TELECOMMUTE AMERICA REPORT
THE FEDERAL FLEXIBLE WORKPLACE PILOT PROJECT WORK-AT-HOME
COMPONENT
January 1993
FINAL REPORT
WENDELL JOICE
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Career Entry Group
Office of Personnel Research and Development 1900 E Street, NW.Washington,
DC 20415-0001
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAs co-directors of the
Federal Flexible Workplace Project and, also, on behalf of the President's
Council on Management Improvement, we commend the work of our colleagues
on the project management team. Their excellent and diligent efforts were
critical to the implementation and operation of the Flexiplace Project. We
also acknowledge their agencies for allowing us the services of these
individuals: Carmen Queen, U.S. Department Of Agriculture Sharlyn Grigsby,
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Vivian Jarcho, U.S.
Department Of Justice Martin Barrack, U.S. General Services Administration
William Coleman, U.S. Department of Treasury George Gauthier, U.S. General
Services Administration Todd Wheeler, U.S. Office Of Personnel Management
Special acknowledgement is due to Thomas Cowley (U.S. General Services
Administration), who served as project co-director (1989-1991). We also
commend the excellent work of the network of agency Flexiplace
coordinators who directed the activities of Flexiplace in their respective
agencies. Finally, we acknowledge the participating agencies for their
progressiveness and support.
Maxcine Sterling, General Services Administration Wendell Joice,
Office of Personnel Management FLEXIPLACE Co-Directors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis evaluation of the
work-at-home component of the Federal Flexible Workplace Pilot
Project (Flexiplace) was developed for use by the President's
Council on Management Improvement (PCMI). Flexiplace is a Governmentwide,
nationwide project which allows Federal employees to work at home or at
geographically convenient satellite offices for part of the workweek. This
project is sponsored by the PCMI and co-directed by the U.S. Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and the U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA). Flexiplace, which was implemented in January 1990, was established
to improve the Government's ability to recruit and retain capable
employees, to improve employee quality of life, and to reduce Federal
operating costs. The project consists of three basic components:•
Work-at-home program.• Satellite work center
program. This component involves the establishment of
geographically convenient multi-agency satellite work centers which serve
as alternate worksites for designated Federal employees. Operating
guidelines for satellite work centers will be similar to those for
work-at-home arrangements.• Flexiplace accommodations for disabled
workers. Participation in this component is available to disabled
Federal employees and will be made available to Federal employees in
Workers' Compensation or Disability Retirement programs. The overall goal
of the Flexiplace project is to gain the experience and information
necessary to recommend policies and procedures for general implementation
and operation of Federal flexible workplace arrangements. This evaluation
examines the pilot performance of the work-at-home component of Flexiplace
and was developed by the Flexiplace Management Team (hereafter referred to
as 'FMT' or 'we'). The FMT consists of representatives of the General
Services Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management. We will use the eval
employees.Focus Groups. Participating agencies
established discussion groups for participants and their supervisors to
provide support and assistance as well as to serve as spontaneous sources
of evaluation information. Typically, these groups met monthly for the
first few months and, thereafter, on an as-needed basis. After each
meeting, the focus group discussion leaders provided the FMT with written
reports summarizing the group's discussion.
SURVEY DATA RESULTSAt the time this
report was written, participation in Flexiplace included approximately 700
Federal employees from 13 Federal agencies. The findings discussed in this
report, however, are based on the following numbers of survey respondents:
Ø 522 participant background/baseline questionnaires Ø 224 participant
six-month evaluations of Flexiplace experience Ø 102 participant one-year
evaluations of Flexiplace experience Ø 388 supervisor baseline evaluations
of participants Ø 213 supervisor six-month evaluations of participants Ø
100 supervisor one-year evaluations of participants Ø 62 supervisor
six-month evaluations of organizational performance Ø 49 supervisor
one-year evaluations of organizational performance Ø 40 supervisor
evaluations of control participants Ø 40 control participant evaluations
of work experience Ø 30 customer/client six-month evaluations of
participants The difference in these totals is due to the fact that
Flexiplace implementation dates varied widely across agencies; respondents
from organizations with more recent implementation dates had not completed
their questionnaires at the time this report was written. Summary
of Participant Group Profile. Most of the 522 Flexiplace
participant survey respondents (72%) were married and/or living in
families, nearly half (47%) had children under 18 living at home. Most
were full-time professional employees (70%) with pre-Flexiplace job
performance ratings at the 'Exceeds Fully Successful' or 'Outstanding'
levels (84%) and most worked in urban downtown areas. The participants
tended to be experienced in both life and work: their average age was 42
and 84% had 11 or more years of work experience. With respect to racial
composition, average age, and proportion of disabled employees, the
Flexiplace participant group was very similar to the Federal non-postal
civilian workforce. On the other hand, the participant group had
proportionately more females, higher grades, more part time employees, and
more employees with outstanding job performance ratings than does the
Federal workforce.A particularly important finding was that 43% of the
participants reported that their most productive time periods for working
were outside normal business hours. This finding has implications for
efforts to improve workforce productivity: flexible work arrangements can
be used to allow participants and their organizations to take fuller
advantage of worker productivity peaks. Summary of Participant Job
Performance Ratings. More than 90% of the supervisors and 95% of
the participants judged that Flexiplace job performance was either
unchanged or improved relative to pre-Flexiplace performance levels. When
considering the implications of "unchanged" job performance ratings, it is
important to note that 84% of the participants entered the Flexiplace
pilot with job performance ratings of at least "exceeds fully successful"
(44% with "exceeds fully successful" and 40% with "outstanding"). For the
majority of the participants, therefore, Flexiplace job performance
ratings of "unchanged" imply that a very high level of performance was
maintained. Customer/Client and Control Group Ratings. At
the time this report was written, there were only 30 Customer/Client
ratings, 40 supervisor ratings of control employees, and 40 control
employee self-assessments in the data base; these numbers are too small to
serve as representative samples of customers/clients or control employees.
We are providing an analysis of these data, the guidance that Flexiplace
is not a direct substitute for child care.Other Participant
Responses. Participants indicated reductions in both sick leave
and rush-hour vehicle usage. After one year in the project, 45% of the
participants indicated that their Flexiplace sick leave usage was
generally lower than their sick leave usage prior to Flexiplace. For the
same time period, 82% of the participants indicated that reduced rush hour
usage of their private vehicles; 35% of the participants indicated reduced
non-rush hour vehicle usage. Less than 6% of the participants indicated
increases in sick leave or vehicle usage.Summary of Organizational
Performance. Supervisory judgments on Flexiplace and
organizational performance are important because they present a view of
the collective functioning of participants and non-participants. The data
suggest that Flexiplace is a feasible and desirable option for most
organizations. More than 70% of the supervisors indicated that Flexiplace
was feasible in terms of meeting organizational objectives and supervising
participants and more than 90% indicated that Flexiplace did not result in
significant organizational expenses. This information is based on a
relatively small sample of organizations and should be interpreted and
applied cautiously. Finally, our focus group summaries and information
from agency Flexiplace coordinators suggest that some of the modifications
desired by supervisors include more supervisor control over selection and
number of participants, more guidance on technological issues, more
flexibility in agency-specified procedures, and increased agency funding
for the program.Summary of Overall Reactions. Considering
all issues, the majority (79% after 6 months; 80% after 12 months) of the
supervisors and nearly all (99% after 6 months; 100% after 12 months) of
the participants judged Flexiplace to be a desirable option requiring, at
most, minimal refinement.
FOCUS GROUP FINDINGSThe focus group
reports provided an evaluation perspective different from that of survey
questionnaires and, therefore, served to clarify and/or add to the
material obtained from the survey. The focus group findings that were
positive tended to mirror findings from the survey material. The negative
findings were mostly issues surrounding organizational adjustment to
Flexiplace, such as obtaining equipment, adjusting co-worker
relationships, and establishing schedules. These findings provided us with
additional information that should be included in our guidelines for
participating organizations. Our general observations tended to
corroborate the finding that issues associated with organizational
adjustment to Flexiplace represent the primary areas of difficulty for
Flexiplace operation. There appears, however, to be about a two to three
month period in which organizations resolve or begin to resolve these
issues. Likewise, the usefulness of focus groups appears to begin to
diminish after three months.
FLEXIPLACE MANAGEMENT TEAM (FMT)
OBSERVATIONSThe FMT documented its observations on
matters not covered elsewhere in this report. The primary observation is
that overcoming management reluctance to participation in Flexiplace is
the major challenge confronting the program. We base this assertion on
information received from agency coordinators, Flexiplace focus groups,
personnel directors, the Survey of Federal Employees, public and private
sector research findings, and from our own experience implementing
Flexiplace. Expressed reasons for this reluctance were varied, focusing on
issues such as loss of control, implementation, budget, employee
characteristics, job characteristics, various anxieties regarding changed
procedures, and so on. No particular reason or set of reasons stood out in
our information.
RECRUITING AND RETENTIONWhile the
newness and limited size of the Flexiplace project prevented us from
assessing its impact on recruiting and retention, anecdotal and indirect
expectations of pilot and general Flexiplace participants should be
reasonably similar.
RECOMMENDATIONSHaving reviewed the
available information, our observations, and the immediate and long term
requirements for successful implementation, the FMT recommends the
following actions: 1. That the PCMI Ø Ø endorse the concept of Flexiplace,
affirm that agencies have the authority to enter into Flexiplace
arrangements, yet alert agencies that Flexiplace is not appropriate in all
circumstances; Ø publicize the results of the Flexiplace Pilot (home-based
component) and take steps to increase Federal employee awareness of
Flexiplace; Ø formally acknowledge agencies that participated in the
pilot, managers who volunteered their organizations, and participants
themselves for a job well done; Ø examine the utility of providing
incentives for managers who establish Flexiplace arrangements in their
organizations; Ø request legislation that repeals the law prohibiting
Federal agencies from purchasing telephone equipment for employee
residences; Ø urge organizations such as the National Capital Planning
Commission, GSA, and agency procurement offices to include Flexible
workplace arrangements in their Federal building planning and technology
purchasing plans.2. That OPM provide support and technical assistance to
agencies establishing Flexiplace arrangements; this support should include
providing guidance in the Federal Personnel Manual.3. That GSA publish
guidance in the Federal Information Resources Management Regulations on
the use of computers and telephones for Federal employees working in
alternative worksites.
CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 1 Project History 2
Telecommuting Movement 4 Project Operation 5METHODOLOGY 8SURVEY DATA
RESULTS 10 Participant Group Profile 11 Operational Performance 14
Participant Job Performance 14 Work-related Interpersonal Communication 22
Quality of Personal Life 24 Quality of Work Life 25 Participant Costs 28
Sick Leave Usage 29 Transportation Impact 29 Organizational Performance 31
Organizational Costs of Flexiplace 32 Overall Reactions to Flexiplace
33FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS 34MANAGEMENT TEAM OBSERVATIONS 37RECRUITING AND
RETENTION 39ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES 41CONCLUSION 44RECOMMENDATIONS
46REFERENCES 47 LIST OF TABLES1. Job Performance Factors and Corresponding
Supervisor Ratings (6 months)2. Job Performance Factors and Corresponding
Supervisor Ratings (12 months)3. Supervisor Ratings of Level of
Participant Job Performance for Three Rating Periods4. Supervisor Ratings
of Level of Control Employee Job Performance for Two Rating Periods5. Job
Performance Factors and Corresponding Participant Self-Assessments (6
months)6. Job Performance Factors and Corresponding Participant
Self-Assessments (12 months)7. Job Performance Factors and Corresponding
Customer/Client Ratings (6 months)8. Job Performance Factors and
Corresponding Control Employee Self-Assessments (6 months)9. Judgments of
Work-Related Interpersonal Communications (6 months)10. Judgments of
Work-Related Interpersonal Communications (12 months)11. Participant
Ratings of Flexiplace Impact on Quality of Personal Life Issues (6
months)12. Participant Ratings of Flexiplace Impact on Quality of Personal
Life Issues (12 months)13. Ratings of Flexiplace Impact on Quality of Work
Life Issues (6 months)14. Ratings of Flexiplace Impact on Quality of Work
Life Issues (12 months)15. Impact of Flexiplace on Participant Job-Related
Costs (6 months)16. Impact of Flexiplace on Participant Job-Related Costs
(12 months)17. Impact of Flexiplace on Participant Net Overall Usage of
One or More Vehicles (6 months)18. Impact of Flexiplace on Participant Net
Overall Usage of One or More Vehicles (12 months)
INTRODUCTIONThis evaluation of the
work-at-home component of the centers which serve as alternate worksites
for designated Federal employees. Operating guidelines for satellite work
centers will be similar to those for work-at-home employees. • Flexiplace
accommodations for disabled workers. Participation in this component is
available to disabled Federal employees and will be made available to
Federal employees in Workers' Compensation or Disability Retirement
programs. The overall goal of the Flexiplace pilot is to gain the
experience and information necessary to recommend policies and procedures
for general implementation and operation of Federal flexible workplace
arrangements. Pilot project operating procedures and requirements,
therefore, were designed to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the
specific needs and circumstances of individual agencies. This evaluation
examines the pilot performance of the work-at-home component of Flexiplace
and was developed by the Flexiplace Management Team (hereafter referred to
as 'FMT' or 'we'). The FMT consists of representatives of the General
Services Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management. We will use the
evaluation findings to support our policy/procedure recommendations such
as determining whether further Governmentwide implementation of Flexiplace
should be encouraged and revising the Flexiplace work-at-home guidance
(discussed later in this report).
PROJECT HISTORYIn March 1989, the PCMI
established an interagency task force to design and implement the
Flexiplace project. The task force, with OPM and GSA serving as lead
agencies, consisted of representatives from the following departments and
agencies: Department of the Air Force Department of Agriculture Department
of Health and Human Services Department of Labor Department of
Transportation General Accounting Office National Science Foundation
Office of Personnel Management General Services Administration Department
of Defense Department of Veterans' Affairs Small Agency CouncilØ Operating
Guidelines. After identifying and researching the relevant issues, the
task force developed draft operating guidelines that were reviewed and
approved by member agencies of the PCMI Human Resources Committee, by
legal counsels from various agencies such as the Office of Personnel
Management, General Services Administration, General Accounting Office,
Department of Labor, and by the headquarters offices of major unions
representing Federal employees. In January 1990, the PCMI task force
published the "Guidelines for Pilot Flexible Workplace Arrangements,"
disseminating them to all Federal departments and agencies. The guidelines
were accompanied by an invitation for Governmentwide participation in
Flexiplace.Ø Union Involvement. Prior to project implementation, the
members of the task force met with representatives of the headquarters
offices of major unions representing Federal employees. The goal of the
task force was to secure union involvement and support, clarify roles and
expectations, and respond to union concerns. Additionally, all project
evaluation materials as well as the Guidelines were reviewed by these
unions. While taking a guarded approach, the unions were not resistant,
and, in some cases, have been instrumental in establishing the project. Ø
Project Management Team. At the completion of the planning and development
phase of the project, the project directors established a Flexiplace
Management Team (FMT) to direct the Governmentwide implementation and
operation of the pilot project, to provide technical assistance, to
evaluate the project, and to prepare recommendations for continuing and
improving Flexiplace. The team members are listed on the Acknowledgement
page of this report.Ø Congressional Support. During the planning phase of
the project, aides from the office of Representative Frank Wolf
(R-Virginia) met with the FMT to learn about the Flexiplace project and to
offer assistance. In November 1990, Congress passed legislation (AT&T,
Sears, J.C. Penny, Travelers Insurance, IBM, and Bell Atlantic. During the
course of the Flexiplace pilot, we exchanged information with emissaries
from Japan, Finland, the Netherlands, England, Australia, and Canada in
their efforts to establish telecommuting arrangements in their countries.
Workforce studies have presented solid evidence of a global movement
toward telecommuting that will change prevailing work arrangement concepts
for a substantial portion of the workforce (Telecommuting Advisory
Council, 1992). In order to keep abreast of emerging trends, technological
advances, legislative and other initiatives, and opportunities to gain and
provide assistance, the FMT began active participation in the
Telecommuting Advisory Council (TAC). TAC is an international network of
telecommuting program managers, experts, and consultants organized to
conduct telecommuting promotion, research, education, technical
assistance, and information sharing activities. The FMT was also
instrumental in establishing the Potomac area chapter of the TAC.
PROJECT OPERATIONFlexiplace operation
was designed with a focus on simplicity, ease, and flexibility.
Participation, which is completely voluntary, requires both supervisor and
organizational approval. Participation can be suspended by the
participant, the supervisor, or the organization. The specific nature of
participation is tailored to the needs and convenience of the
organization. Flexiplace operates within the framework of existing laws
and regulations. Other than the helpful legislation on telephone
equipment, discussed earlier, no new legislation was required to implement
this project. Actual operating procedures of agency Flexiplace pilots are
tailored to meet agency needs. The flexibility of the operating procedures
is an asset to the project. Following is a generic profile of the
operation of an agency Flexiplace pilot: Ø Decision to Participate. The
first and most challenging step is an agency's decision to participate. Ø
Designation of Agency Flexiplace Coordinator. The agency coordinator is
the key individual who translates our guidance into action and otherwise
runs the program at the agency or organizational level.Ø Consultation with
Local Unions (if applicable). If the agency plans to include
union-represented employees in the project, agency management
representatives consult with local unions and, generally, keep them
informed as to the progress of the project.Ø Development of Agency
Specifications. Agencies have the option to tailor the Flexiplace
operating guidelines into agency specific policies on Flexiplace
arrangements.Ø Selection of Prospective Participants. Basic criteria
established for the selection of participants are the following: - A
performance rating of Fully Successful or better (or equivalent); -
Supervisor approval; - A reasonable level of experience in the current job
(no trainees); and - The ability to perform successfully (as judged by the
supervisor) in the Flexiplace arrangement. Agencies are responsible for
selecting participants and may amend or add to the preceding criteria. The
FMT recommended that agencies select a diverse (grades, occupations, etc.)
group of participants and, to provide, if possible, control groups of
non-participating employees occupationally similar to the participants.
Information provided by the control groups serves as a comparison for the
participant evaluation information. The FMT further specified that
agencies should focus their participant selection on employees whose work
arrangements fit the generic Flexiplace definition: formal
employer/employee relationships where the location of the worksite is
shifted away from the primary traditional worksite. During the Flexiplace
planning stage, the FMT surveyed agencies and found that most were already
utilizing informal work-at-home arrangements to accommodate injured or ill
employees, employees who need periods of time to concentrate on complex
work assignments, and employees who must be out of the FMT with written
reports summarizing the group's discussion. Ø Newsletter. OPM published a
newsletter covering a broad array of issues associated with telecommuting.
We distributed this newsletter, "Flexiplace Focus," to participants and to
other interested parties.
METHODOLOGYThe FMT structured the
evaluation of this project to obtain a broad assessment of the operation
of alternative workplace arrangements. We based the evaluation on
information from three basic sources: survey questionnaires, focus group
reports, and observations by the FMT.Survey Questionnaires. Operating
through the agency coordinators, we administered separate evaluation
survey questionnaires (Appendices A through D) to all Flexiplace
participants, their supervisors, non-participating control employees,
customers/clients of the participants, and local union officials. Our
survey research design focused on using the questionnaires to obtain
baseline (job performance) and other background information at the
beginning of a given pilot and then, after 6 and 12 months, obtaining
evaluation/progress information. We utilized the following schedule:Ø
Pilot Beginning - Participants and control subjects completed background
questionnaires on demographic and other personal information including
work-related attitudes and perceptions. - Supervisors of participants and
controls completed questionnaires on employee performance and leave usage
(baseline).Ø At Six and Twelve Months - Participants and control subjects
completed questionnaires on their perceptions of their job experience
during the previous six months. - Supervisors and customer/clients
completed questionnaires on job performance of participants and control
group employees. - Supervisors completed questionnaires on organizational
job performance during the preceding six months. - Local union officials
completed questionnaires on pilot performance during the preceding six
months. In addition to the Flexiplace survey, we also used findings from
the Survey of Federal Employees (SOFE) conducted by OPM's Office of
Systems Innovation and Simplification (OSIS, 1992). This major survey of
the Federal workforce was designed to provide policy-makers with
information about Federal employees that was not available from existing
sources. The SOFE covered a wide range of personnel areas (including
Flexiplace) and obtained responses from approximately 32,000 employees.
Focus Group Reports. We requested that focus group leaders, with group
consent, submit a summary highlighting the group's discussion for each
session. We established a structured reporting format which requested
positive experiences, negative experiences, and group recommendations. FMT
Observations. Through its experience in conducting the Flexiplace project,
the FMT made several observations regarding improved ways of handling the
program. These observations were based on information received from agency
Flexiplace coordinators, Flexiplace focus groups, personnel directors, a
survey of Federal employees, public and private sector research findings,
and from our own experience implementing Flexiplace. These observations
are included in this report.
SURVEY DATA RESULTSAt the time this
report was written, participation in Flexiplace included approximately 700
Federal employees from 13 Federal agencies. The findings discussed in this
report, however, are based on the following numbers of survey respondents:
Ø 522 participant background/baseline questionnaires Ø 224 participant
six-month evaluations of Flexiplace experience Ø 102 participant one-year
evaluations of Flexiplace experience Ø 388 supervisor baseline evaluations
of participants Ø 213 supervisor six-month evaluations of participants Ø
100 supervisor one-year evaluations of participants Ø 62 supervisor
six-month evaluations of organizational performance Ø 49 supervisor
one-year evaluations of organizational performance Ø 40 supervisor
evaluations of control participants Ø 40 contro (5%) American Indian = 1%
(2%) Ø Age 60 and above = 6% (5%) 50-59 = 14% (19%) 40-49 = 36% (29%)
31-39 = 35% (30%) 30 and under = 9% (17%) Average Age = 42 (42)FAMILY
STRUCTURE Married and/or living in a family relationship with another
adult = 72% Participants with one or more children living at home = 47%
Age of children Pre-school = 20% Age 5-12 = 26% Age 13-18 = 14%
Participants with no children, age 18 or under, living at home = 53%
DISABILITY PARTICIPATION Participation in project because of a physical
disability = 7% (7%) Participants having a dependent disabled child or
adult living at home = 5%JOB INFORMATIONØ Grade GS 1-3 = 0% (4%) GS 4-8 =
9% (40%) GS 9-11 = 21% (26%) GS 12 = 26% (13%) GS 13 = 27% (9%) GS 14-16 =
17% (8%) Average Grade = 13 (9) Ø Job Type Clerical/secretarial = 1%
Professional (non-supervisor) = 70% Technical/administrative = 20%
Supervisor/manager = 8% Other = 1% Ø Sample of OccupationsAttorney,
Writer/Editor, Physical Scientist, Librarian, Investigator, Veterinarian,
Social Science Analyst, Psychologist, Environmental Engineer, Specialists
(Personnel Management, Employee Development, Employee Relations, Consumer
Safety, Computer, Environmental Protection, Health Systems),
Management/Program Analyst, Biologist, Pharmacologist, Medical Officer,
Financial/Budget Analyst, Tax Examiner, Administrative Assistant, Clerk,
Secretary Ø Work Experience 20 or more years = 46% 11-19 years = 38% 7-10
years = 9% 3-6 years = 5% less than 3 years = 2% Ø Appointment Full-time
permanent = 92% (87%) Part-time permanent = 7% (2%) Other = 1% (11%)JOB
PERFORMANCE Ø Most recent performance appraisal Outstanding = 40% (28%)
Exceeds fully successful = 44% (49%)Fully successful = 14% (22%) Other
(minimally successful, = 2% ( 1%) unacceptable, other rating schedules) Ø
Time period when most productive Normal business hours = 57% Non-business
hours = 43% (After 6 pm, before 7 am, weekends, etc.)WORK SITE
CHARACTERISTICS Ø Downtown, central, or business area of a city = 64% Ø No
availability of free parking = 55% Ø Work routes with high traffic and
frequent gridlock = 49%Summary of Participant Group Profile. Most of the
522 Flexiplace participant survey respondents (72%) were married and/or
living in families, nearly half (47%) had children under 18 living at
home. Most were full-time professional employees (70%) with pre-Flexiplace
job performance ratings at the 'Exceeds Fully Successful' or 'Outstanding'
levels (84%) and most worked in urban downtown areas. The participants
tended to be experienced in both life and work: their average age was 42
and 84% had 11 or more years of work experience. With respect to racial
composition, average age, and proportion of disabled employees, the
Flexiplace participant group was very similar to the Federal non-postal
civilian workforce. On the other hand, the participant group had
proportionately more females, higher grades, more part time employees, and
more employees with outstanding job performance ratings than does the
Federal workforce.A particularly important finding was that 43% of the
participants reported that their most productive time periods for working
were outside normal business hours. This finding has implications for
efforts to improve workforce productivity: flexible work arrangements can
be used to allow participants and their organizations to take fuller
advantage of worker productivity peaks. OPERATIONAL
PERFORMANCEThe following project operation results were obtained
from surveys administered after six and twelve months in the project. Most
of the narrative focuses on the six-month results which were more complete
at the time of this writing. Where supported by sufficient data,
twelve-month results are discussed. In all of the tables in expected for
the employee's experience, work assignments, and conditions in your
office.ØCurrency of KSAs - The extent to which, during the evaluation
period, the employee's knowledge, skills, and abilities were
up-to-date.ØAvailability/Accessibility - The extent to which, on a
consistent basis during the evaluation period, the employee was
available/accessible for the timely conduct of business.ØOverall - The
overall job performance during this evaluation period. Supervisors
submitted these job performance ratings for three separate rating periods:
(1)Baseline period (the six months immediately preceding implementation of
the pilot)(2) The first six months of the pilot(3) The final six months of
the pilot Supervisors submitted two types of job performance ratings:
performance change ratings and performance level ratings. For the
performance change ratings, we asked supervisors to indicate, for the
given rating period of Flexiplace participation, whether there had been
improvement/decline in the participant's job performance (relative to the
participant's performance during the prior workyear). We provided the
following response scale for performance change ratings: A = Decline D =
Slight Improvement B = Slight Decline E = Improvement C = No ChangeFor
convenience of presentation, the categories (A and B; D and E) on each end
of the performance change scale were collapsed into single categories.
Performance level ratings indicated the supervisor's perception of the
level of job performance for a given rating period. The following scale
was used:1 - Unsatisfactory 2 - Somewhat less than satisfactory 3 -
Satisfactory 4 - Somewhat more than satisfactory 5 - Excellent Because
there was such a small number of participants receiving ratings of 1 or 2,
these two categories were combined in our analysis. Performance Change
Ratings. Table 1 presents performance change ratings for the specified job
performance factors. The data support the following observations:ØIn all
factors, most participant job performance during Flexiplace was rated as
unchanged from their pre-Flexiplace job performance. Across the
performance factors, the percentage of participants with unchanged job
performance ranged from 54% to 79%. The percentage for overall performance
was 64%.ØIn all factors except "availability," a significantly (p<.01)
larger percentage of participants showed improvement than showed a
decline. Across the performance factors, the percentage of participants
with improved performance ranged from 11% to 39% (quantity of work
produced had the highest improvement percentage). The percentage for
overall performance was 33%.ØThe slightly larger decline percentages for
quantity, timeliness, and availability relative to the other factors are
not large enough to be meaningful.TABLE 1 Job Performance Factors and
Corresponding Supervisor Ratings: Flexiplace Participants' First Six
Months (n=216) Ratings (%)Factor Quality Quantity Timeliness Interpersonal
Disposition Independence Keeping up-to-date Availability/ Accessibility
Overall Performance Decline 4 7 12 3 1 4 15 3 No Change 69 54 60 71 71 79
74 64 Improved 27 39 28 26 28 17 11 33 Table 2 summarizes supervisor
ratings of participant job performance during the final six months of the
project. The results replicate those shown above. TABLE 2 Job Performance
Factors and Corresponding Supervisor Ratings: Flexiplace Participants'
Final Six Months (n=102) Ratings (%)Factor Quality Quantity Timeliness
Interpersonal Disposition Independence Keeping up-to-date
Availability/Accessibility Overall Performance Decline 5 10 12 5 4 1 10 6
No Change 63 52 57 70 66 77 72 53Improved 32 38 31 25 30 22 18 41 Note:
For the remaining information on supervisor ratings of participant job
performance, ratings on indicated that the job performance for 87% (34) of
the control employees had not changed during the first six months of the
pilot; 10% (4) were rated as improved and 1 control employee job
performance was rated as declined. Table 4 presents the distribution of
control employee performance levels for the baseline and six-month rating
periods. The table reflects a 15% drop in the number of control employees
with excellent performance level ratings. TABLE 4Supervisor Ratings of
Level of Control Employee Job Performance for Two Rating Periods Ratings
(%)Rating Less Than More Than Period Satisfact. Satisfact. Satisfact.
Excell. Baseline 0 20 30 50 (n=76)6-Months 2.5 32.5 30 35
(n=40)Participant Self-Assessments. We asked Flexiplace participants to
provide self-assessments regarding their job performance during the
project. We provided them with the same performance change rating scales
provided to their supervisors. We requested these self-assessments on some
of the same job performance factors used with their supervisors; in
addition, however, we included introspective factors such as ability to
concentrate. Tables 5 and 6 present participant responses for the initial
six months and final six months, respectively, of the project. As noted
with supervisor ratings, participant twelve-month self-assessments
replicate their six-month assessments. Generally, participants were more
likely than their supervisors to see improvement (as opposed to no change)
in their job performance since entering Flexiplace. Of particular note are
the participants' strongly positive responses to factors such as
efficiency (relative amount of time required to accomplish a given amount
of work), ability to concentrate while working, and motivation toward
work. TABLE 5 Job Performance Factors and Corresponding Participant
Self-Assessments: Flexiplace Participants' First Six Months (n=224)
Ratings (%)Factor Quality Quantity Timeliness Efficiency Ability to
Concentrate Motivation Toward Work Decline 0 2 2 2 1 0 No Change 39 29 38
17 11 26 Improved 616960818874 TABLE 6 Job Performance Factors and
Corresponding Participant Self-Assessments: Flexiplace Participants' Final
Six Months (n=115) Ratings (%)Factor Quality Quantity Timeliness
Efficiency Ability to Concentrate Motivation Toward Work Decline 1 1 1 0 0
0 No Change 30 21 26 23 9 19 Improved 697873779181 Customer/Client and
Control Group Ratings. At the time this report was written, there were
only 30 Customer/Client ratings and 40 control employee self-assessments
in the data base; these numbers are too small to serve as representative
samples of customers/clients or control employees. We are providing an
analysis of these data, therefore, for information purposes only and with
the same caution applied to the supervisor control ratings above. The
customer/client ratings of participant job performance are very similar to
those provided by the supervisors. Most participant job performance was
rated as unchanged except for quantity of work produced where most (50%)
were rated as improved.In contrast to participant self-assessments, the
control employees were more likely to assess their six-months performance
as unchanged as opposed to improved. TABLE 7 Job Performance Factors and
Corresponding Customer/Client Ratings: Flexiplace Participants' First Six
Months (n=30) Ratings (%)Factor QualityQuantity Timeliness Interpersonal
Disposition Availability/Accessibility Communication Decline 0 7 7 7 10 7
No Change 80 43 60 70 73 72Improved 20 50 33 23 17 21TABLE 8 Job
Performance Factors and Corresponding Control Employee Self-Assessments:
First Six Months of Flexiplace Pilot (n=40) Ratings (%)FactorQuality
Quantity Timelines (n=102) Ratings (%)FactorBetween Participants
and:Supervisor (S)(effectiveness)Supervisor (P)(effectiveness)Co-workers
(S) (effectiveness)Co-workers (P)(effectiveness)Supervisor (P)(work
assignment process)Decline 6 4 6 10 5No Change 68 69 76 74 70Improved 26
27 18 16 25Summary of Interpersonal Communications. The pattern of
judgments regarding interpersonal communication is similar to that
regarding job performance. More than 90% of the respondents, both
participants and their supervisors, judged that there was no change in the
effectiveness of work-related interpersonal communication; of those
perceiving a change, significantly more saw an improvement as opposed to a
decline in communication effectiveness. QUALITY OF PERSONAL LIFE One of
the more popular categories of telecommuting benefits is the participant's
quality of life. We asked participants to rate the impact of Flexiplace on
various quality of life factors. Tables 11 and 12 reflect participant
responses in this area. TABLE 11 Participant Ratings of Flexiplace Impact
on Quality of Personal Life Issues; First Six Months of Flexiplace
(n=224)FactorTime for Family/ Personal LifeTime for Social/ Recreational
ActivityFlexibility of Dependent Care Options Physical HealthMental
HealthOverall Quality of Life Decline 2 2 0 0 1 2 Ratings (%) No Change 25
41 49 58 29 33 Improved 73 57 51 42 70 65TABLE 12 Participant Ratings of
Flexiplace Impact on Quality of Personal Life Issues; Final Six Months of
Flexiplace (n=115)Ratings (%)FactorTime for Family/ Personal LifeTime for
Social/Recreational ActivityFlexibility of Dependent Care OptionsPhysical
HealthMental HealthOverall Quality of Life Decline 1 1 0 3 1 0 No Change
22 33 88 53 27 23 Improved 77 66 12 44 72 77ummary of Quality of Personal
Life. Participants' responses indicate that Flexiplace has had a positive
impact on their quality of personal life. A substantial proportion of the
participants responded that there had been at least some improvement
attributable to the advent of Flexiplace (only 3% or fewer reported a
decline). This finding is particularly timely in view of the recent
national concern that American adults constantly feel pressed for time and
feel that this time pressure has adverse implications for their families
(Schor & Leete-Guy, 1992). QUALITY OF WORK LIFE Because much of the
change and readjustment required for Flexiplace participation is in the
work life area, the impact of Flexiplace on participant quality of work
life is very important. We asked participants and supervisors about an
array of work life issues that can be categorized as work environment
(alternative worksite), interpersonal relationships, and job content.
Tables 13 and 14 reflect the responses for these issues. TABLE 13 Ratings
of Flexiplace Impact (First Six Months) on Quality of Work Life Issues: As
Judged by Participants (P) (n=224) and Supervisors (S) (n=215)FactorWork
Environ.(P)Adequacy of EquipmentAdequacy of FurnishingsAdequacy of
SpaceWork-Related ComfortFreedom from DistractionHealth-Related
QualityAccess to materials/equipmentParticipant Relationships with
Supervisor (P)Supervisor (S)Co-Workers (P)Co-Workers (S)Sense of Belonging
to Org. (P)Job Content (P)Convenience for Meeting Job
RequirementsChallenge of Work AssignmentsChances of Fulfilling Career
Decline 25 7 4 1 1 0 37 4 3 5 4 9623Ratings (%)No
Change465852302234507373807870466860Improved293544697766132324151821483037TABLE
14 Ratings of Flexiplace Impact (Final Six Months) on Quality of Work Life
Issues: As Judged by Participants (P) (n=115) and Supervisors (S)
(n=102)FactorWork Environ. (P)Adequacy of EquipmentAdequacy of
FurnishingsAdequacy of SpaceWork-Related Co change in dependent care
costs. Approximately one-third of the participants, however, experienced
increased home maintenance (probably for utilities) costs due to
participating in Flexiplace. In terms of an overall cost assessment, more
than half of the respondents indicated no change in job-related costs
while nearly a third reported a reduction. That there was no change in
dependent care costs appears to indicate that participants adhered to our
guidance that Flexiplace is not a direct substitute for child care. SICK
LEAVE USAGEResearch findings shared by members of the Telecommuting
Advisory Council have shown that flexible workplace arrangements can
result in reduced usage of sick leave. Reduction in sick leave usage due
to Flexiplace participation would benefit both the participant and the
organization. An exact measure of sick leave usage, however, requires a
fairly involved study beyond the scope and resources of this evaluation.
One has to match comparable time periods and control for extenuating
circumstances such as unusual or extended illness. To obtain an
approximate measure, however, we asked participants to assess their
Flexiplace sick leave usage relative to pre-Flexiplace usage. Their
responses for 6/12 months respectively were as follows: Ø41%/45% indicated
their Flexiplace sick leave usage was generally lower than prior to
Flexiplace Ø45%/43% indicated no change in sick leave usage Ø12%/7% could
not determine and 2%/5% reported an increaseIf this finding is even close
to being accurate, organizations using Flexiplace could see a reduction in
operating costs as well as increased continuity of work flow (fewer work
stoppages due to employee illness). A public health benefit related to
this finding is that there would be a reduction of the impact of
contagious illnesses since there would be a reduction of employees
bringing such illnesses to the conventional office. TRANSPORTATION
IMPACTThe aforementioned research by members of the Telecommuting Advisory
Council has identified numerous environmental benefits attributed to the
use of alternative worksite arrangements. Most of these benefits are
related to the expected reduction of automobile use, especially during
rush hours. As with sick leave, an extensive study beyond the scope of
this evaluation is required for an accurate reading on transportation
impact. The U.S. Department of Transportation is conducting such a study
(scheduled for completion in December, 1992). To obtain an approximate
assessment, however, we included some general transportation impact
questions in our participant survey. Tables 17 and 18 present the primary
findings from responses to these questions. TABLE 17Impact of Flexiplace
(First Six Months) on Participant Overall Usage of One or More vehicles
(cars, vans, light trucks) (n=224) Ratings (%)FactorDuring Rush
HoursDuring Non-Rush Hours Substantial Reduction 44 18 Minor Reduction 35
18 No Change 20 60 Increases 1 4TABLE 18Impact of Flexiplace (Final Six
Months) on Participant Overall Usage of One or More Vehicles (cars, vans,
light trucks) (n=115) Ratings (%)FactorDuring Rush HoursDuring Non-Rush
Hours Substantial Reduction 53 25 Minor Reduction 29 10 No Change 17 60
Increases 1 5Summary of Transportation Impact. The Flexiplace
transportation impact responses showed that more than three-fourths of the
participants reduced their vehicle usage during rush hours; more than
one-third of the participants indicated reduced non-rush hour vehicle
usage. These reduced vehicle usage findings are consistent with the
earlier reported finding that Flexiplace participants experienced reduced
transportation costs as a result of Flexiplace participation. That
approximately half of the respondents reported substantial reductions in
their rush hour vehicle usage is a promising indication for our national
efforts to reduce air pollution, traffic congestion, and energy usage. A
recent point of focus for traffic researchers (Mokhtarian, 1991) is det
participants, more technical guidance on technological issues, more
flexibility in agency-specified procedures, and increased agency funding
for program operation (primarily for equipment for home use: computers,
modems, etc.). ORGANIZATIONAL COSTS OF FLEXIPLACEWe asked supervisors to
assess costs incurred by their organizations as a direct result of
Flexiplace activity. Specifically, we requested that supervisors provide
estimates of cost differences, if any, between what was spent during
Flexiplace participation and normal expenditures absent Flexiplace. We
provided the following categories of expense for their responses: Ø
Equipment Ø Furnishings Ø Training and Development Ø Mail/Shipping Ø
Maintenance/Repair Ø Premium Pay Ø Other ItemsWe also provided the
following cost response scale: A. $ 0 F. 1100-1400 B. 100-200 G. 1500-1900
C. 300-400 H. 2000-3000 D. 500-700 I. 4000-5000 E. 800-1000 J. 6000 or
moreA substantial majority of the supervisors (81% - first six months and
86% - final six months) reported spending less than $200 (total) on
equipment. The remaining supervisor responses on equipment costs were
spread evenly among the other cost levels. Regarding the other expense
categories, 90% or more of the supervisors indicated no additional expense
due to Flexiplace.The main cost finding was that more than 80% of the
supervisors reported no additional expense due to Flexiplace. This finding
may require further study since it may be indicative of under-funding
typical for new initiatives. Also, in the long run with an expanded and
broader spectrum of participants, there may be increased requirements for
equipment. It should be noted, however, that the future is likely to bring
increased expenditures for new equipment at conventional worksites as
well. Such increased requirements may lead to Flexiplace operating costs
which are higher than those currently experienced. On the other hand, we
anticipate long run reductions in facility costs with expanded utilization
of Flexiplace. The ability of agencies to implement successful Flexiplace
pilots with minimal funding, however, is a strong indication of the
applicability of Flexiplace to diverse organizations. OVERALL REACTIONS TO
FLEXIPLACETo assess the overall reaction of participants and supervisors
to Flexiplace, we asked both groups to indicate the desirability of
Flexiplace. We asked them to base their responses on an overall
consideration of all relevant factors. Participants responded as follows:
Six months (n=224)/Twelve months (n=115) Ø 68%/72% Very desirable, as is Ø
22%/17% With some modification, very desirable Ø 5%/10% Desirable, as is Ø
4%/ 1% With some modification, desirable Ø 1%/ 0% OtherFrom supervisors,
we requested opinions on the desirability of further implementation of
Flexiplace. Responses were as follows: Six months (n=62)/Twelve months
(n=49) Ø 40%/54% Desirable, as is Ø 39%/26% Desirable with minimal
refinement Ø 5%/ 6% Desirable with substantial refinement Ø 9%/10%
Undesirable Ø 7% 4% OtherSummary of Overall Reactions. Considering all
issues, more than three-fourths(79% after 6 months; 80% after 12 months)
of the supervisors and nearly all (99% after 6 months; 100% after 12
months) of the participants judged Flexiplace to be a desirable option
requiring, at most, minimal refinement.
FOCUS GROUP FINDINGSThe following findings are
based on content review and consolidation of the focus group reports. From
an analysis standpoint, the primary themes evident in focus group
discussions of Flexiplace experiences appear to be consistent across
agencies. We have categorized our analysis of the focus group information
into three areas: positive aspects, negative aspects, and general
observations.
POSITIVE ASPECTSPARTICIPANTS In general,
Flexiplace participants were very positive and enthusiastic about their
experience. The most commonly mentioned positive aspects of participation
were: days per week allowed by their agency was too few for effective
utilization of the program. SUPERVISOR BEHAVIOR Some participants
expressed an initial concern that their supervisors were too anxious,
rigid, and controlling and that, in some cases, supervisors expected
increases in participant job performance on their Flexiplace days. WORKING
MORE THAN NORMAL HOURS Participants reported working more than their
normal tours of duty on their Flexiplace days. Fair Labor Standards
ramifications of Flexiplace and working more than normal tours of duty are
covered in the operating guidelines.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONSØParticipants and
supervisors stated that adequate regular planning and preparation on their
part were important for successful completion of job assignments while in
Flexiplace.ØAfter the initial two-to-three sessions, the involvement,
vitality, and usefulness of the focus groups appeared to
diminish.ØParticipating organizations appeared to resolve most adjustment
problems (supervisor and co-worker sensitivity, scheduling issues, etc.)
in two-to-three months.
SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP FINDINGSThe focus
group reports provided an evaluation perspective different from that of
survey questionnaires and, therefore, served to clarify and/or add to the
material obtained from the survey. The focus group findings that were
positive tended to mirror findings from the survey material. The negative
findings were mostly issues surrounding organizational adjustment to
Flexiplace, such as obtaining equipment, adjusting co-worker
relationships, and establishing schedules. These findings provided us with
additional information that should be included in our guidelines for
participating organizations. Our general observations tended to
corroborate the finding that issues associated with organizational
adjustment to Flexiplace represent the primary areas of difficulty for
Flexiplace operation. There appears, however, to be about a two to three
month period in which organizations resolve or begin to resolve these
issues. Likewise, the usefulness of focus groups appears to begin to
diminish after three months.
FLEXIPLACE MANAGEMENT TEAM
OBSERVATIONSThe FMT has made some evaluation
observations which do not appear elsewhere in our data.
AGENCY MANAGEMENT RESPONSEFrom our
viewpoint, the most difficult and challenging aspect of this whole project
is to encourage management to see the benefits of participating in the
Flexiplace program. We base this assertion on information received from
agency coordinators, Flexiplace focus groups, personnel directors, the
"Survey of Federal Employees", public and private sector research
findings, and from our own experience implementing Flexiplace. It appears
that management reluctance is caused by anxiety over change, fear of loss
of control, fear of union involvement, negative attitudes toward
subordinates, and/or general inertia. In addition to hindering efforts to
establish Flexiplace pilots, management reluctance also hindered efforts
to disseminate Flexiplace information to Federal employees. Reluctant
managers were unmoved by information on the numerous benefits and success
stories associated with private sector and State/local government
telecommuting programs. However, they appeared to benefit from small
meetings conducted by Flexiplace coordinators who addressed the managers'
concerns. They were also responsive to information on the experiences of
similar Federal organizations already participating (including
testimonials from participants and supervisors), to mandates from top
management, and to organizational contingencies (such as loss of workspace
or serious illness of valued employees). While we have focused on
management reluctance, it is important to note that we received a
substantial amount of management support and cooperation without which we
could not have conducted this program successfully. Also, now that the
Flexiplace program has a successful track record in the
hiring/training/adjustment of new employees. Employee enthusiasm for the
program may also improve the organization's ability to recruit quality
employees. Recruiting quality employees means maintaining/improving
overall organizational productivity. While the size and newness of the
project prevent us from making a direct and meaningful assessment of
Flexiplace impact on recruiting and retention, we have information which
indirectly bears on this issue.
RECRUITINGAfter information on
Flexiplace appeared in various media, we began to receive a continuing
flow of resumes, phone calls, and written requests seeking Flexiplace
jobs. Many of these requests come from individuals currently employed in
the private sector or in state/local government organizations. We also
receive such requests from disabled individuals as well as advocacy groups
for disabled employees.
RETENTIONThe "Survey of Federal
Employees" discussed in the preceding section included items which,
indirectly, bear on Flexiplace and retention. When asked about Flexiplace
participation, 950 of the 32,000 respondents indicated that they were
participants. When asked about plans for seeking a new job, significantly
(chi-square=45.8, p<.01) more of the Flexiplace respondents (59%) than
non-Flexiplace respondents (48%) answered 'no'. Also, significantly more
(chi-square=38.9, p<.01) of the Flexiplace respondents (64%) than
non-Flexiplace respondents (54%) agreed that the Federal Government is a
great place to work. Care must be exercised in interpreting and applying
these responses; they may be subject to pre-selection bias and/or to
erroneous indication of Flexiplace participation.
SUMMARY OF RECRUITING AND RETENTIONWhile
the newness and limited size of the Flexiplace project prevented us from
assessing its impact on recruiting and retention, anecdotal and
indirectly-related information suggests that Flexiplace may have a
positive impact in this area.
ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT ISSUESIn this
section, we will focus on the additional management issues of oversight,
costs, communication/access, and general pitfalls. These are difficult
issues and, while available data are informative, they will not support
definitive conclusions in these areas. When utilization of Flexiplace has
been sufficiently expanded, these issues will provide excellent research
topics.
OVERSIGHT OF EMPLOYEESOne of the most
commonly discussed management concerns is oversight of Flexiplace
employees, effective oversight systems, and types of work that are
amenable to such oversight. Our response is that managers should manage by
results, that is, they should focus their oversight on the work produced
by the employee as opposed to directly overseeing the employee. Utilizing
such results, the manager can certify time and attendance in a legally
approved manner. Conceptually speaking, the application of management by
results is a straightforward process with production-oriented jobs in
which employee output is countable over relatively short periods of time
(claims processed per day, e.g.) For jobs that are not
production-oriented, regular use of substantive progress reporting is
recommended. Employees in both types of jobs participated in the pilot.
Most of the participants, however, were in non-production-oriented jobs.
While our data does not confirm actual use of management by results, we
found no indication of supervisor problems managing Flexiplace employees.
Finally, we do not recommend the use of automated monitoring systems to
track Flexiplace employee performance (see pitfalls).
COSTSDue to the highly variable nature
of the relevant factors and to the difficulty of quantifying many of them
(morale, e.g.), it is not practical, currently, to venture a meaningful
judgement of Flexiplace cost-effectiveness. Supervisor responses to the
Flexiplace surveys indicate that Flexiplace program costs are highly
variable and gene ingredient in establishing agency policies. Rigidity, on
the other hand, can ruin the experience for participating organizations.
•Allowing problem employees in the program. Unless there is a careful
diagnosis indicating that flexiplace is a specific remedy, problem
employees will remain problems in the program and jeopardize the program
for others. •Allowing employees in the program without adequate Flexiplace
training (orientation). Employees and their supervisors need to understand
the relevant policies, procedures, and other factors associated with
successful operation of Flexiplace. Without such understanding,
unnecessary problems can occur which put a strain on the operation of the
program. •Not informing and working with unions in a timely manner.
Agencies planning to allow union represented employees in the program
should follow our guidelines for including unions in the process as early
as possible in the planning stages. Unions perceiving they have been
bypassed or caught off-guard are not likely to respond favorably to the
implementation effort. •Starting the programs without proper planning and
preparation. Supervisors should not begin the program until they have
worked out operating procedures, expectations, schedules, lines of
communication, etc. with both participants and non-participants. Premature
start-up places unnecessary strain on an organization which is already
trying to adjust to a new circumstance. •Coercing managers to participate.
Agencies should avoid coercing unwilling managers to allow their
subordinates to participate. This leads to serious problems with
employee/manager relationships and sometimes to management reactions which
stifle and/or endanger the program.
•Automated monitoring of employee
performance (monitoring an employee's key strokes and time on/off a
computer via electronic devices, e.g.). This should not be done. Such
monitoring has been shown to create stressful working conditions, is the
subject of proposed Congressional legislation banning such monitoring, and
is contrary to the management by results philosophy of Flexiplace.
•Allowing Flexiplace to inconvenience and/or unfairly burden
non-participating employees. Inadequate planning and preparation can lead
to this situation which causes both morale and job performance problems.
CONCLUSIONWe have reached a series of
conclusions based on findings from a broad range of sources: participants,
supervisors, unions, management team observations, and focus groups. These
findings covered a comprehensive range of issues and factors relevant to
Flexiplace. ØUsing measures in areas such as job performance, motivation,
quality of life, and costs, indications were that Flexiplace, using
employees with proven performance, was a success. This is not surprising
since the PCMI task force consolidated the designs of proven successful
telecommuting programs and refined the result to suit the Federal
environment. Due to their small project participation numbers, caution
should be exercised in generalizing our findings and conclusions to
younger, lower-graded employees. According to the findings, with minor
refinements in guidance materials and utilization with proven,
successfully performing employees, Flexiplace is ready for general
implementation in the Federal personnel management system.ØFlexiplace is a
significant and effective addition to Federal efforts to help employees
improve their quality of work and family lives and otherwise improve their
handling of work/family issues. Participating employees were very positive
about their Flexiplace experience. Their indications of improved
motivation toward work, quality of life, health and stress levels were
impressive. ØFrom a budgetary standpoint, Flexiplace proved to be a
versatile mechanism. Most participating organizations spent very little
money on their pilot programs. That some participants experienced declines
in access to materials and adequacy of equipment neither impaired job
performance reflected in our conclusions and recommendations. Also, one
might conclude that the results are biased because the participants and
their supervisors were volunteers who may have had positive expectations
of the Flexiplace experience and who may have been motivated by a desire
to ensure the success of the project. As with the pilot project,
participation in general (post-pilot) Flexiplace arrangements will be
voluntary and will be limited to employees with proven performance
records. Additionally, in both the pilot and general arrangements, the
participant is (will be) aware that decreased job performance will lead to
removal from the program. Thus, the resulting expectations of pilot and
general Flexiplace participants should be reasonably similar.
RECOMMENDATIONSHaving reviewed the
available information, our observations, and the immediate and long term
requirements for successful implementation, the FMT recommends the
following actions: 1. That the PCMI Ø Øendorse the concept of Flexiplace,
affirm that agencies have the authority to enter into Flexiplace
arrangements, yet alert agencies that Flexiplace is not appropriate in all
circumstances; Øpublicize the results of the Flexiplace Pilot (home-based
component) and take steps to increase Federal employee awareness of
Flexiplace; Øformally acknowledge agencies that participated in the pilot,
managers who volunteered their organizations, and participants themselves
for a job well done; Øexamine the utility of providing incentives for
managers who establish Flexiplace arrangements in their organizations;
Ørequest legislation that repeals the law prohibiting Federal agencies
from purchasing telephone equipment for employee residences; Øurge
organizations such as the National Capital Planning Commission, GSA, and
agency procurement offices to include Flexible workplace arrangements in
their Federal building planning and technology purchasing plans.2. That
OPM provide support and technical assistance to agencies establishing
Flexiplace arrangements; this support should include providing guidance in
the Federal Personnel Manual.3.That GSA publish guidance in the Federal
Information Resources Management Regulations on the use of computers and
telephones for Federal employees working in alternative worksites.
REFERENCESKelly, M. & Gordon, G.
(1986). Telecommuting. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.Mokhtarian, P. (1991) Telecommuting and travel. Transportation,
18(4).OSIS (Office of Systems Innovation and Simplification) (1992).
[Survey of Federal employees] U.S. Office of Personnel Management.Schor,
J. & Leete-Guy, L. (1992, February 17). Americans are working more
hours. Washington Post, p. A10.NOTE : APPENDICES A, B, C, AND D,
FLEXIPLACE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS EDITION OF THE
REPORT. APPENDIX E LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF FLEXIPLACE
GUIDELINES.
For Pilot Flexible Workplace Arrangements Flexiplace Focus
(newsletter) Guide For Coordinators Flexiplace Training Instructor's Guide
Flexiplace Training Participant's ManualGuide For Conducting Flexiplace
Focus Groups Flexiplace Questions and Answers Flexiplace Questions and
Answers on Computers and Telecommunications Issues Flexiplace
Self-Administered Training Manual
|