On telecommuting et al...

However democratic we think our society might be, there will always be class warfare. It's easy for people to relate to. Just look at how often class warfare is being invoked by politicians, left, right, and center, and one can easily see why.

Mostly, I can understand why. The us-against-them mentality is rather fundamental in human nature. Examples are everywhere. Romney, perhaps, is one of the most recent flame-out, with his 47% remarks during his failed presidential bid. But the one that is most curious to me, is about telecommuting, where I find some weak arguments in comments relating class warfare to telecommuting. 

I've been telecommuting for more than 13 years now, before it even became vogue. Naturally I have a thing or two to say about the topic, given my own experience in it, particularly since the end of telecommuting in Yahoo, courtesy of its relatively new CEO, Marissa Mayer.

A few things are worth noting.

Let's be clear on this. Some jobs simply cannot accommodate telecommuting (eg. service sector), in particular, the ones that demands physical presence for the work. Some people's personality are ill-suited to be telecommuted (eg. those who are unable to work independently). There are yet others who are too inexperienced and new to the job to be telecommuting effectively.

When I first started telecommuting, it's done kind of under the table. My boss allowed me to do it due to my change in personal circumstances (rather than seeing me leaving the company), even though there's no official policy. That bred resentment in some quarters since some colleagues wanted to do the same, but were told it's not allowed. So, from a personal and from a company perspective, there should be a clear and official policy on telecommuting. That would make life much easier for everyone involved.

By the time I started telecommuting, I've been on the job for some time. I know the folks; I know my way around (ie. procedural stuffs). I can work both independently and in a team. There are official company tools that allow us to maintain presence online. It's not uncommon for us to ping each other online even if we can easily talk over the petition walls, if not for the simple reason that we can easily start chatroom and incorporate folks from other sites for lengthy discussions. 

More importantly, my work and results are measurable because it's very result-oriented. If the work is not measurable with definable goals, then it's hard for you (and your boss) to show what your worth is, really. To be sure, even if you go to office everyday, when the push comes to shove and company needs to downsize, those whose work can't be easily measured are likely to be amongst the first ones to be on the chopping board. And so, if your work is one of these, don't complain about your employer not allowing you to telecommute because it simply won't work; in fact, it might be detrimental to your long term career path.

Apart from official company policy, your boss' management style is just as important. You could easily have official telecommuter policy and the work can easily accommodate it, but if your boss doesn't like it, it's not on. Yes, this is just too bad since we do not have sufficient new age (wo)men to work just a little differently than the traditional conventional mode. 

Your boss' management style could also impact on your career path, should you take the telecommuter path. If your boss is not appreciative of your work without seeing your face, then you're not likely to have good performance reviews, and there goes your career path. 

Here, something must be said about leaning in, as Sandberg has advocated. I tend to agree that one has to be comfortable speaking up and advocating about one's achievement without sounding too boastful, regardless of whether you're a man or woman, but this is particularly necessary if you want to be a successful telecommuter since you need to demonstrate that you can still deliver the goods. That said, I cannot stand Sandberg's patronization, particuarly to women, as if women (telecommuters or otherwise) are not already doing this. What Sandberg has been lucky, when others don't, is that she's had bosses (eg. Lawrence Summers) who gave her the opportunity. As I said, it's as much about the boss' management style, as it is about yourself. If your boss is not supportive or receptive, it would be an uphill battle that you cannot win. My advice? Find another job. It's not worth your time trying to change someone (not your husband or boyfriend - as some girls or women might fancy they have the power to do, and definitely not your boss). Life is too short for that.

Some people would complain about telecommuters slacking off (hello, Dilbert! I love the Dilbert series), and abuse of the system. No doubt Marissa Mayer is one of these. But, ask yourself this: If I can deliver you the goods that I've promised you, by or before deadline, why should you care if I go grocery shopping for an hour or pick up my kids from school?  Why should you care if I do my work 8am in the morning or 11pm at night, so long as I get good quality stuffs done by the deadline? The long and short answer is, you don't and you shouldn't. Those who still insist on this, that telecommuters have to work specific office hours don't know what it takes (in terms of the nature of work). If your work really needs you to be there physically in specific office hours, then perhaps you shouldn't be telecommuting at all.

As a matter of fact, most telecommuters would attest to it, that they tend to work longer hours than they would otherwise do when they work in office. I know I do.  

That said, I don't like - I never like - video conferencing. I don't like - and I don't need - to see someone's face, for the sake of seeing some moving pictures. Audio conference bridge is good enough for me, and that's that. I'm one of those who prefer a short SMS for concise summary, rather than lengthy voicecall, with all the hello's and how-are-you's, just to tell me a quick line of info. Life is short; there's no time to waste. But if I really want to know someone, I'd prefer face-to-face because there's something unique about human physical interaction that can better foster camaraderie.

With all the inherent benefits of telecommuting that empowers individuals to have more control over one's life, all the time saved from the long commute (benefiting employees), all the precious property saved from maintaining physical cubicles (benefiting employers), it can get very lonely. Official policy aside, it's hard to build up trust and camaraderie among co-workers remotely. You can have all the video conferencing, audio bridge, online chats, and even virtual whatever, that you want, but it'll never replace face-to-face interaction and water cooler moments that Mayer has insisted that yahoo telecommuters had lacked. In short, you should get to know your colleagues well before shutting yourself out with telecommuting.

And so, in a way, to the credit of Mayer, yes you want co-location of staff to move fast and to bounce ideas. And yes, if you're a startup, you always - always - want co-location of staff because that's the quickest way to get things done, and get ideas validated. BUT, yahoo is not a startup; it hasn't been a startup for more than a decade and a half now. I'd even be willing to bet, the most impediment of innovation in yahoo is not the lack of water cooler moments, but the increasing red tape and bureaucracy that always come with big companies. That kind of bureaucracy that provides some sanity to a bloated workforce in the form of framework and structure also poses rigidity that startups normally don't have. If Mayer really wants to foster innovation, taking a first move of abolishing telecommuting is very wrong-headed. If I were a yahoo employee, and if I were to have some innovative idea inside my head, and if yahoo pisses me off that badly, I would just leave and start my own startup. Why would I bring it up inside yahoo and see the innovative idea whittled down to oblivion up the management hierarchy? And what's that going to gain me, even if the great innovative idea gets green light for a project inside a big company? A pat on the shoulder or some lame promotion in a company that's been going downhill for more than a decade now? If I'm an ambitious enough, I won't even bother doing that inside a big company. There is nothing that face-to-face is going to help on this at all, as Mayer has somehow advocated that bringing back all the telecommuters into office will help achieve.

To be sure, this problem is not specific to yahoo, because it happens to every other big tech; hence, their difficulty in fostering growth organically. But, as a woman, as a poster girl in the corner office, as a new mother who is supposed to most appreciate the work-life balance, Marissa Mayer has certain succeeded in offending just about every quarters (myself included, from outside of yahoo). 

Let's be honest with this too, that employers' first mission is not about employee happiness or convenience. They are here to make a profit, happy employees or otherwise. For all the talk of work-life balance, it's good for publicity. Some companies are better at it, but policies can easily change on a dime with a new boss in town (hello, yahoo!). Given that reality, individual employees should realize that, they can ask for telecommuting all they want, but it has to work in the larger context of the employer's business. If work nature won't allow it or if boss' style is not conducive, it doesn't matter if the employee is less happier working in office. Employers can't care less; as simple as that. Just ask Marissa Mayer to see if she cares (which I'm sure she doesn't).

With all these, I'd say this: I would not recommend telecommuting to everyone. It has nothing to do with class warfare (the chosen few who can do it, and all the rest who can't), even though it's true in general that telecommuting jobs tend to be knowledge jobs (case in point, IT) that pay higher. I'd much rather people push for flexi-time than strict telecommuting. Look at it this way, telecommuting is nice because it allows flexibility and more control over one's life. That's what it is afterall, to make it work for both the individual and the company. It's supposed to be a win-win. 

After my employer has officiated its telecommuting policy and I've become a telecommuter (that comes with the benefits of expense reimbursements of everything that I need to work remotely, with no questions asked), I would still go back to office from time to time, if only just to have lunch with my fellow co-workers, not because I have to, but because I want to. As I said, there's nothing like face-to-face interaction, and you never really know a person unless there's some physical interaction. For those who said you don't need it, you're just kidding yourself. Never mind the big-expense team building exercise, just a nice team lunch will go a long way. And you also want your boss to still remember you're on his/her team. Good work is all well and good, but we also need to do some advocating for ourselves. In marketing parlor, it's almost like a branding exercise. Surely I'm not the only one who can do good work (maybe even some folks in India or Ukraine can do the job too), but I want my boss to know not only is my work good, but it's because of me (!!!). This is different from leaning in (which you can easily do remotely).

I've worked in startups for a number of years too; I do understand the rationale behind what Mayer has tried to achieve. I'd say, for my startups, I would want to have all staff co-located. Truth be told, if you have a group of dedicated staff (oftentimes mostly young single adults) who move fast and get work done, they would more often than not camp out in office out of fun, rather than asking you about telecommuting policy or whether you provide health insurance. I know this sounds discriminatory and might even sound offensive to others, but it's the truth (even though I'm no longer a young single adult who prefers to camp out of office). Do I really expect people to do that, as a matter of course? No. But it sure as hell shows dedication, backed up by results (yes, always - always - check the results!). Here, I'm not even talking about face time; I'm talking about results.

Telecommuting can also be a two-edged sword, not necessarily for me, per se. I have the skills necessary for my job and my employer wants me; that's all well and good. The same cannot be said of some rookie fresh grad in entry-level job. These days, if an entry level job can be done remotely, you can be quite assured that those jobs would have been shipped out to some low-cost countries for 1/10th of the salary and little to no benefits. In fact, for the longest time now (at least for the past 6-8 years), the trend has been that those more experienced ones like me have been mentoring fresh grads in remote countries so that they can do the work someday on their own. There isn't even any attempt to hire in US. (So, yes, I'm very cynical about the whole lobbying push by the high tech industry to increase H1B limit.) Without entry level jobs, fresh grads in US would never have the chance to build up the skills and experience, as I have done in times past, and the younger generations would never be able to attain the nirvana of telecommuting as I have enjoyed, with a salary that puts me in high income bracket. It's a two-edged sword that works for me, but it'll cut into the generations to come. I have much worries about this, not for myself, but for younger kids, including my kids.