Whatever happened to Teleworking?

Throughout the closing decades of last century, a significant transformation in the way we work always seemed to be on the horizon: teleworking or earning a living without having to turn up at the office. Advances in computer networks in the 1990s promised to lay real foundations for this transformation. Teleworking was going to be the solution to so many of our problems: over-burdened road and rail networks would no longer have to be relied upon by millions of daily commuters; employees, spared an exhausting trek to and from work, would see more of their children and spouses; the cost of building, equipping, heating and lighting expensive city centres offices would be eliminated from the balance books of near-virtual corporations; as less oil and energy would be used, lower air and noise pollution would decrease the chance of global warming. The sun would rise on a new era of worker contentment, fresh air and uncluttered streets.

So what happened?

So why has it never happened? Or more precisely, why has only 2.5% of the British workforce (according to figures supplied by the TUC in 2001) actually quit the office for the home? Why is this one of the lowest levels in Europe? What is it about the Anglo-Saxon work culture in general (American workers have also been reluctant to work from home in great numbers) that prevents the widespread acceptance of getting the job done away from one's office? Is commuting miles to a grimy city centre so pleasant and our colleagues such uniquely satisfying company that teleworking never stood a chance? Clearly not - the British worker is rarely happier than when he or she is complaining about the journey to work after arriving at the office, or mentally murdering colleagues on the way home.

The reasons for the failure of teleworking are threefold: geographical - the way in which our towns and cities have developed; socio-economical - the commercial pressures that an individual faces to conform and perform; and psychological - working from home has the potential to leave one feeling less than fulfilled.

Europe

Continental Europe has, until recently, had a long history of war sweeping across it. Whole swathes of France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the Low Countries have repeatedly been fought over, conquered, occupied and liberated. Invasion corridors, redoubts, battlefields and frontiers are as much a part of the landscape as forests, rivers and mountains. In the midst of such extreme political and military pressures, European towns and cities have developed along very different lines to those of the more peaceful United Kingdom and North America. Across Europe, society is centred upon relatively few large and well-fortified, established regional towns. A comparative desert of farming hamlets and open countryside surrounds each of these oases of security and civilisation. The need for collective defence against invaders has cleared the landscape of small, undefended settlements; networks and hierarchies of medium-sized towns and cities have never been able to establish themselves in much of Europe.

In contrast, it is often difficult to distinguish between town and countryside in Great Britain - cities sprawl and merge into one another, and all around, there are dozens of small, dependent market towns. The fabric is so much more open and disparate than in mainland Europe where the population lives cheek by jowl with businesses, social institutions, government and cultural edifices. Europeans are used to living in densely packed, but well-planned, inner-city areas, often in high-rise apartments built above cafés, restaurants, shops and offices. The fabric of these mediaeval towns is woven together by cheap and efficient public transport. In a complete reversal of the situation found in British cities, the poor and unemployed are housed in the outskirts and are largely excluded from the inner city.

The UK is different

The average British worker lives in an urban environment that is distinct from that of his European counterpart, in a part of town that may be isolated from all that is attractive and vital about city living. Accordingly, the prospect of working from home fills the average Briton with cold dread: suddenly, they find themselves in exile, confined to a lonely desk in an empty semi-detached house by a busy main road on the fringes of the city; or cast adrift in a soulless dormitory town, miles from any social or cultural centre. No, for the British worker, any brief respite from the outer reaches of the sprawl is welcome, even if this means a boring or troublesome commute to the office.

Economic and Social reasons

Moving on to economic and social considerations, there is another difference between the UK and Europe: the confidence that one's job is secure. Earlier this year, Marks and Spencer decided to close their European branches, without consulting the employees. This is not how things are done in most countries across the Channel, so M&S was fined by the French court and had to carry out its closure procedure all over again, this time treating the workers in accordance with European law. Knowing that one's job is protected by law is likely to remove some of the anxiety associated with working from home - this must partly account for continental Europe's wider acceptance of teleworking (In Finland, nearly one-fifth of the working population are classed as teleworkers). Compare this with the British scenario, where workers already put in the longest hours in Europe and where invisible, teleworking employees may feel that they risk being passed over for promotion or selected for redundancy. In this climate, teleworking is not accepted as a safe strategy for continued success and prosperity.

Indeed, there is a slight whiff of failure about those who are involuntarily exiled to cramped offices in suburban households. Even temporary isolation from the hustle and bustle of meetings, workplace banter, long lunches and networking might lead to permanent career damage. As if this wasn't enough, there is something fundamentally depressing about spending the prime of one's working life at home. The gravity of the situation could only be compounded if you woke up one morning to find that your significant other had also been confined to barracks. Putting aside problems such as the need for duplicate telephone lines, personal computers, filing space and so on, flexible working could lead to the most significant rise in family break-ups ever recorded in a civilised society.

Productivity

So, for these reasons teleworking is far from universal even in the most enlightened and progressive parts of Europe. It does not yet offer a sufficiently better quality of life for the majority (or even a significant minority) of workers. Teleworking runs contrary to decades of social programming that equates personal success with success in the outside world of work. It should come as no surprise that a disproportionate number of those who do work from home are senior employees (executives, professionals, senior partners and technical consultants), people who are already more likely to see themselves as exemplars of success or as indispensable assets for their company. Those who would like to work from home probably already do so - they have the right psychological make-up, a suitably spacious and well-equipped home, go-getting self-confidence and commitment. Studies show that those who do adapt successfully to teleworking end up being 25% more productive due to working in a more relaxed and pleasant environment. For the rest of us, unless there's a very significant shake-up in the world of work (see below for what shape this might take), then things will stay as they are, despite the earnest prophesies of futurologists.

How to make teleworking more attractive

Decentralisation of large companies, through the creation of distributed offices or by buying desk space and bandwidth inside tele-cottages (small, well equipped groups of office units shared by employees from several companies), would help to promote teleworking. Networks of sub-offices would get workers out of their homes while reducing commuter traffic to a minimum. However, this strategy would be expensive for companies in the short term.

Cheaper access to telecommunications for home workers would make teleworking more attractive. Some companies already offer high-bandwidth connections for their teleworkers, but it is far from the norm.

Employees need legal assurance that their absence from the office will not count against them in terms of pay and opportunities.

Firms need to think about providing social support networks that can bring together far-flung employees. Such networks will be necessary to keep teleworking companies unified and focussed while preserving a distinct culture.

A negative pressure that might force teleworking upon us

If commercial centres are threatened or even destroyed by sustained terrorist action, or if such areas are rendered unattractive by insurance and security costs, then dispersal of a company's operations and employees may be necessary for business to continue at all.