Remote Possibilities – Telecommuting, Emergency Preparedness, and the Contingency Call

Although it has not hit crisis status, despite the relatively routine designation by the CDC as a public health emergency, the arrival of swine flu provides a time-appropriate window to discuss the role of telecommuting in the event of a public (or for that matter, company-specific) emergency.

I agree that it's a bit far-fetched at this point, what if this virus hit pandemic-panic stage and schools and most non-essential places of business were temporarily closed? As a business owner, would you have a contingency plan that would allow full or partial productivity to occur? As an employee, would this mean going back to the office to find a war zone because of the piles that have accumulated? Would everything fall apart if normal operations ceased unexpectedly?

Emergencies ranging from the local and moderate to those that on a nationwide scale inevitably cause secondary crisis for business owners. Not only are they dealing with the personal implications of the crisis, they are worrying about how to get back on track when things blow over and in more drastic cases—how to rebuild.

Doesn’t having a sound telecommuting policy in place that employees understand and have used, if only for the purposes of experiment and trial make perfect sense?

Not all businesses operate in an environment that requires remaining open during a crisis, but many are faced with difficult decisions about whether or not they should. Certainly hospitals and medical treatment facilities would remain open to the public, but there are numerous sectors that would be forced to either shut down entirely or make a tough decision about telling their employees they had to be present even though there might be danger. Again, it all depends on the nature of the crisis, but where’s the harm in adopting a broad telecommuting policy that can be put into practice, even part-time, so that when disaster or danger is present, there are options outside of simply closing up shop or putting people at risk by having them brave whatever crisis looms?

As part of its broad initiative to expand telecommuting wherever possible, the federal government holds telework as a key to its continued operations in the event of crisis. “Telework is frequently cited as one of the key organizational tools for planning and operating during both short-term and long-term emergencies. Federal agencies have clearly recognized the importance of this connection. In 2007…forty-five percent of [government] agencies provided training addressing telework during emergencies/closures, up from 34 percent in 2006” (Telework.gov, 2008). Certainly some of these policies come in the wake of national threat-level emergency planning, but these policies also give the government more flexibility in non crisis-emergencies such as dangerous weather or widespread outbreaks of the flu, for instance.

The federal government under the Obama administration has slated broader telecommuting initiatives as critical to economic, workplace, and contingency-related success and has stated that they wish to serve as a model for private companies throughout the United States. Although I hope nothing ever happens to spark a live test of the system, it will be interesting to see how these telecommuting-related emergency preparedness pushes actually play out in the event of a national emergency. If the fed is serving as a model, one would hope that if government offices are closed for several days on end unexpectedly, they can still achieve top productivity levels.

Nearly all organizations already have some sort of contingency plan in place for when emergencies, which are more often than not weather-related, occur. Emergencies for snow, ice, fog, and other conditions are par for the course but due to the nature of many daily operations in several industries, closing down for the day entirely is a last resort. In an effort to mitigate potential losses, companies rarely close their doors and although they might be more lenient about late arrivals, need to have their employees on site—even if it requires braving dangerous roads to get there.

This sort of request to drive no matter the conditions, no matter the threat level for any other potential public emergency, is typical and few question it. Work is work. And you have to be there, no matter what, right? After all, it is your job and isn’t that what so often comes first or second when we make decisions?

The Contingency Call…

Businesses can devalue the environmental, worker satisfaction, and other legitimate claims that support a shift to remote working, but it’s hard to devalue the contingency plan / emergency preparedness angle.

When I worked on a the project that led to the creation of RemoteRevolution, I interviewed several business owners in industries where well over half of their employees could do at least 75% or more of their work off-site. There were always excuses to counter every reason I proffered about how it might be beneficial for all parties if they made the switch to at least some telecommuting and usually there were “sound” reasons they shot me down with in reply.

But when I brought up the issue of telecommuting as part of a contingency plan—part of an emergency preparedness system, the retort was not quite as quick as usual in coming.

That’s because it makes sense. Telecommuting whenever it’s possible for your employees makes perfect, rational sense. Especially in times of crisis. But it’s not as though you can jump right into it at the last moment and decide, mid-emergency, that you’re going to open up your databases for access in remote locations or allow your employees to suddenly take their work with them and do it remotely.