THE EXPERIENCE OF TELEWORKING: AN ANNOTATED REVIEW - Leslie Haddon and Alan Lewis - LSE

THE EXPERIENCE OF TELEWORKING:

            AN ANNOTATED REVIEW

                           by

             Leslie Haddon and Alan Lewis

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 5:1

                      February 1994

Abstract

The paper reviews the contemporary literature on the experience of teleworking.
Particular attention is paid to the socialising aspects of work and its comparative
absence when working from home; economic considerations, both for homeworkers
and for the firms; work satisfaction and motivation; supervision; roles and gender
issues in homeworking; the organisation of time and space; and lastly, questions of
self-discipline. The evidence reviewed is based on various teleworking trials
conducted mainly during the 1980s; this information is supplemented by original
research conducted by the authors which investigated the pros and cons raised by
British Telecom operators who were due to take part in a teleworking trial. These
operators anticipated many of the issues faced by those who actually had teleworking
experience.

It is now quite well known that British Telecom have for some time considered the
introduction of teleworking. This paper reviews the academic and related commercial
literature on the experience of teleworking annotated with previously unpublished
material on plans to introduce teleworking into a major telephone marketing
department of BT (1). This empirical material is based on face-to-face interviews,
group discussions, observations and questionnaires completed with relevant staff and
their supervisors (2). Throughout this piece, comparisons will be made between the
observations of these potential teleworkers and of those with actual experience of
telework.

The paper is organised into three parts. The introduction briefly outlines different
perspectives on telework and charts the broad history of telework schemes to date.
The other two sections review in more depth the issues faced by teleworkers and their
managers in conjunction with the BT research data. The first of these focuses on the
consequences of staff being absent from the work-site: including the loss of some of
the socialising aspects of work, forms of social support and feedback, and on-site
learning. Economic ramifications for teleworkers and key issue for managers are also
examined here. The final section of the article deals with the issues arising from
work being re-located in the home.

PERSPECTIVES ON TELEWORK

Telework has attracted interest from diverse quarters entailing very different
evaluations of the phenomenon (Haddon and Silverstone, 1992). The topic first
started to gain publicity in academic circles in the early 1970s when the energy crisis
led researchers to consider telecommuting as an alternative to physically commuting.
Geographers and town planners have retained an interest in the effects of telework
upon patterns of commuting and hence upon urban design and ways of life. In the
1970s and 1980s, the predictions of popular futurologists such as Toffler did much to
establish telework in the popular imagination. Some of their descriptions of telework
fitted in with themes from the more libertarian politics of the 1960s where IT could be

used to break down vast corporations by allowing decentralised small workplaces to
intercommunicate.

A more academic strand of analysis emerged in the 1980s from managerial and
business schools. Under the heading of 'human resource management', these writers
saw telework as simply one form of flexible labour among others. As a means of
delivering a more flexible labourforce, telework could be clearly located within
contemporary discussion of the need to develop firms which could adapt more easily
to market changes. In addition, telework has been cited as a way to retain certain
skilled or experienced staff, as a way of recruiting staff under conditions of labour
shortage, and as a way to overcome shortages of office space.

Huws (1991:29) notes that a more recent discourse into which telework has been
inserted is that concerning the enterprise economy. Here telework is an intermediary
stage on the road to entrepreneurship, where employees break away from their
previous company to set a small business in the home - perhaps as a prelude to
moving out into separate premises. Rank Xerox's 'networking' scheme was the most
publicised case of this move to self-employment.

A more critical approach to telework has been adopted by the Trade Unions and
bodies such as the Low Pay Unit which have long monitored telework. Making
comparisons with traditional homeworking, these researchers feared that teleworking
could be a means of applying exploitative conditions of service to the clerical
labourforce. It could imply a 'casualisation' of the workforce, as the firm reorganised
its employees into core and peripheral workers (Holti and Stern, 1986:45-6;
Brocklehurst, 1989:24-5).

Many writers have noted how women who are more likely to want the flexibility of
working hours offered by teleworking to cope with their domestic responsibilities.
On feminist concern dates from their 1970s focus on the housewife who was trapped
and isolated in the home (Huws, 1991:24). Going out to work and being present in
the workplace was seen as being important for women's self-identity, social standing
and influence. These might be lost with telework. Besides, women are already
disproportionately located in the peripheral, secondary labour markets with poorer
conditions and narrower options. Teleworking might exacerbate this trend, and
further marginalise women within the workforce (Open University, 1988/9:73).

Teleworking Schemes

There is a history of informal teleworking arrangements whereby individual
employees have arranged to work at home some of the time. And if we look to the
self-employed, those working at home using computers and telecoms, if only the
basic phone, far outnumber employees on actual telework schemes. However, it is
the latter who have received most attention in the telework literature and debates, and
these are also the focus of this article.

The earliest recorded telework initiatives in the UK date back to 1960s: F-
International (later the FI Group) (1962) and ICL (1969). Some Governments and
major companies started to take an interest in the area in the late 1970s and early
1980s. For example, the French telecoms body D.G.T. started to examine the
telework in 1979 (Monod, 1983:2), as did IBM (Olsen, 1985:100) and Mountain Bell
(Olsen, 1985:33). This interest culminated in several trial projects. By 1981,
Business Week listed 11 companies which were experimenting with telework
schemes (Pratt, 1984:2). In the UK, Xerox started its programme in 1982, at the same
time as a DTI scheme was launched aimed at the disabled.

Currently, the US has seen the most experimentation with telework schemes, followed
by the UK. On the whole, high-tech firms, and especially communications and
computer companies and divisions, have had the highest profile. Their experiments
have acted partly as a showpieces, partly to test out relevant technologies produced by
those firms (Monod, 1983:3) and partly to explore the practicalities of teleworking
arrangements (Olsen, 1987:142). Banks and insurance companies have been the other
major employers to experiment with this new form of working (Kelly, 1984: 48).
More recently, local authorities have produced some initiatives: especially
Hampshire, Kent, and Enfield in the UK.

ABSENCE FROM THE WORKPLACE

Socialising aspects of work

Many commentators on telework have noted how the informal culture of work
involves the opportunity to socially interact with others. A great many people meet
their future partners through work or through activities that spin-off from work, such
as going out in the evening with a group of other staff (Shamir and Salomon, 1985:9)
and the Henley Centre's more general survey (1988:19) shows that work is the main
source of most good friendships. When asked about factors determining satisfaction
with work, 20% of Henley's respondents considered social aspects of work to be
important.

The role of social contact is illustrated in the BT research. Through observations in
situ it appears (although there are of course individual variations) that operators
interact with supervisors five or more times per eight hour period. At least half and
hour and sometimes more than two hours a day during an eight hour period is spent
by operators in social communication with peers, only about 40% of which is work
related (these times exclude 'official' breaks). Hence, in group discussions with BT
operators it was common to find unprompted remarks about the potential problem of
isolation from telework:

       "I don't want to work from home...I come out to work because I want to mix
with people" (married woman, 40s)

These worries echo those of virtually ever other study of teleworkers' actual home
experiences: even where teleworkers are generally well disposed to teleworking,
social isolation still emerges as the main disadvantage (Olsen, 1985a:45).

Of course, not all teleworkers say this, especially given that selection policies try to
filter out those applicants who are 'too social' (Gregory, 1983:145). In past research
teleworkers have been critical of the amount of socialising in their old jobs on-site
(Olsen, 1987:146) and among BT operators some participants recognised that
telework would allow them to avoid having to socialise with certain people in the
office. However, such comments run counter to the main trend of replies both in the
BT study and elsewhere. In fact, in Huws survey (1984:45), for those teleworkers
wanting to return to 'normal work', the desire for the social aspect was the most cited
reason.

Past research indicates that the importance of social contacts appear to be even greater
for younger employees. The selection and self-selection processes in telework
initiatives mean that most teleworkers have partners and are more established by the
time they take up telework. And in the UK, Kinsman (1987:100) observed that his
sample of teleworking interviewees had already made friendships and were less
reliant on work for this dimension. In contrast, younger and single teleworkers on
schemes, these have often returned to work because they missed the socialising (Pratt,
1984:6).

Gender is also important: in previous research on working women, many female
employees cited contact with others as an important reason for returning to work once
their children had grown older (Shamir and Salomon, 1985:9; Henley Centre for
Forecasting, 1988:20). But it is important wary of over-stereotyping: male
programmers working from home have also cited lack of interaction with co-workers
as being a disadvantage - despite the common view such programmers being solitary
types who prefer terminals to people!

Turning to company policy, Kawakami's (1983:55) early US review of telework
initiatives showed that only a minority of companies regarded isolation as a problem
and hence took remedial action. It is clear that this social dimension of work now has
a higher profile in the light on feedback from research on telework. Many of the
major companies which operated telework schemes in the 1980s and 1990s had
become more conscious of this isolation issue - for example ICL, the FI Group, DEC,
Control Data and Rank Xerox.

However, such concern may well occur mainly in more visible telework programmes,
or at least where firms have initiated trials after lengthy consideration, conducted
research, and received media and academic coverage. In Huws' survey (1984:76),
which included teleworkers from a number of smaller firms, and in a study of print
workers in Germany (Goldmann and Richter (1987), it is clear that some lower profile
employers may be less concerned about such matters as employer satisfaction or a
human relations approach to personnel management. Indeed, as Brocklehurst
(1989:56) points out, if some companies are primarily interested in productivity
improvements, they may aim to minimise socialising in order to reduce the proportion
of non-work related time to work related time.

The most common proposal to overcome isolation is that teleworkers should not
spend all their time at home but come onto site for at least one day per week -
although some teleworkers may prefer the flexibility to visit slightly less often
(Haddon, 1991:53). Among BT operators a mixture of teleworking and office work
was easily the most favoured option, with over 70% of this small sample wishing to
visit the office weekly or more frequently.

Any such visits can be also justified for a variety of reasons, such as to aid
management and provide feedback on work from colleagues. Apart from organising
various forms of gathering or work on-site, other recommendations include
emphasising the social side of making contact with supervisors and promoting
teleworker peer contact via telecommunications facilities (Hamilton, 1987:189). Not
all initiatives stem from the employer. Kinsman (1987:80) observes that his
teleworkers appeared to have developed an informal culture where participants have
become more willing to contact and support one another. But at least the employer
could support this by simply providing the phone numbers of other teleworkers in
case a social 'lifeline' is wanted (Haddon, 1991:53).

Economic Considerations

The most obvious starting point here is earnings. Some of the BT participants felt
that telework can be exploitative and that it has often been compared to traditional
homeworking, with its low rates of pay: "Just another ruse to save money" said one
operator.

The economics of telework have recently been discussed in quite some depth by
members of the Empirica consultancy (Huws et al, 1990:35-44 and 105). They point
out that the issue is very complex. How, for example, are comparisons to be made:
should teleworker earnings be compared to salaries of part-timers, full-timers who are
on-site, or other self-employed freelancers in the industry? On the whole, the
Empirica work indicates that some managerial and senior staff may be better off as
teleworkers than their on-site counterparts. However, most studies point to generally
lower pay and worse conditions of service than company based workers. In their
recent European survey, the Empirica researchers note that only a few teleworkers
actually feel themselves to be better off, 40% think they are worse off than in the
office while a third have a neutral response - suggesting either that they do not care or
they believe that they are getting the rate for the job.

Part of the reason for lower earnings lies in fluctuating work - sometimes caused by
the very fact that employers want a flexible labourforce. Apart from reduce overall
income, such fluctuations can instil a sense of financial insecurity (Christensen,
1987:220; Brocklehurst, 1989:25). Another factor is the under-utilisation of the skills
possessed teleworkers (Brocklehurst, 1989:55). Here, remuneration may be lower
than these same workers would have been earning if working to their full capacity on-
site. Again, this may have a psychological impact which human resource managers
also need to consider: if it leads to a reduction in self-esteem

Then there is the question faced by anyone operating a telework scheme of what
counts as 'work time'. Teleworkers are often not paid for 'thinking time' as they might
be if in the office. This refers to the time spent doing something else while mulling
over a problem. In this case, the fault lay partly with employees, in that they often do
not register such occasions as working time. A similar point was true for 'learning
time'. Although some employers arrange training, in other schemes teleworkers
showed a willingness to brush up on old skills and learn new techniques in their own
time (Gregory, 1983:147).

Earnings are not the only monetary consideration The loss of even minor fringe
benefits can be meaningful: BT participants immediately noted that they would lose
free tea and coffee and out of work hours car-parking! In fact, the recent Empirica
survey (Huws et al., 1990:105) found that it was not earnings so much as the loss of
fringe benefits which was cited as the economic main drawback of telework. Such
losses are liable to be more substantial, with many teleworkers forfeiting some or all
of their fringe benefits, partly through adopting a self-employed status (Huws et al.,
1990:43). These include significant benefits such as pensions and use of canteen and
sports facilities. There are exceptions, such as the way ICL and DEC continued to
provide benefits for teleworkers (Brocklehurst, 1989:55). In assessing where to draw
the line over such benefits, human resource managers clearly have to bear in mind the
fact that one key saving which makes telework attractive to employers may be from
actually cutting such overheads.

The balance of new costs and new savings arising from telework is a further
consideration. For example, there might well be savings on transport, lunches and
clothes. On the other hand, costs saved by the company may be passed on to the
employee, as with traditional homework: e.g. costs for heating, lighting, telecoms,
equipment maintenance, insurance etc. The Empirica group note that it is impossible
to make any generalisations concerning who pays for what and how - it varies (Huws
et al., 1990:37) But the issue of hidden costs remains significant and was picked out
by the BT interviewees who were also concerned about such matters as the costs
involved in making space available by converting rooms and redecorating.

Of course, the balance of costs and benefits can be difficult to estimate, especially
where there are differences of opinion as to what to include: e.g. some teleworkers
count childcare as an extra cost, while others do not (Huws, 1984:38). In Huws'
sample (1984:38), 75% companies paid some extra overheads. An important factor
here can be whether the teleworker is an employee or self-employed, although even
when dealing with its ex-employees as subcontractors, Xerox was willing to pay for
some equipment costs (Judkins et al., 1985:59). In general, Brocklehurst (1989:55)
noted that while some firms, such as DEC, were willing to reimburse all new costs,
this was very rare.

The last dimension in the economic equation to which human resource managers need
to be sensitive is promotion opportunities. Visibility and office information networks
are key influences on career prospects. First, it is important to be on-site to be
noticed, given that observation of working practices can be important for appraising
performance when promotions are being considered. Second, information networks

mean that employees can keep abreast of developments in the company through
informal channels (Kawakami, 1983:55). Some employers, such as the FI Group,
provide possibilities for career progression, but others admit that off-site workers
would face difficulties in this respect: sometimes managerial advancement require
employees to be on-site (Brocklehurst, 1989:54 and 56)

Costs and benefits

So how are these various economic factors perceived by different employees, and
how does this enter into their motivation and evaluation of telework? The most
striking, and widespread, finding is that teleworkers often express satisfaction with
conditions which may not compare favourably to work on-site (Gregory, 1983:146).
Of course, such judgements are not made in a vacuum, but are relative to expectations
and alternative options. When we examine homework more generally, women are
more likely than men to say that they are satisfied with their position, even though
they may be earning less than male homeworkers. The point is, they are making
comparisons to other 'women's work' and taking into account their more restricted
options (Brocklehurst, 1989:55). In the case of telework, many employees were
simply grateful for the chance to work at all (Gregory, 1983:14).

Yet, some teleworkers have complained that their earnings were reduced (Olsen,
1987:147) and expressed a sense of insecurity due to the fluctuation of work (Holti
and Stern, 1984:155.). The variation in points of comparison is illustrated in
Kinsman's study, some of the staff in the FI Group pointed out that they received
lower wages compared to equivalent freelancers while others considered their
earnings to be better than those of part-timers (Kinsman, 1987:114).

Perhaps surprisingly, hidden cost considerations do not appear to play as important a
role in teleworker evaluations. Only some teleworkers referred to the benefits of
savings, while even fewer refer to increased costs. In fact, in Huws' sample
(1984:38), it had never occurred to most teleworkers to work out the balance of costs
and savings.

Promotion was a bigger issue for both actual and potential teleworkers, although
responses were mixed. Some teleworkers thought that being off-site made no
difference to career development, whereas others specifically raised this as an
important issue. In the case of those who recognised that teleworking might affect
promotion but who were not strongly aggrieved by this, Kinsman (1987:112) argues a
number of interviewees had already had enough career development by the time that
they took up teleworking. Some teleworkers may also express satisfaction because
they have accepted the trade off between reduced promotion chances in return for an
opportunity to work at all - where no work and failure to keep up with changing skills
would mitigate even more against later career advancement.

But there are those who feel strongly about promotion and the 'visibility issue' (Pratt,
1984:7; Business Week, 1984:56) and feeling that may be more important for
professionals than for clerical workers (Olsen and Primps, 1984:105). In Huws'

earlier research (1984:43), nearly 20% of her sample explicitly cited reduced
promotion chances as being a disadvantage of homework. An additional point which
needs to be considered by human resource managers is that support staff who take on
extra responsibilities when co-ordinating telework activities then expect this to lead to
improvement in their own career prospects (Holti and Stern, 1984:162).

Satisfaction and Motivation

There are various interrelated issues concerning the sense of identity and self-esteem
which derive from work. These need further research given that such concerns have
not been systematically addressed - possibly because such issues are difficult to
evaluate.

First, there is the question of the relationship between teleworkers and workers on-
site: how do the latter perceive the former? The most concrete example of this issue
was in the case where some Xerox teleworkers complained that they lacked authority
when dealing with core workers, and in one instance this hindered their ability to
work with on-site workers (Holti and Stern, 1984:164-5). Several other interviewees
in various studies mentioned a sense of being outside the mainstream firm and of
being seen almost as part-timers.

The other important perceptions are those of family and friends. Participants in the
BT research were concerned that others would not see them as 'really working' if they
stayed at home and no longer went into the office - a concern which was justified
judging by the experience of teleworkers in past studies. While the Empirica
researchers were struck by how important an issue this was for male teleworkers
(Huws et al., 1990:68), the literature on gender and work emphasises how significant
this can also be for women: 'going to work', and thus not being restricted to the home,
has been widely perceived as heightening the status of women and enhancing self-
esteem and a sense of independence (DeSanctis, 1984:226). Again these sentiments
were captured by the BT respondents who feared that they would lose part of their
sense of identity which work provides. The particular problem for women is that, like
housework, the paid labour involved in teleworking may become 'invisible'. This
lack of credibility from work can be as major an issue as isolation.

Is morale and commitment affected by telework? Sometimes this theme is discussed
in terms of whether loyalty to the company and 'identifying' with the firm's aims
might be reduced through less interaction with company workers (Shamir and
Salomon, 1985:18; Henley Centre for Forecasting, 1988:20). Apart from the concern
that any lack of commitment might affect staff labour turnover, there is the argument
that a less cohesive workforce of teleworkers might ultimately lead to less effort
(Renfo, 1982:42; Salomon and Salomon, 1984:20) and satisfaction (Niles, 1988:510).

Olsen (1987:146) has argued that there was little sign of a decrease in commitment
amongst her sample of US teleworkers. On the other hand, her teleworkers had never
shown much loyalty for the firm in general, and preferred to identify with the
particular projects on which they worked. Olsen, along with several other writers,

notes the cases where teleworkers only joined a company because of the 'privilege' of
flexibility, Hence, they were loyal and grateful to the company, but would
nevertheless move on if the firm ceased to offer such an arrangement. In contrast,
staff in some of the higher profile companies such as the FI Group seemed to show
more enthusiasm and goodwill.

A point to bear in mind is that one rationale for employers to offer telework is to
attract skilled labour in the first place. In such cases, telework can be more easily be
portrayed as a perk, a symbol of trust on the part of the company, or - if retaining staff
is the aim - as a reward for past loyalty (Henley Centre for Forecasting, 1988:22).
However, where firms have other motivations for initiating telework schemes, and
these motivations are perceived as exploitative, then it may be considerably more
difficult to engender a sense of loyalty, morale and commitment.

The last dimensions pertinent to satisfaction and motivation are 'support' and
'motivating feedback'. Reflecting a significant debate within the telework literature,
several of the BT participants doubted whether contact mediated by telecoms would
provide sufficient support to enable them to carry out their tasks effectively. For
example, one of the main concerns of the operators was with 'abusive' callers:

         "...quite often you get an irate caller who wants to speak to somebody, a
supervisor of something, and if there is no way you can get rid of them...if they think
it's a supervisor, they'll speak to them, if they don't, they don't want to know."
(woman, early 20s)

        "...if you was at home you'd be sorely tempted to log off and go and have a
cup of tea, if you had, sort of a run of really horrible people complaining." (single
woman, 40s).

In the office, operators can share the problem:

       "...we do in the tea room...the stores, 'she said this' and 'she said that'. And it
turns out that you have a good laugh about it." (single woman, 40s)

And when they have an irate caller in their present situation in the office:

Interviewee: "...I just put them on hold and call the supervisor."

Interviewer:    "And then he or she physically comes over to you?"

Interviewee: "Physically comes over and, if needs be, they talk to the customer."

Interviewer:    "So how would that work at home?"

Interviewee: "Well, it couldn't. Not unless you had a way of redirecting the call
back into the system."

The lesson which human resource managers need to learn from this example and
others is that in some situations there is no substitute for face-to-face contact,

including non-verbal clues: such contact is lost through using the phone (Niles,
1988:508-9). With this problem and that of providing support in mind, supervisors in
the BT study recommended the teleworkers come on-site once a week and that they
have weekly visits to teleworkers homes.

In the Kinsman study (1987:103-4), teleworkers stressed the importance of good
communication, and that the 'good telework employer' should check that employees
were no experiencing problems. In fact, FI and ICL teleworkers felt that these issues
were handled well by their respective employers, but we must remember that the
management of these and other high profile British companies pride themselves on
trying to address this issue. Training for their telework managers often includes an
emphasis on learning new communications skills and supportive roles. When we
look beyond such firms, the early Huws survey (1984:43) indicated that 20% of
teleworkers felt that communications could be improved.

The Role of On-Site Learning

Apart from providing support and reassurance for staff, communications have a
bearing upon the very ability of employees to learn and perform tasks well
(Kawakami, 1983:56). Certainly the BT participants were aware that they would lose
access to the kind of casual advice whereby people could physically and informally
turn to a colleague nearby for help. This complaint was also raised by teleworkers in
a number of studies, including the Kinsman research. In contrast, having to phone
someone to ask questions is seen as being more formal. Teleworkers in previous
research have mentioned a fear of looking foolish which they would not have felt if
colleagues had been at hand (Kinsman, 1987:80). In one study, it was argued that the
number of inaccuracies in assessing medical claims increased because colleagues
were not so available to give instant advice (FAST, 1985:8)

Several attempts have been made to compensate for this dimension: for example, by
trying to create a climate where supervisors are very approachable. Initiatives have
also emerged amongst groups of teleworkers themselves. Kinsman (1987:81)
reported that some of his interviewees recognised the problem and were far more
willing to share knowledge and provide mutual advice than in normal employment.

Other commentators have given the lack of face-to-face contact even more weight. A
few noted that teleworkers could no longer spontaneously bounce ideas off other
people in more creative types of work (Huws, 1984:55). Others have noted that
'looking over shoulders' when on-site can actually constitute the main form of
informal training (Olsen, 1985a:45). Some teleworkers specifically felt that they
missed this aspect (Olsen, 1985:47). Such considerations have led to
recommendations for more formal training in order to compensate for this absence,
although Kinsman notes that training has its own difficulties where it threatens the tax
status of self-employed teleworkers (Kinsman, 1987:120).

Shamir and Salomon (1985:12) have argued that simply by being on-site staff are
'socialised' into work routines and into an 'organisational culture' where they

informally learn to appreciate what is required of them in terms of norms of work and
codes of conduct. More empirical evidence is needed to assess this point. However,
it is worth noting that many telework programmes and experiments require potential
teleworkers to have already had several years of experience in the field so that they
have less to learn. In addition, these staff may be required to have already spent
several years with that company concerned in order to understand its particular
corporate culture (Brocklehurst, 1989:50).

Control and Autonomy

The more enthusiastic advocates of distant working can paint a somewhat rosy picture
of the autonomy enjoyed by teleworkers. The counterpart to this, from a managerial
viewpoint, is the ' problem' of very lax control over employees and sub-contractors.
Even the earliest theoretical analyses of teleworking conveyed some doubts about this
vision teleworker autonomy (Shamir and Salomon, 1985:6). More critical writers
refer to such autonomy as an illusion, especially given the forms of control which will
be discussed in this section (DeSanctis, (1984:219).

Certainly, the desire for autonomy was reiterated in the BT research:

        "...feeling as though you are your own boss; feeling more in control of the
situation."

        "In your own environment you can plan things to fit your routine as opposed
to the company's."

Similarly, in an earlier survey by Huws (1984:57) 13% cited greater freedom to
organise work as their major reason for being interested in telework. And many
teleworkers feel that they can be more creative and productive under these conditions
- as did the BT participants who felt they could work longer hours given the
flexibility to organise their breaks at a pace which suited them. In most previous
research where such comments are volunteered, the teleworkers concerned have been
professionals or managers. What the work at BT indicates is that the promise of such
flexibility can equally well appeal to clerical staff. However, any desire for autonomy
has its limits, with employees in some studies complaining about a lack of managerial
control and supervision (Kinsman, 1987:108).

The other side of teleworker autonomy is managerial control: a variety of studies in
the US and UK suggest that control is the single most important issue for managers
(Huws, 1984:47; Olsen, 1987:144). While the organisers of some telework initiatives
have argued that managers must move from a philosophy of checking up on staff all
the time to relying more on employees' desire to do a good job (Olsen, 1985a:17), this
would still appear to be the minority view. Attitude surveys indicate that managers
fear that productivity would decrease with telework (Duxbury et al., 1987:278), and
in particular some of the managers involved in telework schemes felt that they had a
problem of control (Holti and Stern, 1984:162).

In practice, Olsen and Primps (1984:105) and others have pointed out that managers
in telework programmes compensate for less face-to-face control by employing other
strategies:

a)      Control by the market - i.e. using piece rates with clerical staff or payment by
results with professionals.

b)      Control by using more formal and stringent specifications which stress the
importance of targets, precise measures of work, and more structured and detailed
procedures (Kinsman, 1987:118-9). Huws' teleworkers noted a shift to the increasing
importance of deadlines, with less appreciation of the efforts or problems reaching
targets than had been shown in on-site work (Huws, 1984:57). This increase in the
formality of controls had been especially noted in relation to professional workers -
for example, in the case of ICL and the FI group (Huws, 1984:57).

c)      Control by electronic monitoring or more 'intensive metering' (Brocklehurst,
1989:41). This can even be achieved in relation to some types of professional work.
For example, in a US army telework initiative, it was possible to monitor progress
crudely by charting when programmers logged on and what files were accessed. But
in addition, special software was developed to enable supervisors to monitor the
pattern by which their employees developed programs (Olsen, 1985a:28-9).

These studies also show that there is a considerable difference between the
experiences of professional and clerical employees. Although professionals may not
be so autonomous as had been portrayed, clerical homeworkers appear to experience
the above forms of control most intensely (Brocklehurst, 1989:36; Olsen and Primps,
1984:105).

The problem of managerial control remains a controversial one. Some analysts have
argued that not only is greater reliance on measures of output necessary for telework,
but that this is desirable for all forms of work. Managers may be uncomfortable with
the loss of traditional means by which to evaluate employees - such as by dress habits,
computability with others, and promptness - but such factors may well be unrelated to
actual job performance (Kawakami, 1983:76). For instance, managers from the US
army telework programme admitted that on-site they may have previously been able
see employees 'at work', but they had often not known exactly what they were doing
(Olsen, 1985:28-9). Finally, some managers have argued that it was not only
preferable to manage output instead of input (i.e. ways of working, hours spent on a
task), but that this appeared to be easier with remote work where measures of input
were less visible (Gregory, 1983:151). However, measuring output can have its
drawbacks and can be difficult in certain cases, whereas measuring attendance is
easier (Schofield, 1985). Others have argued that measuring output has led to
stressing quantity instead of quality (FAST, 1985:5). Certainly, in practice, Xerox's
teleworker co-ordinators found the transition difficult (Holti and Stern, 1984:162).

Kinsman (1987:118-9) notes the higher demands on management required by such
forms of measurement and monitoring. For example, Xerox managers needed extra
training not only in the areas such as supporting teleworkers, but also in formulating
well-defined contracts and evaluating quality of output (Kinsman, 1987:3). When

operating telework programmes, Huws (1984:57) noted how managers found
supervision to be more time-consuming, especially with the additional paperwork on
which greater reliance was placed.

Certainly the supervisors in the BT research saw that monitoring teleworkers was a
serious problem which brought up the issue of how much they could trust their
workers. While some anticipated that the quality of work might decline, others
thought there were practical steps they could take such as visiting workers in their
home. The supervisors felt that if they themselves could experience working from
home they could better appreciate the demands of their teleworking staff as well as
commanding more credibility.

There are two final points. First, the option of remote electronic supervision is not
always a straightforward matter. In one of the few examples which referred to this
form of control, one teleworking sales representative pointed out how he would not
come home over lunch to do some paperwork because using the computer could be
misinterpreted by central office. It might be assumed that he had not been out all day!
(Gregory, 1983:148).

Second, there is a notable absence in the literature of any discussion or example of
employees endeavouring to regain some control of work by evading or by-passing
monitoring - especially electronic monitoring. This might be achieved by means
ranging from minor sabotage to somehow 'working the system' to create misleading
data in the measuring equipment. Clearly, this absence partly reflects the fact that
such tactics are intentionally concealed, but it may well merit further enquiry.

WORKING AT HOME

The attractions of working from home were immediately apparent to participants in
the BT research. Some referred to the fact that they would no longer have to dress up
for work while others talked about the more comfortable environment of the home -
including the ability to control such aspects of the physical environment as
ventilation. But the telework literature also indicates a range of issues which can
confront teleworkers, including the conflicts between work and non-work
responsibilities, the demands on self-discipline, the effects of telework on the
organisation of domestic time and space and the significance of support from partners.

The Significance of Separating Home and Work

In contrast to the futurologists who conceptualise 'going out to work' as a chore, there
has been frequent concern about possible negative aspects of the decreasing
separation of home and work spheres implied by telework. These have been
expressed in a number of different guises:

(a)      In sociological and psychological based predictions which make use of role
theory. These talk about the potential for enhanced 'role conflict', where the term
'role' connotes a frame of mind, and presentation of self to others (Shamir and
Salomon, 1985:14). In the home, the fact that it is easier to constantly change
between work and domestic roles may give rise to problems (Duxbury et al.,
1987:275; Gregory, 1983:150).

(b)    In writings which focus on the different tasks and demands of paid work and
of domestic responsibilities. These anticipate possible strains from alternating
quickly between tasks when activities are not spatially and chronologically separate.

Of course, one can question the very degree of separateness of home and work
implied by the above analyses on a number of grounds:

1)     Some people have always blurred the boundary between work and leisure,
being so involved and enthusiastic about work that it becomes part of leisure.

2)      In particular, the experiences of men and women are often different here, with
a greater separateness experienced by males in full time employment. Women with
children have often had to juggle home and work responsibilities, giving rise to more
traditional forms of homework, part-time work or having to take time off full-time
work (e.g. if children are sick).

Despite these qualifications, it is still worthwhile to explore the issue of how
employees feel about the separation of home and work. Examples from the literature
reviewed suggest that in some ways teleworking can help to resolve a certain level of
conflict between roles and responsibilities. For example, some males have mentioned
that they welcomed being able to fulfil the parental role to a greater extent through
their increased presence at home, while for some women, it would be very difficult to
find any other work which would fit in with their commitment to childcare. However,
at a different level, that of the day to day managing of telework, a number of
teleworkers have agreed that the constant and rapid alternation of domestic and work
roles and tasks can be stressful.

This theme of separating home and work even crops up in the debates about
commuting. The earliest proponents of telework stressed how it would reduce the
need to commute (Huws, 1991:22). The BT participants certainly tended to see the
more negative side of commuting, stressing the difficulties of travelling in bad
weather and of finding parking space near the office. They also noted that it is often
the journey into work which they could not face when they felt ill - not the work
itself. Hence, one novel response from the BT research was that our teleworkers
anticipated they would be less liable to take time off through being sick.

However, there are some positive sides to commuting. Research by General Motors
emphasised that commuting added a sense of 'going somewhere', of 'doing something'
to the day. Combining the travel with errands and sometimes social contacts meant
that commuting had become integrated into everyday life (Renfo, 1982:42). In a
French survey asking about satisfaction with commuting, 60% of the interviewees felt
that commuting was a necessary interlude, a 'time for being by themselves' which they

valued (Salomon and Salomon, 1984:24). Meanwhile, the journey to work (providing
that it is not excessively arduous) can be useful as a buffer time and space between
home and work: a chance to 'cool off' and to prevent the transfer of stress from one
life sphere to the other (for example, Shamir and Salomon, 1985:11).

The desire to separate home and work is reflected in the way in which people often
reserve certain times of the day and a certain amount of time, for non-work, often
family-related, interests. This can be undermined by teleworking in very different
ways:

(a)     Where the choice concerning how much work to do lies mostly with the
employees, teleworkers have frequently described the tendency to 'workholism' - i.e.
they start to use up the time reserved for non-work (Olsen, 1985a:45; Judkins et al.,
1985:72; Olsen, 1985b:130).

(b)      Where fluctuations in the amount of work and timing of work is largely
determined by the flexibility needs of the employer, teleworkers have complained that
they can suddenly have too much work and not enough time for their family. Or else,
work may have to be completed in 'unsocial hours', which again implies that some
slots in the day are reserved for non-work (Brocklehurst, 1989:43, 48 and 55).
Certainly some of the BT participants were concerned that telework might mean
working more unsocial hours.

In group discussions with BT operators, concerns about how spouses and partners
would react to teleworking were often mentioned early on. Typical remarks from the
mainly women operators were:

        "...most men would still expect you to be doing extra at home because you are
there, some men don't understand."

       "...I find the more I'm in the house, the more I'm cleaning it.'

Previous surveys and in-depth interviews provide further data on the effects of
decreased separation of home and work. For example, in her early American study
(cited in Kawakami, 1983:69), Olsen noted that several employees had actually
terminated their telework due to constant familial demands. In a later article, Olsen
and Primps (1984:108) elaborated upon the different ways in which men and women
perceived the benefits of working at home. Male professionals often said that their
relationship with their children had improved through working at home. However,
this perceived benefit was in a context where teleworkers' wives were usually at home
to 'keep the children from bothering Daddy while he's working'. Women who worked
at home usually did not have such a degree of support; in fact, some female
teleworkers argued that they also needed 'wives' (Judkins et al., 1985:82)! These
women were far more likely to report that they experienced a greater sense of conflict.
Olsen and Primps (1984:109) raise the question of whether telework is actually
disruptive to both work and to childcare, while a later review of telework emphasised
that telework should not be seen as a substitute for full-time childcare (Kelly,
1984:52).

In the early British survey conducted by Huws (1984:43), 'encroachment on family
life and unsocial hours' was the second most cited disadvantage of telework after
isolation. This encroachment was seen as a problem by nearly a third of the sample,
some of whom specifically added that they would have preferred to work outside the
home if circumstances permitted, giving the desire to separate home from work as
their motive. Many were ambivalent about telework: e.g. the women who said that
the main advantage of telework was 'being with the children all day' and later saw the
main disadvantage as 'being with the children all day'. Even in Kinsman's more
optimistic account (Kinsman, 1987:84), the author notes that his female teleworkers
often expressed a sense of guilt associated with the dual role of employee and mother
and felt guilty at the failure to switch off from work. Brocklehurst (1989:56) later
quotes Kinsman's comments to emphasise the problem of separating home and work:
'this double life is only bearable for those with a secure emotional and psychological
base, making it possible to shut out either home or work with confidence while
concentrating on the other for the moment'.

The final theme in this section is the fear of being trapped in the home. The
promoters of home shopping, home banking and home orientated leisure usually
welcome any perceived trend towards 'home centredness'. However, any shift to
more time spent in the home also has its negative side, with market research focus
groups having very mixed feelings about such a trend, fearing that they might
inadvertently lose social contact (3). Related problems have been cited in the case of
telework, with some fearing that the home could take on some features of 'total
institutions' such a prisons (Shamir and Salomon, 1985:15). In fact, there are three
dimensions to this feeling of being trapped:

(a) Spending so much time with the same people.
         This refers to the strains of such prolonged close contact with family, with
partners. Actual evidence of problems is very limited. A study of early retirement
suggested that more time with a partner can increase family stress (Henley Centre For
Forecasting, 1988:23). And a study of flexitime arrangements showed that the
increased presence of males at home led to greater conflicts (Open University,
1988/89:23). In the Kinsman research, a number of wives commented that they did
not want their husbands to work at home, because it was important to have a break
from one another and maintain separate interests (see also, Tazelaar, 1986:98). In
particular, some analysts have noted how we experience compensations in one sphere
of life for deprivations in another - for example, satisfaction in home life when there
are problems at work. But, the success of this mechanism depends on the separation
of the two spheres and on the fact that we address different audiences - family or
colleagues. Hence, this mechanism may be less effective in the case of telework
(Shamir and Salomon, 1985:11).

(b) Lacking a change of environment.
       This concerns feeling 'trapped' in one place without variation in surroundings,
which some have referred to as 'cabin fever' (DeSanctis, 1984:226).

(c) Not being able to see other people outside of the home.
        By far the biggest concern cited across all surveys or case studies is the
problem of 'isolation' - discussed earlier.

Advocates of telework argue that the flexibility offered by homework does not
necessarily mean being confined in the home but means simply that employees have
greater choice over when and how they spend their leisure. Indeed, some teleworkers
have concurred - especially professional males. However, that 'choice' is misleading
where homework plus childcare or other domestic responsibilities simply do not allow
much time for a either change of location or for personal contact. Besides, it can
seem an effort to take the initiative to get out of the house and strike up new
friendships compared to the incidental way in which this happens simply through
being at a separate workplace. These gender differences in the experience of
telework are explored in the next section.

The Time Benefits of Telework

First, there is the question of the time saved on commuting. Teleworkers US surveys
(Pratt, 1984:10; Olsen, (1985b:130) and in the UK (Huws, 1984:42) have agreed that
this is a benefit. However, in the Huws survey only 22% of interviewees mentioned
this as being an 'advantage', which suggests that it might have less impact then had
been anticipated. Given that avoiding the London rush hour was explicitly mentioned
there is also the question of whether the commuting aspect has more salience for
employees in major cities. This has not been researched and would merit further
attention.

In addition to savings in commuting time, respondents in these surveys have also
mentioned time saved through less socialising and interruptions at work. In the BT
study, one married man in his forties with teleworking experience running his own
business saw the office as a distracting place with all its hustle and bustle:

       "...people going up and down corridors ...distracts you so much."

      "The main advantage from working at home would obviously be (authors'
emphasis) that I would be more confident and relaxed."

According to Olsen and Primps (1984:108) in their study of US teleworkers, some of
the 'saved time' is used for non-work activities, with leisure being mentioned more by
males, and family related commitments more by females . But time savings can also
be valued because they improve productivity. In Huws' earlier survey, and in
Kinsman's work, teleworkers often felt they could 'get more work done' and took
pride in being more efficient. This form of satisfaction may well be greater for
professional/managerial employees, although this question, again, needs further
investigation.

Of more significance than 'time saved' is the greater flexibility in organising
timetables. Most teleworkers surveyed feel that greater freedom to organise their
work time to suit themselves is a major benefit - and the participants in the BT study
were no exception. However, when looking across previous surveys, this often

means slightly different things for men and women: as we started to see in the
discussion of feeling trapped in the home.

Although some males use flexibility to enhance family commitments (Kinsman,
1987:78; Judkins et al., 1985:72), they also intersperse recreation with work during
the day. This has enabled employees to participate in sports while avoiding weekend
crowds (Olsen and Primps, 1984:108). For women, the emphasis is not so much on
the merit of 'flexibility' per se, but the fact that many would simply not have been able
to work at all without the telework option.

For instance, in Huws' earlier survey (1984:42) of predominantly women workers, by
far the clearest benefit was enabling them to combine work and childcare. The more
recent Empirica survey found the same, although these consultants note that other
studies have also shown how telework is useful for housebound 'carers' - e.g. for the
elderly, disabled (Huws et al., 1990:59). And in previous research, although time for
hobbies were mentioned by female teleworkers, as was time to meet friends for
coffee, flexibility to fulfil family commitments such as shopping, looking after sick
children, going to school events, ect. appears to have been more significant. Hence,
for many women, autonomy did not have the same connotations of controlling 'free
time' as for men, but instead meant a chance to manage their dual role of work and
domestic responsibilities more easily (DeSanctis, 1984:221).

Flexibility over time use can enhance feelings about the actual work. Where
employees derived intrinsic satisfaction from work, they appeared to take some pride
in the productivity improvements derived from the greater ability to choose when and
how they worked (Kinsman, 1987:79; Olsen, 1985a:44). However, there are
variations in the degree to which teleworkers can control their work, and hence
appreciate any flexibility. In previous research, many of those particular
professionals who cited the benefits of flexibility enjoyed a considerable latitude in
their work, even if this is constrained by contacts and deadlines. Where there are
considerable fluctuations in the work - i.e. where the major benefits of flexibility
accrue to the firm - some teleworkers may find themselves having to work a great
deal for a short time and then experience enforced leisure. Similarly, if a company
requires work at certain times of the day this clearly constrains the flexibility
experienced by homeworking staff. For example, in one study teleworkers could only
remotely access the mainframe weekdays in the daytime because it was closed down
for maintenance at other times (Christensen, 1987:221).

Current research at Sussex University is exploring in more detail this question of
which teleworkers have more control, and why. This includes examining not only the
nature of the telework and household circumstances but also the strategies which
teleworkers use to organise time (see also Haddon, 1991). Pertinent here is the
common desire to synchronise work and non-work times with both those of other
family members and social contacts outside the home. Sticking to 'normal' office
hours means that an industrial time structure is imposed upon the home, and is not
altered substantially by taking place in the domestic sphere. Domestic rhythms of
interaction and activity accommodate to the work. This experience of telework
contrasts with others where a pre-industrial temporal order comes into being, with
periods of intensive work at some points and lulls at others. It also contrasts with

the experience of self-employed women with young children still at home, where
work is fitted in as an when possible, in evenings or between chores. Here it is work
which has to accommodate to a domestic temporal order (4).

Self-discipline

       "I think it might be my downfall" (BT operator)

Whereas firm-based employees can allow the external time constraints of working on-
site to structure the organisation of the day, having more flexibility over work
requires more self-discipline and time-management skills (Shamir and Salomon,
1985:19). In other words, the freedom of choice has its own burdens.

Some teleworkers have taken pride in developing their self-management abilities, for
example, pointing out how many tasks they can fit in during a single visit on-site
(Brocklehurst, 1989:45). Such favourable evaluations have tended to occur where the
teleworkers concerned are either (i) a self-selecting group, for whom self-
management is already a virtue, or (ii) are selected by companies partly on the basis
of their self-motivation and high degree of discipline.

Generally, self-management is rated as an important feature of homeworking. For
example, Kinsman's interviewees put self-discipline at the top of their list of the
characteristics of a 'good homeworker' (Kinsman, 1987:93). In slightly more negative
terms, 26% of Huws sample 'complained' about the need for this skill (Huws,
1984:43) and some of our participants doubted whether they would ever have the
discipline to manage with all the distractions in the home. Therefore, one common
recommendation which human resource managers need to bear in mind is the need for
some training in self-discipline skills (Shirley, 1987:139) - indeed, this was actually
requested by those operators taking part in our study. One scheme cited in previous
research allowed for the gradual transition to more self-management by cutting down
the number of days on-site over a period of time (Hamilton, 1987:184-5).

One factor which might have a bearing on self-discipline skills is the experience of
self-management which teleworkers bring to their new role. Those staff who have
attended higher education are likely to have developed greater self-discipline abilities
(Kinsman, 1987:94). Similarly, the past on-site work experiences of employees have
enhanced this skill. One possibility is to investigate whether differences between the
past experiences of professional/managerial and clerical workers made any difference
to the discipline with which they approached telework.

One particular difficulty faced by some teleworkers is relates to organising blocks of
time. This is less important for work which is inherently fragmented and can suffer
interruption without too many problems (e.g. dealing with correspondence). But
other work may require sustained attention without interruptions. In fact, it is to cope
with such work as report writing that staff sometimes informally arrange to work at
home sometimes.