by Cormac Spencer, Consultant and Director with Link Personnel Services
There is an old TV advert for an airline with a plot that runs as follows – Two businessmen are pitching for a contract with an international client. While one unsuccessfully fiddles with his teleconferencing system in order to reach his client across the Atlantic, the other (having taken a flight with the airline in question) walks into the client’s office, shakes his hand and seals the deal. The message? Business is better done in person. If memory serves, that ad is about 15 years old, so the question is, with advances in technology, does the point still ring true? Bringing the argument further, do companies need to accommodate their staff as they have been doing for over a hundred years in office buildings, or is there some merit to allowing staff to work from home, some if not all of the time?
The benefits to the employee of working from home are obvious. Employees who work at home save time and money associated with commuting, are under less stress, and have more time with family. Employers benefit too by having happier employees, reduced costs due to lower outlays (rent, rates etc). Wage bills can also be reduced as employees accept lower salaries as a result of the cuts they can make to work related expenditure (commuting and childcare). Furthermore, with geography no longer an issue, companies can theoretically cast their net globally for the skills they need to succeed. Society gains too, benefiting from reduced transport emissions, less congestion, and less crowded cities as employees no longer need to fight for city pads close to work.
A quick internet search of jobs shows that some of the biggest companies in the world are coming around to this argument. There are jobs for Sales Directors, Content Writers and Customer Support Agents available now. However, they are a drop in the ocean of available jobs. So, if working from home is beneficial all round, why aren’t opportunities more prevalent?
One obvious factor is that the technology that allows this option to be viable is still quite new, however there is more to it. A lot of managers don’t think they will get the same level of commitment or results from their employees as they would if they are directly supervising them (images of employees watching daytime TV and glancing at their computers from time to time give managers cold feet) however if targets are set properly, then direct supervision shouldn’t be necessary.
The fact is that some people can’t motivate themselves properly unless they are in a work environment, others find that they like to delineate work from home space. Another reason is simply that the creativity and free exchange of ideas that happens when people are in close proximity is still difficult to replicate over conferencing software.
There are whole swathes of jobs that can never be done from home – Think of your dentist filling your teeth by remote control! My humble opinion is that many jobs benefit from people being in close quarters, and a lot of deals are better done face to face, however, the benefits of allowing people to work from home should not be ignored, and I believe that as technology continues to improve there will be many more such opportunities available.
