A Working Definition of the Remote Revolution

Contemporary information and communications technologies (ICT) are presenting an unprecedented opportunity for workers and employers alike to dramatically alter the way they understand work and what it constitutes. These technologies present opportunities to help us work towards goals of sustainability and to overcome the numerous environmental, economic troubles we face due to an imbalance in consumption, production, innovation, and adaptation.

A dramatic alteration in traditional concepts of what work means for us (and to us) will only come when these technologies are utilized in a manner that will allow, on a personal level, for greater flexibility and balance. The results of such a revolution on a personal scale would also have clear, countless, and immediate environmental and social benefits.  In other words, for every positive outcome of the widespread, mainstream shift to remote work wherever it’s permissible, there will be a host of equally beneficial outcomes that branch out to cover every aspect of our lives.

While some changes will be immediate and mostly confined to the smaller scale, over time, a mass shift to remote work (whenever positions allow) will lead to far greater changes on the macro level. Much of the task in the writing you see here will be on discussing the potential impact of these changes. Sometimes that means playing futurist and sometimes it means being a researcher to see how innovative movements have played out when organizations, cities, or individuals have made steps toward these dramatic changes.

I make no apologies about my decided bias. I feel that telecommuting can save the world, I do. Does that sound like a wildly exaggerated claim to make? Does it really? How many cars are on the road at any given time in any developed nation because they are commuting, often long distances, to a job that could easily (and as many studies show—more productively) be handled without office space—at least part time?

And the idea of unnecessary cars on the road to commute to a job that could become remote with minimal effort or output? Well, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The widespread, mainstream shift to telecommuting--whenever it is possible within a position or task—promises changes that are so critical at this point in history, that stalling or making excuses about not adopting telecommuting when possible are simply dangerous. We are in an economic crisis. We are witnessing an environmental catastrophe. We are no longer conducting our lives in a way that is sustainable on this grand scale. It has to stop.

I firmly believe that we are on the cusp of a revolution akin to the Industrial Revolution, but in reverse. The Industrial Revolution caused a mass migration from the home; from the solid system of cottage industry and local bartering arrangements to the remote center of industry, which was so often in the middle of a larger city. It created and fed capitalism (which isn’t a bad thing—don’t peg me as a socialist yet) and it ushered in the idea of the suburban, the filth of the urban, the highly divided class system that has hitherto—and especially now—proved itself as unsustainable for long, unbroken stretches. For more about this, I encourage you to read this post about likenesses to the Industrial Revolution and the revival of cottage industry.

No, I am not saying it’s time for all of us to live Renaissance Fair style and start spinning yarn and selling cattle in the town square. That is utterly ridiculous. What I am saying is that we can have the same economy, the same basic set of jobs, the same level of forward-thinking technological and other progress, but without all of the commuting.

It is that simple.

This is not to suggest that it is going to be an easy transition—it will not be. While the instant effects of reduced costs for employers in real estate and operational costs will provide a needed boost for business, the cost cuts for employees in terms of transportation and other associated drops in cost will begin to create growing pains in the economy, in our cities, and in areas that were once centers of business and industry that relied on a steady influx of traffic from workers filtering in and out throughout the day. There are posts here (and many, many more to come) that will be objective in nature and will fairly present the problems associated with the shift—what I call “growing pains” for the period of economic, social, city, and other adjustments.

What is the Remote Revolution?

The Remote Revolution is defined and perpetuated by the contracting economy—a process that in itself is revolutionary because it represents a necessary downshift in unsustainable levels of consumption and waste.

The Remote Revolution is defined by its historical contingencies—mass awareness of environmental crisis, fuel concerns (and associated costs), a catching-up of poor city planning based on suburban living, a technological revolution that has exploded and allowed relatively affordable options to live without being tied to one’s physical workplace. In other words, the Remote Revolution is now more necessitated than overtly created.

The Remote Revolution is defined as a movement away from traditional, stagnant modes of work that emphasize and value the judgments of vast hierarchies of management as they observe and monitor perceived productivity.

The Remote Revolution is defined by its emphasis on humanity and family, thus it is devaluing the Protestant work ethic that propelled this country forward (or so grandpa always said) with long hours and a corporate culture that actively eschewed personal and family time.

The Remote Revolution encompasses concepts of worker autonomy, proactive environmental change, social and community restructuring, family and flexibility, sustainability in all areas…

It is going to change the world.