Telecommuting Case Study : Hewlett-Packard and Remote Risk
Remote Revolution
April 16, 2009
Employers who are slow to adopt flexible work schedules or full-time telecommuting
often have a list as long as your arm detailing the reasons why such a move just wouldn’t
be feasible. Since the “well, we just can’t trust our employees to work without direct
supervision” doesn’t stand up to the mountain of research that proves just the opposite,
the next safest reason they proffer has to do with risk.
This argument is a lot more compelling. When employees are sitting like good boys and
girls at their desks where they can be watched there is risk. There are standards. There are
safety and compliance issues. But what happens when they take their work home? When
they risk tripping over the cat on their way over to their Blackberry? Things do get
complicated.
Telecommuting poses some unique problems to employers in terms of “corporate risk
since employers are required by law to maintain a safe workplace for employees, even if
it is at home” (Banham, 1996). One of the pioneers of the remote revolution, HewlettPackard understood this and has proven, over the course of many, many years, that these
risks can just as easily managed with remote workers as for on-site workers. It just takes
understanding of a different set of standards and the willingness to forge ahead, even if
there’s no precedent.
As this telecommuting case study of Hewlett-Packard suggests, the company that led the
way in the tenuous move to limited teleworking situations, addressed some of the more
practical workers compensation concerns by looking at every possible angle of risk. That
is the reason why they are the subject of today’s super-post. And let me warn you, this
sucker is a little long.
One aspect of claim risk was that of ergonomics, especially as the increased use of
computers in the workplace was leading to a drastic rise in the number of cases of hand
and back problems. To seek mitigation of possible claims based on these issues, HewlettPackard instituted a number of innovative processes to help teleworking employees make
healthy home office decisions. For instance, all employees who were to become
telecommuters were given “solid ergonomic training” (Howard, 1998) and the company
also provided these employees with access to a “home-office furniture program, which
provides discounted, ergonomically certified furniture for those who work at home only
occasionally or a furniture allowance for those who work at home full time” (Howard,
1998). Both of these programs are incredibly generous on the face, but are actually
important measures to protect the company from possible claims in the future. Another
measure of protection comes in a related process of ergonomic assessment which
involves “a periodic photograph of the home-office arrangement, just to make sure there
wasn’t a major alteration that makes the station less than ergonomically sound” (Howard,
1998).
During the experimental period of the Hewlett-Packard telecommuting trial, company
officials and human resources managers examined the possibility of risk from all levels
and implemented a written agreement that all employees who were part of the initial
teleworking experiment were required to sign. During these initial experiments in the
early 1990s, Hewlett-Packard was able to refine their telecommuting agreement to
manage the host of complex issues inherent to the employee being at home during the
day--outside of a carefully managed and monitored situation. One of the most critical
issues that emerged involved general matters of time management and tracking and how
to assist and record the amount of time worked without traditional measurements. To
remedy the problem of not knowing how employees were managing their time, the
company created specific elements in their telework agreement that instituted flexible
policies that were of benefit to both the telecommuter and the organization. Important
elements of these agreements included, for example, measures for keeping track of an
assigned number of hours the employee was to be working and what those hours were on
a daily basis. The company made it clear to employees that they were not locked into a
rigid 9 to 5 schedule, however an important component of the agreement was that the
employee did need to set an exact schedule and follow through by working those hours at
the same pace he or she might do if committed to the office (Howard, 1998).
The time and tracking component of the Hewlett-Packards telecommuter agreement is
noteworthy because it directly addresses two of the most prominent concerns for
employers and employees alike—time and progress as well as circumstantial scheduling
potential. On the one hand, it grants employers some control over the nature of the
workday and allows for firm expectations to be set based on the stated schedule. The
benefits for the employee are in the area that is stated as being most important when
employees crave a teleworking situation—flexibility. In this model, the crucial aspect of
flexibility is retained for the employee while still allowing the employer some degree of
control over the time spent working. With such an arrangement, a telecommuting parent
could decide to take his child into a daycare center at 9:30, run errands and have
breakfast and do some general housework until 11:00 a.m. and then begin working at
11:30. In the agreement the employee makes with the company, he begins at the firmlyenforced time of 11:30 and works until he needs his wife arrives home after picking up
their child at 7:30. This is certainly not an ideal schedule for everyone, but given the
employee’s home situation (perhaps his wife works until 7:00) the flexibility makes life
far less stressful and more tailored to the unique circumstances of his family. The issue of
telecommuting workers with families, however, comes with its own set of concerns for
employers who are often worried about how the balance might be struck if the children
are present during the time work is to be completed.
One of the major provisions in the agreement Hewlett-Packard formed was that
teleworkers could not expect the new situation of being at home to mean that they could
pull children out of childcare situations and keep them at home in an effort to balance the
two duties. According to an assessment of the company’s stance, “telecommuting is not
supposed to be a substitute for dependent-care arrangements” (Howard, 1998). To
remedy this possible cause for concern, Jerry Cashman, who served as Hewlett-Packard’s
work and personal life manager during the experimental phase (and following the shift to
an even larger number of telecommuting employees) and the team handling the
agreement looked for policy solutions to help guide employees. Cashman stated that “a
telecommuter can work within the parameters if dependent care if provided inside the
home when the employee is working and the office is separated from the home-care
situation” (from interview Howard, 1998) and furthermore, that a home office would
have to be an area that was, in every respect, like the traditional office with quiet and
organized areas and not being used as a dual child-watching and working station. In other
words, by inserting this into the agreement, Hewlett-Packard was suggesting that
teleworkers could enjoy time with their families, but this had to be in an area outside of
the home office and outside of the hours set aside for work.
I should refresh here and mention that this is before widespread internet use with
sophisticated employee and monitoring tools. Risk management for telecommuters is a
matter of sense and understanding of what needs to be done but once employers get past
the initial hurdle of figuring out these standards, it should be cake, no?