Coalition (www.TelCoa.org) developed this survey to determine the attitudes and thoughts of Private Sector employers in the DC Region concerning using Telework/Telecommuting and whether it was considered part of their overall management strategy. It was conducted on-line between February and April 2003. It was made available to the membership of the Greater Washington Board of Trade (www.BOT.org), Northern Virginia Technology Council(www.NVTC.org), Technology Council of Maryland (www.MDHITECH.org), and the Washington DC Technology Council(www.DCTECHCOUNCIL.org). Two survey links were presented to the members, one for businesses with employees who telework/telecommute and one for businesses with NO employees who telework/telecommute. Members selected into which category they fell and answered that questionnaire. Of the total respondents, 83% indicated they did have employees who telework/telecommute.
A good cross section of business types responded including: Accounting, Advertising/PR, Architecture, Associations, Banking/Financial, Computers/IT, Construction, Consulting, Design/Graphics, Education, Engineering, Health Care/Medical, Hospitality, Insurance, Marketing, Labor Organization/Union, Real Estate, Social Services, Telecommunications, Transportation, Web Services, and several who chose `other’.
The findings are both examples of the actual benefits derived from having teleworkers/telecommuters, and a reality check of what are the (real or perceived) barriers preventing or hindering the wider adoption of telework/telecommuting. Moreover, the findings help indicate the ways messaging might be modified to increase the effectiveness of regional training, consulting, advertising and marketing content.
Our anecdotal experience (from meetings, presentations, conversations, and this survey) indicates that a contradiction exists between employers who said they did not have any employees who telework/telecommute, but in fact did, did not call it telework/telecommuting, and were supporting and practicing such capability.
Findings from Employers who have Employees Who Telework/Telecommute
The results indicate two waves of telework/telecommuting implementation, because 49% of respondents said they have had such programs for 1-3 years, while 28% have had them for over 5 years. The 1-3 year surge may have been a consequence of vulnerabilities identified after 9-11, and the more than 5 years surge could be related to the need to be able to offer a workplace friendly environment during the tight labor market of 1998-2001. More research is needed to confirm such a possible cause and effect.
The main reasons given for implementing a program are: “Financial Benefits to the Company” – 44%, and “Requests from Employees” – 69%. This indicates that media programs suggesting “employees ask for it at work” might generate significant demand to telework/telecommute.
66% said that their programs are informal (defined as not having policies, procedures and agreements related to telework/telecommuting). Similarly, the same % does not provide any training either for those teleworking/telecommuting or for their managers. Taken together, these findings indicate a considerable gap in risk management practices, especially in terms of FLSA, security of information and IPR, OSHA/Health/Safety and asset tracking.
Either insufficient financial or time resources, or a lack of understanding that potential risks exist and need to be addressed, may cause the lack of attention to these potential areas of exposure. Whatever the reason, there is a need to educate employers on best practices to help them control such risks.
56% teleworked/telecommuted 3-5 days per week, 32% for 1 or 2 days per week, while 30% only occasionally (less than 1 day per week). It was not expected that such a high % telework/telecommute for 3-5 days per week. This could also be due to the fact that a high % of employers with telework/telecommuting programs (74%) who took this survey have successful or very successful programs. Media messaging might encourage employers to increase the frequency of days for those, who already telework/telecommute.
Employers provided and/or gave allowances to teleworking/telecommuting employees for:
Table 1.
Laptop/Desktop 90%
High-speed Internet Access 44%
Printer 38%
Extra Phone Line 31%
Fax/Scanner 25%
Furniture 13%
Lighting 13%
The high ranking (2nd) and proportion (44%) of employers financially supporting high-speed Internet access for their deployed teleworkers/telecommuters was unexpected and indicates that they have identified it as an important enabler. This finding tends to strengthen the contention of many high-speed providers that telework is indeed a “killer app”. To reinforce the symbiosis between the value of high-speed Internet Access and effective teleworking/telecommuting, 89% of respondents believed that greater availability of high-speed Internet Access would help their teleworkers and therefore indicates strong unsatisfied demand for high-speed access.
75% indicated that they do not have a program that shares office space or workstations among teleworkers/telecommuters, and so are not reaping the full potential cost saving benefits of telework through “Hoteling”, “Hot Desking”, “Flexible” or “Drop-in Officing”, as such programs are called. This could also be explained as a reaction to employee resistance to losing their individual workspace.
When asked the importance of the benefits of Telework to their business, respondents rated the following as Important or Very Important:
Table 2.
Rank%
1. Higher Workforce Morale 91%
2. Improved Productivity 78%
3. Provides Essential Component of Operational Continuity Plan 76%
4. Makes it Easier to Attract & Retain Quality Employees 68%
Some of the benefits listed in Table 2. are intertwined and reinforce each other – i.e.: 1,4,6 and 8; and also: 2,5, and 6.
It is surprising that Workforce Morale came out on top. In light of the current economic climate, we had expected benefits that drive directly to the bottom line would have a stronger showing. Possibly, employers are using this period of economic slowdown to try harder to keep their best staff, while letting regular labor turnover get rid of the less productive; too many of the latter may have been taken on during the recruitment scramble of the .com era.
Reduced office space has a low ranking (7th out of 8, with a 55% rating), even though the potential savings for a business, through a reduced need for as much office space, are considerable. This could be because the current commercial real estate market has such a high vacancy rate (over 25% in some areas) that employers may think that it is futile to try to sell or sublet surplus space.
Additionally, only 25% of employers have implemented a flexible officing strategy to position them to be able to take advantage of office space utilization efficiency savings. This may be because of employer’s possible frustration with the real estate market or because they do not know how to implement such a strategy; if the latter, there is an apparent education opportunity.
When asked to rate the success of their programs, the responses were:
Table 3.
Unsuccessful 3%
Somewhat Unsuccessful 0%
Neutral 23%
Successful 34%
Very Successful 40%
Only 3% of the respondents with telework/telecommuting employees stated that their programs were unsuccessful.
Findings from Employers WHO DO NOT Have any Employees Who Telework/Telecommute
The great conundrum: we can not explain why 62% of respondents said that they had never had employees who teleworked/telecommuted, but 100% said that they do have employees who work at home before they leave for work, in the evening, or over the weekend!
The answer might be that these employers regard telework/telecommuting as simply another way of getting the job done; nothing that needs a different name or a special set of policies & procedures wrapped round it. More in depth research is certainly needed to clarify this thinking.
77% had considered implementing telework, but the following are the reasons why they did NOT implement telework:
Table 4.
Rank & Issue %
1. Too Difficult for Teleworkers to Collaborate/Communicate 54%
=2. I Believe It’s Too Difficult to Manage/Monitor Performance 46%
=2. My Managers Believe It’s Too Difficult to Manage/Monitor Performance 46%
4. Corporate Culture Will Not Allow It. 31%
=5. All Employees Need to be On Site to Perform Their Work 23%
=5. I Do Not Think Any Employees Want to Telework/Telecommute 23%
=7. Security Concerns 15%
=7. Financial Barriers – No Budget/Can’t Afford To 15%
9. Do Not Have Technology Needed 8%
10. Tried telework and it did not work 0%
Other 31%
The top 5 reasons strongly reflect often quoted barriers to greater use of telework – the “out of sight = out of control” fear, and the preference to use “Management by Hovering”, rather than results-based management. However, 100% responded “yes” to an earlier question asking, “Do you know that Telework does not need to be a full-time, 5 day per week commitment?” There seems to be a disconnect here – why do these employers not feel that they could satisfy their needs for control and communication on the days when their employees are in the office? This finding would indicate a need to educate employers on both a.) how to control, communicate and collaborate, and b.) how to manage and implement change.
Surprisingly, both Financial and Technology-related issues are cited as the least significant barriers to establishing telework programs (=15% — Table 4.)
Respondents with NO telework/telecommuting programs were asked how they rated (on a scale of 1 (least contribution) – 5 (greatest contribution)) various issues in terms of which have the greatest effect on improving their bottom lines. The findings of those who ranked the issue 4 or 5:
Reducing office space to make RE savings 25% (8th) 55% (7th)
It’s interesting to see what the “NOs” regard as being most beneficial to their bottom lines, compared to what the “YES” respondents actually are finding from experience to be of the greatest benefit to their bottom lines from telework/telecommuting.
In both cases real estate savings are ranked neither as a driver for the NOs, nor a resounding benefit being experienced by the YESs – 55% of the YESs, however, indicated that they are indeed saving money through reduced real estate needs.
Increased Productivity is a very strong (92%) need of the NOs, and productivity increase benefits are what the YESs are in fact experiencing (ranked 2nd).
The YESs rate “Happier workforce w/higher morale” as their #1 (91%), which is resulting in them experiencing better “Retention of key employees” and being able to “Attract better employees” (tied for 4th).
The different ranking of telework’s value towards Continuity of Operations: NO – 6th, vs. YES – 3rd may be that the YESs have actually enjoyed such benefits recently, especially because of the region’s harsh winter with its associated difficult driving conditions and numerous days of schools being closed, various demonstrations, and of course, 9-11. Additionally, if SARS becomes a problem locally, businesses with the capability to have employees telework/telecommute are well positioned to maintain operations.
SUMMARY
The proportion of programs that were started at the request of employees is significant. As suggested earlier (Section 2.), we recommend that, in order to further the spread of teleworking/telecommuting, both top/down and bottom/up approaches be addressed.
Greater emphasis should be placed on the regularization of Informal/Ad Hoc programs into more formal programs to address the risk management concerns identified in Section 3.
In terms of high-speed access to data, whether DSL, Cable, Wireless, Satellite or Powerline (now being piloted in the DC region and other areas), there is obviously recognition that such connectivity is a cost effective investment and enabler of telework/telecommuting. (Table 1. and Section 5.)
There is strong evidence, from employers with telework/telecommuting programs, that they are experiencing significant benefits from adopting such strategies (Table 2.).
The proportion of programs that were started at the request of employees is significant. As suggested earlier (Section 2.), we recommend that, in order to further the spread of teleworking/telecommuting, both top/down and bottom/up approaches be addressed.