There it is, on the front page of today’s Financial Times, in a list of energy saving recommendations issued in a proposal by the IEA (International Energy Association). Point #5 is the simple statement: “Telecommuting: Inform public of benefits of working from home”.
The article, and it’s prominence on page 1 is prompted by the rocketing price of oil – and heightened anxiety caused by the Goldman Sachs report of prices as high as $105/barrel.
Reducing long commute distances IS a significant part of the answer. The problem though is that, as we know from the past two decades in which telecommuting programs have been tried in various forms, more, much more, is going to be needed than simply “informing the public” of its virtues. Proponents have for too long oversimplified what it’s going to take to shift the modern post-industrial workforce to accept telecommuting as their norm. Telecommuting isn’t just another commuting option – like choosing to pick up passengers that allow driving in the commute lane. It is/will come about as part of a major shift in organization design, work patterns, urban patterns and culture and will be enabled by a myriad of new technologies (already here) and more importantly, social institutions and service industries.
Of course, what I’m getting at here is the WorkClub – or to use the definition I’ve been using lately – networks of ubiquitous, shared (aggregated) work spaces that provide access to work support services and technologies, social networking and learning opportunities. And the key characteristic of the WorkClub is that it should be really close (say 5 – 10 minutes commute) to where someone LIVES (which is why they need to be ubiquitous, and provide common work systems when they are away from home (which is why they need to be a network).
So, why is telecommuting as it is mostly promoted not so simple – and therefore not succeeding to the degree that it is going to make a big enough impact on oil use. Like anything complex, the reasons are many and interrelated. Here are a few (discussed at greater length below);
1. WORKING AT HOME IS NOT THE (WHOLE) ANSWER.
2. SHIFTING THE COSTS INFRASTRUCTURAL SUPPORT FROM CORPORATIONS TO WORKERS.
3. JUSTIFYING THE SHIFT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL SUPPORT BACK TO THE CORPORATION
4. CHANGING CORPORATE STRUCTURES TO REALIZE THE FULL BENEFIT OF DISTRIBUTED WORK
5. CHANGING URBAN STRUCTURES TO FULLY ENABLE DISTRIBUTED WORK
1. WORKING AT HOME IS NOT THE (WHOLE) ANSWER.
At least not for the majority of people who, as it turns out, really NEED to be around other people to stay focused, stay awake and stay inspired. And it turns out that those other people don’t need to be their boss, or even co-workers; just other people who are equally intent as they are in getting a good days work done.
2. SHIFTING THE COSTS INFRASTRUCTURAL SUPPORT FROM CORPORATIONS TO WORKERS.
One of the unspoken realities of past working from home arrangements is that it has been a massive shift of infrastructural costs from employer to employee. Few corporations, till now, have had very generous programs for covering the myriad costs of keeping an office functional. This will have to change if employees are going to be willing, in large numbers, to give up corporate privileges if there is also a corresponding cost they will have to bear.
3. JUSTIFYING THE SHIFT OF INFRASTRUCTURAL SUPPORT BACK TO THE CORPORATION
At the same time, few corporations will be willing to pay incremental costs of telework arrangements if there are not concomitant savings and productivity benefits. To gain the former, this means they’re going to have to shut down significant amounts of corporate real estate and services. To gain the latter, they’re going to have to provide employees with more than just a DSL line at home. They’re going to have to create, or subscribe to programs, systems and services that give their employees the best resources, training and technology – some of which simply won’t be feasible if they are chained to their home office any more than if they are chained to a cubicle.
4. CHANGING CORPORATE STRUCTURES TO REALIZE THE FULL BENEFIT OF DISTRIBUTED WORK
Well, I didn’t say it was going to be easy or painless – if people are going to work in a fundamentally different way, organizations are going to have to have a fundamentally different relationship with their employees. We are already seeing this in the move to free agency. But that is just the beginning – and it is a challenge that is fraught will all the complexity of evolving labor relations.
5. CHANGING URBAN STRUCTURES TO FULLY ENABLE DISTRIBUTED WORK
Now that we have overhauled work, the corporation and work support institutions, if we’re really going to reduce profligate consumption of energy (even if it is renewable) and trade out insane commutes for something more humane, the very urban fabric is going to have to change. Putting it simplistically, people will work, as in pre industrial revolution cities, where they live. And that will mean fewer industrial parks, smaller corporate campuses, mixed use "CBD"s and residential areas as dotted with work support facilities (I’ll continue to call them WorkClubs) as they are now with churches, restaurants and coffee shops (which may well play a significant roll in this evolving urban design – but more of that later).
When you look at it this way, “telecommuting” is simply too small of an idea to capture the richness of the opportunity and the complexity of the challenge we have, as a society, ahead of us to move away from our addiction to oil. If “informing the public about the benefits of working from home” starts us out on that path, I’m all for it.
Comments