What is I-O?

Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is the scientific study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management, coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, and work-life balance.

Remodeling the Electronic Cottage

Brent Holland and Robert Hogan

Hogan Assessment Systems

Organizations are forming electronic cottages (people telecommuting from home) at an increasing pace. According to Minehan (1996), 62% of companies encouraged telecommuting in 1996, up from 49% in 1995, and more than 40% in 1994. Despite the rapid growth of telecommuting, no objective data support its use. Consequently, we are somewhat disturbed by Cascio’s (1998) enthusiastic endorsement of telecommuting, and we say this for four reasons.

First, many people will find it alienating—most people need social contact, acceptance, and face-to-face interaction (Baumeister & Leary, 1993; Cross & Raizman, 1986; Hogan, 1998). Moreover, interactions at work and the opportunity to take part in informal information networks are important sources of job satisfaction (Jahoda, 1982; Roy, 1960); telecommuting makes this impossible. Although proponents of telecommuting (Hamilton, 1987) argue that electronic and face-to-face communication are identical, we seriously doubt this; electronic messages filter out affective elements of the discussion, and as Woodruff (1983) notes: "…frequently, feelings are more vital to a communication than its content (p. 7–9)." The combination of physical separation and impersonal communication will isolate telecommuters from supervisors, peers, and subordinates.

Second, working in electronic cottages will potentially alienate some people from an important aspect of their identity. Work gives many people a sense of purpose and meaning (Ellul, 1964); their feelings of worth are inextricably linked to the roles they play in organizations (Zedeck, 1992), and nonparticipation will negatively affect many people. Ramsower (1985), for example, finds that full-time telecommuters lose their identification with and interest in their organization, they are less likely to be promoted (out of sight out of mind), and organizational communications become hollow.

Third, successful telecommuting requires great self-discipline. It is difficult for some people to stay on task without supervision or having others see them work (Benhamou & Saal, 1997). In our view, successful telecommuters will be ambitious and conscientious. However, if ambitious people are not promoted, which is likely when they are invisible to an organization, they will become dissatisfied and leave. Although some people may work well alone, many others do not.

Fourth, despite the enthusiastic reception that telecommuting has received (e.g., Benhamou & Saal, 1997), there are NO empirical studies in the mainstream literature evaluating its impact on organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction. So why are increasing numbers of organizations adopting telecommuting programs? The main reason seems to be to reduce the costs associated with capital investments and insurance premiums (Ramsower, 1985). Rather than buying or expanding office space, many companies opt for telecommuting to cut costs. However, these organizations ignore the psychological consequences of telecommuting, which over time may substantially reduce its cost-effectiveness.

There is, however, a deeper issue: why have many industrial/organiza-tional psychologists accepted and even embraced telecommuting in the absence of any data to support its use? A survey conducted by FIND/SVP reports that the number of telecommuters has risen from four million in 1990 to 11 million in 1997 (Micco, 1997), yet there are no data that we know of to justify this trend. Is the profession supporting organizational cost-reduction techniques while ignoring the principle of basing decisions on data?

Although there are good reasons to be skeptical of telecommuting, we can't condemn it outright or we would be guilty of the same kind of thinking to which some of our colleagues have fallen prey. We suggest instead that the discipline examine the data regarding the costs and psychological consequences of telecommuting and then render a judgment. For instance, it may be that certain people possess the necessary personality characteristics to be productive in spite of the problems. Cascio (1998) argues that it is important to be in front of emerging trends. In our view, it is more important to be in front of those trends that have positive consequences for people and organizations, and such decisions should be data-based.

TIP

Vol. 36/No. 2  October, 1998

Return to Table of Contents