This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. Flexiplace What Is Flexiplace "Imagine the workplace of the future. Imagine an office that's easy to reach, and not on the far side of a commute that leaves your mind numb, your body shaken. Imagine an office in which you feel totally at ease--a place tailored to your individual needs and tastes. Imagine an environment where you feel free, and not like a prisoner enslaved by a rigid schedule. Imagine your own HOME." The Wall Street Journal With the above quote, the Wall Street Journal began an interesting exploration of futuristic trends appearing in the workplace, including flexiplace. While descriptions such as these can make working at home sound almost hedonistic, the reality of flexiplace is much closer to work than play. In fact, the article cited above went on to make the following point: Many managers have to be convinced that allowing workers to stay home isn't giving them permission to loll around in their bathrobes watching 'People's Court.' Most managers say the reverse is true: Home workers are more likely to show compulsive tendencies than slothful ones. -62 Because flexiplace is so easily misunderstood, it is important to first clarify what flexiplace is and is not. The following explanation taken from a document prepared by the President's Council on Management Improvement (PCMI) provides some of this context: Flexible workplace, work-at-home, telecommuting, and teleworking all refer to paid employment away from the traditional office. Telecommuting and teleworking imply use of high-tech telecommunications and computers to perform work from remote locations. Work-at-home, as defined in the Flexible Workplace Project, covers work regardless of high-tech or low-tech applications. Many home workers need nothing more than an ordinary telephone, typewriter, or pen and paper to accomplish work objectives. In addition to working at home, flexible work- place covers work done at satellite offices as well. It is, in the most general terms, not limited by geography or technology. Flexible workplace always implies an employer-employee relationship where the location of the worksite is shifted away from the primary traditional worksite. It should not be confused with home-based businesses (cottage industries) or independent contractor arrangements in the home. It is also quite different from situations where employees permanently work out of their homes, traveling daily to clients or audit and inspection sites on premises not controlled by their employers. In these instances, their homes, not their worksites, are considered their official duty stations. -63 While flexiplace has been growing in popularity with private sector employers, this has not occurred without controversy, as the following excerpt quoting futurist John Naisbitt illustrates: In Megatrends (1982), John Naisbitt says 'I do not think many of us will choose to work at home in our electronic cottages.... Very few people will be willing to stay home all of the time and tap messages to the office. People want to go to the office. People want to be with people, and the more technology we pump in to society, the more people will want to be with people. It is good for emergencies (like Mondays) and to be able to stay home on some days and deal with your office and work through a computer is an attractive occasional option. During certain specific periods--the late stages of a pregnancy, for example--it is useful to be able to continue work via a computer. But for the most part, we will seek the high touch of the office.' -64 Others have also pointed out that flexiplace is not an unmitigated panacea. For example, one recent survey of corporate employees attempted to document the pros and cons of this program. Table 7 shows the complaints cited about working at home: Table 7 Complaints raised by corporate employees, when asked about the disadvantages of working at home Complaint Percent Hard to separate personal and work life 27% Less time for yourself 26% Work too much 24% Lack interaction with co-workers 24% Lack work equipment 12% Lack clerical support 10% Less sense of belonging to company 7% Source: Cynthia Crossen, "Workplace - Where We'll Be," Wall Street Journal, June 4, 1990, p. R8. (Data cited were based on a survey by Link Resources.) Interestingly, of the reasons given for choosing to work at home, only 8 percent of respondents in the above-cited survey gave "More time for family" as their primary motivation. When this is coupled with the 27 percent who complain that flexiplace makes it "Hard to separate personal and work life," it serves to validate one concern often expressed by experts on flexiplace. That is, flexiplace should not be used as a substitute for child care, since most people find it difficult to attend to their children's needs and to accomplish productive work at the same time. How the Government Plans to Learn About Flexiplace Under the guidance of the President's Council on Management Improvement (PCMI), the Federal Government recently began an innovative effort to gain first-hand experience with flexiplace. This is occurring through a carefully monitored 1-year program, called the Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot Project, which is being coordinated by OPM and GSA. According to the project guidelines developed by PCMI, flexiplace can help agencies by: ... [providing] increased ability to attract and retain employees in critical occupations and positions, such as technical and scientific researchers or computer programmers; targeting new labor markets such as severely handicapped individuals; reducing space and associated costs; or enabling agencies to better conduct the organization's work by allowing increased flexibility in the location of the work site. -65 In experimenting with flexiplace, the Government is venturing into a concept which doesn't fit neatly into its traditional workplace model, as the following quote from a recent newspaper article illustrates: The fact that Emily Tull works out of her home isn't unusual. What is unusual is who she works for. Mrs. Tull's employer is the federal government. A building management specialist for the General Services Administration, she is one of a limited number of federal civilian employees who aren't required to punch in down at the old Department of Whatever... Years after the private sector began experimenting with the notion of telecommuting, the nation's largest employer is belatedly about to join the trend. -66 Within the Federal Government, flexiplace as an officially sanctioned way of doing business is a relatively new phenomenon. While in the past individual managers may have authorized ad hoc work-at-home arrangements in special one-of-a-kind circumstances (e.g., a task force needing to get away from the office in order to concentrate on a special project, or a valued employee who is temporarily incapacitated and unable to travel to the office), there was no organized or publicized effort to authorize such arrangements. In fact, where ad hoc work-at-home arrangements were allowed, they would typically be "kept quiet," since there was a vaguely illicit connotation to such an unorthodox action--after all, the Government doesn't do things like that! This attitude flows from an organizational culture within most Federal agencies which does not encourage risk taking, particularly in regard to personnel policies and practices. Because of this organizational culture, the current Federal experiment with flexiplace is all the more extraordinary. Both OPM and GSA deserve credit for their leadership role in this endeavor, which might have subjected each of these agencies to criticism. Moreover, given the support flexiplace has received from PCMI, OPM, and GSA (to say nothing of President Bush, who has endorsed flexiplace in several speeches), agencies can even reap favorable publicity because of their involvement with this approach, rather than having to keep flexiplace activities quiet. Consider this news item which recently appeared in the Washington Post: Social Security chief Gwendolyn S. King, recovering at home from back surgery, has what has to be the world's biggest work-at-home assignment. The Social Security Administration has installed a fax machine at King's Washington home so she can read and sign documents during her recuperation. -67 To date, agency participation in the flexiplace pilot program has been disappointing. OPM had expected up to 1,000 participants by January 1991, but by June 1991, only about 350 employees at about a dozen agencies had signed up for the pilot. In commenting about this poor showing, one consultant who specializes in flexiplace programs put this situation in perspective, as follows: There is a very natural and predictable gap between the initial enthusiasm for a program like flexiplace and the decision to buy into it later down the line. A program like this catches people off guard. You're dealing with agencies that have their own agenda. There is the first group who are the acceptors and sign on right away. Then there is the second group who are interested and curious, but not ready to sign on the dotted line. Then there is the real latency group, the folks who almost never do anything first. In six months, if there was still this reluctance, it would tell me that the bureaucracy is so tradition-bound that nothing could change it. -68 Based on the available information, it does not appear to us that the pilot's slow start necessarily means that flexitime cannot succeed in the Federal Government. In responses to our questionnaire, several agencies indicated an interest in flexiplace but felt there was insufficient time to prepare for participation in the pilot program OPM was offering, or felt that the pilot program put too many constraints on them. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs said: We are very interested in the flexiplace concept and believe it has great potential benefit. Given the July 1990 start-up time for the OPM pilot and the size of VA and its labor commitments, we felt that there was not adequate time to develop a quality program. However, we are considering a number of flexiplace experiments under current... guidelines. If departments such as Veterans Affairs do conduct their own independent programs, it might be useful if they explored issues which the OPM test is not adequately addressing. For example, one aspect of flexiplace needing evaluation is the provision allowing employees to work at satellite offices, rather than their homes. This option could have much appeal, particularly for managers who are threatened by the concept of employees working at home. This option needs to be evaluated because its biggest impediment will probably be the administrative red tape which might ensue if an employee of one agency wanted to work at a Federal office nearer his or her home and that office happened to belong to a different agency. Unless there were a streamlined way for agencies to work with OPM and GSA to provide for such arrangements, it appears unlikely that this concept could succeed. Turning to a different aspect of the flexiplace program, we also asked agencies to estimate what percent of their workforce "... could conceivably meet the minimum criteria for being able to use flexiplace at least 1 day per week (i.e., have some work which is portable, that is, not site-dependent)?" Most agencies felt unable to respond--of the 22 agencies queried, 17 said "Don't know/ Can't judge." Of those who did hazard a guess, one said 100 percent, one said 40 percent, and three said 20 percent or below. In its response, OPM estimated that 80 percent of the Government's permanent full-time civilian nonpostal positions could meet the minimum criterion cited above. In explaining this estimate, OPM said: From a job structure viewpoint, relatively few such positions would not meet minimum criteria. The primary ones that would not meet the criteria are site-dependent positions such as nurses, librarians, and most blue collar workers. The percentage furnished above reflects a rough estimate of the proportion left when we remove the site-dependent workers. Interestingly, however, even though most agencies couldn't estimate how much of their workforce might be able to use flexiplace, a number of agencies did have a positive assessment of what flexiplace might mean to their recruitment and retention of employees. These results are detailed in table 8 below: Table 8 Number of agencies choosing the indicated response to: "To what extent do you believe that flexiplace would enhance your agency's ability to recruit and select quality new employees and retain current superior employees?" Recruit Retain new employees current employees 3 2 To a great extent 4 8 To a moderate extent 9 4 To a limited extent 0 1 To no extent 4 5 Don't know/Can't judge Note: Two agencies did not respond to this question Results of EPA's Experiment with Flexiplace Since the PCMI pilot program was just getting off the ground at the time this report was being prepared, it was not yet a useful source of data on how flexiplace might actually function in a Federal work environment. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently concluded a small-scale pilot of flexiplace in its Research Triangle Park, NC, office. As this effort was very well organized and documented, as well as comprehensively evaluated (even though there were only seven participants), we anticipate that its results may be representative of those found when the larger PCMI pilot is completed. In an independent evaluation of EPA's pilot, a consultant's report identified three "critical success factors" for the program. These were: choosing the proper jobs; choosing the right participants; and consistency with an organization's culture. -69 Based on the consultant's review, EPA's pilot properly addressed each of these factors; thus, it was able to fulfill its function and effectively test the concept. More specifically, EPA's pilot program was also deemed successful at meeting the objectives set for the experiment; i.e., to test the concept's feasibility and to gather data on its costs and benefits. According to the following statement from EPA's internal evaluation, there were six key findings from the pilot: (1) It is feasible to successfully establish and support Federal employees at an offsite work setting. Employee participants, management, and the Union were all pleased with the overall design and implementation of the project and felt that valuable lessons were learned regarding policy and logistics issues. (2) All employee participants reported that working at the alternate work site resulted in increased morale. Participants particularly stressed the satisfaction of being able to concentrate fully on their work due to fewer interruptions. All participants wished to continue working offsite. (3) Coworkers expressed little to no negative reactions during the pilot phase. Most perceived that the pilot had been a success and expect that the program will continue and be expanded. (4) Managers were pleased with the performance of the individual selected for the pilot project, but expressed reservations as to whether others on their staff would experience similar success. With regard to continuing or expanding the program, reactions ranged from strongly opposed (many) to generally supportive (few). (5) Overall, employee participants did not show an increase in productivity or an improvement in the quality of work; either by subjective or objective evaluation. (6) The majority of the benefits of the program accrue to the employee and, accordingly, only indirectly to OARM [Office of Administration and Resources Management]. -70 These last three points bear some further discussion. Regarding the first point (i.e., managerial reluctance to continue or expand the flexiplace program), several themes emerged in EPA's analysis of the point. These included the following issues: * in offices where flexiplace was not offered, employees who would have wanted to participate in the program might have negative feelings about being denied the chance to do so; * in offices where it was to be offered, there could be potential problems for supervisors in justifying which employees were allowed to participate, since the criteria which might be employed would be highly subjective (i.e., level of motivation, ability to work independently); and * managers had a general discomfort with the implications of being accountable for the work of a larger number of employees who were working offsite, since this was an unfamiliar and threatening concept to traditionally-minded managers. -71 From our perspective, none of the aforementioned concerns rises to the level of a fundamental flaw in flexiplace. While each is understandable and practical, collectively they should be solvable through proper planning, training, and communication. Regarding the second of the last three points, i.e., productivity, EPA's internal assessment offered some further elaboration: According to the literature one of the "selling points" of working at home is the potential for dramatic increases in productivity. Figures in the literature range from increases of 5 to 300 percent with the "norm" being around 20 percent. Most often these productivity improvements are attributed to the decrease in interruptions at the alternative site, leading to a more satisfied and productive employee... Overall, the participants in the [EPA] pilot did not show an increase or decrease in productivity. In many cases an employee was more productive at the alternative site, but this was usually offset by a lower level of productivity at the office, resulting in a net change of zero. -72 While it could be interesting to speculate why EPA's flexiplace program did not achieve the productivity gains cited by others (e.g., were the employees chosen for the pilot already highly productive and thus atypical), the answer is, in one sense anyway, essentially academic. EPA's pilot did demonstrate that productivity did not suffer under flexiplace. To the extent that Federal managers considering flexiplace may have assumed this was a potentially major problem, it is helpful to know that it did not occur during EPA's pilot. As to whether another experiment (like the PCMI flexible workplace pilot project) would show productivity savings, only time will tell. Since we uncovered no basis to assume that the Federal work environment is inherently unable to duplicate the productivity gains found in private sector studies, we believe such gains are achievable by the Government as well. Finally, on the question of whether any benefits directly accrue to the Government from flexiplace, it is likely that the small size of EPA's flexiplace pilot (and perhaps even the PCMI pilot) would preclude realization of the full potential which flexiplace could ultimately offer. This is because the economics of flexiplace become more convincing when a critical mass of employees begins participating. At some point, it becomes reasonable to have to rent (or build) less office space, for example, since fewer people need to be accommodated at any one time. Similarly, given the costs of the transportation infrastructure, at some point flexiplace preempts the need for new or expanded facilities. In commenting on this point, the Washington Post recently noted that one member of the Virginia State Assembly had said that the ultimate impact of flexiplace on traffic patterns could be more profound than other, more publicized transit initiatives: "We have gone through such trials on a commuter rail between Fredericksburg and Washington that would take 4,000 people off the highway at considerable expense," [Virginia Del. William J.] Howell said. "[Flexiplace], on the other hand, has the potential to take four times that amount off the road at little cost to anyone." -73 Having said all of the above, it is important to put flexiplace in perspective. As a work and family benefit program, there is little doubt that flexiplace will have a strong appeal to some segments of the Government's workforce. EPA's test suggests that it can work in a Federal context--with the right jobs, right participants, and right organizational culture--although not without some degree of extra effort by managers. It is not a panacea, however, and it definitely runs some risk of adverse publicity if not managed properly. Flexiplace's potential utility to the Government is also not limited to the recruitment and retention benefits of ongoing work at home arrangements--it also has applicability in emergency situations. For example, in the 1989 earthquake which hit San Francisco, the EPA's regional office was destroyed. EPA responded by having its 600+ employees work out of their homes for over six months. Similarly, for those OPM employees who were unable to readily commute to OPM's San Francisco office (because of damage to the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge), OPM allowed them to work at home for several months. Thus, agencies that had a receptivity to adopting flexiplace (if not actual contingency plans providing for its use) were able to creatively respond to the crisis at hand, minimizing the adverse effects of the emergency on their mission accomplishment. Given flexiplace's nontraditional image, it would be unfortunate if agency decisions whether to utilize the program are driven by managerial preconceptions and misconceptions, rather than by reasoned analysis. From our point of view, if flexiplace can be implemented at little or no cost to the Government, and it helps agencies recruit or retain some of the people the Government wants and needs, there appears to be no reason why it shouldn't be made available. The Wall Street Journal very aptly captured the practical significance of this point in a recent article on flexiplace. It said: The reason the government is experimenting with the so-called 'flexiplace' (for flexible workplace) program has less to do with government beneficence than with population trends. Faced with a shrinking labor pool and rising competition from the private sector, government officials see the flexible work-place as a possible answer. 'We needed to find a way to enhance our ability to recruit and retain employees,' says Wendell Joice, a personnel research psychologist at the OPM. 'We needed a carrot.' -74