Historical Relapse, Telecommuting, and The Post-Industrial Revival of Cottage Industry

I know. Me and my titles, right?

Before you delve into this post, please take a moment and read an article by a man named Gord entitled “Don’t Think Recession, Think Resetting.” Come back when you’re done and let’s have a chat. 

I’ll wait.

Back already? Thanks for returning…

Interesting, wasn't it? And even, dare I say, hopeful--which is something that is only acceptable in these grim economic times when its tempered with a touch of the realistic and rational, which this is. As Gord states, “in the two most dramatic economic pull backs in the last two centuries, there was a corresponding seismic shift in how we worked and how and where lived. And after the pain of resetting, the world emerged and prospered for a significant period of time.” Indeed. Did that give you chills too?

Whether you want to call it intense optimism or crushing pessimism, I firmly believe that history is doomed to repeat itself. Perhaps the expression, which is always spoken using the word “doomed” is not being fair to the central idea though. Maybe the word “destined” is better, but even using such a relatively light word as that it opens up another can of metaphysical worms what with its close ties to fate and preordination. These questions aside, it is difficult to be unable to find at least some strong parallel between any given current event and a closely tied historical counterpart, whether in theme, action, or conclusion.

During this recession (or should I say complete economic meltdown) everyone is rushing to make parallels to the Great Depression and other times of severe economic crisis. What they look for are the ways in which the most dire elements of bad times are going to resurface in a similar, albeit more modern way. Everything you read about the issue is seeking to invoke a ghost of crisis past to warn of the horrors that lay around the corner. What is missing far too often, however, is a firm eye on what happened after the crisis—where are the commentaries about the new Reconstruction era?

To backtrack a little, the title of this blog is a rather unsubtle play on the historical consistencies between what is happening now and what happened during another significant shift in labor and social history—the mighty Industrial Revolution.

During said revolution, cottage industry, which had been the norm since the beginning of time, began to sink in the face wage labor. This (re)evolution created its own economy (the one we recognize) as an increasing number of workers left the home to seek formal wages in lieu of what previously consisted of a complex system local bartering arrangements over firm pay scales. And you’d better believe there was some serious growing pains. The period of adjustment following this drastic alteration in almost every aspect of work, home, and social life was long and arduous. Livelihoods were lost. Lives were even lost. It was a dirty, glorious, exhausting, unequal, humbling, bombastic clusterf**k.

But you know what? Once the growing pains ceased and people began to adjust, it righted itself. This is because w adapt. We evolve. We also devolve. But isn’t this what makes history compelling and so hard to wrench ourselves from when we think we’re in uncharted territories?

I am making the argument that the Remote Revolution will come with an incredible, migrane-inducing set of growing pains. These haven’t started since this movement is still technically in its infancy (and will be, in my opinion, until this becomes so mainstream Oprah does shows about it). More importantly, I am making the argument that the Remote Revolution will be similar to the Industrial Revolution, but in reverse. I do not mean we are going backwards when I say reverse, it is a forward-only action. What I mean is that workers will again return to their homes, that more flexible working scenarios will lead to better collaboration between workers (similar to the barter system with capital being knowledge and information rather than eggs and weaving) and that instead of focusing on industry and large-scale manufacturing, what I term as a “niche culture” will once again emerge—the same kind of niche culture that dominated the diverse cottage industries.

Thanks to @zirnhelt (no stranger to cottage industry himself) for the great recommendation to read that article.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Rural Broadband, and the Implications for the Future of Teleworking

One topic that will receive quite a bit of attention here (and I swear I’ll work on crafting less clunky headlines—bear with me) is general policy about telecommuting and telework-related issues. What is so striking about covering these topics is that they involve several diverse aspects across the policy spectrum. Sometimes, what might seem like a distanced news item can have an enormous impact on telecommuting and its viability for the future. Like, for instance, rural dwellers and economic recovery packages.

A current example of one of these “what does this have to do with telecommuting” issues is the initiative under the $7.2 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which despite the sound of it, actually presents some rather striking implications for expanding broadband access. This is big news for telecommuting because it means that it will add hundreds of thousands more workers to the roll of potential teleworkers, simply by providing access to what sponsors call “underserved” (and no, that’s not undeserved as I thought when I first read it) areas. These are the areas that most deserve the assistance to build, maintain, and further develop broadband infrastructure and include educational institutions, libraries and other public computing spots, and otherwise disadvantaged areas where broadband development is critical. While most of these are urban or suburban centers slated for better access, the meat of this bill not so much in this aspect, but rather it’s in what it provides for rural areas.

Those who follow news about telecommuting initiatives should make note of the rural broadband funding simply because it is incredibly important to the task of approaching a remote revolution. According to the spending package, 75% of the funding (which is 2.5 billion under the sub-branch of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program) has been dedicated to serve rural areas that have otherwise been left in the dark during the broadband sweep of the last decade. This is great news for otherwise disadvantaged rural areas for educational, health, and basic communications reasons and it opens up an entirely new segment of the population to new teleworking opportunities.

As it stands, companies in smaller towns with employees who live in even smaller, more rural towns might not be able to introduce a flexible work schedule or telecommuting program simply because their employees are one of the unserved areas in the United States. This lack of access, while keeping them out of touch with the rest of the world more generally, can hinder progress towards the main and sub-goals of the remote revolution (fewer cars on the road, better QT with the family, society structuring around the individual rather than corporate dedication, this list goes on…) and only furthers the excuses about why letting employees telecommute is “risky.”

But wait, you ask, how big is the population of rural dwellers that are without such access? Surely, you think, it must not be very large… Well, think again. While the FCC has been reluctant to spill any firm statistics (leaving us to go through all zip codes manually, this breakdown of wireless/broadband stats is quite enlightening).

All of those zip codes, lingering, waiting to join the rest of us. All of the people in those zip codes still drive to work—sometimes farther than the average commuter due to job availability. While I agree that there are far, far better reasons to promote full-coverage broadband access for drastically more important reasons, sustainability and the telecommuting issue are still worth considering as side matters.

While the new legislation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is powerful funding-wise, there have been other efforts that have achieved moderate levels of success, such as the Rural Development program, which started in 2000 and was run by the USDA (who are, allow me to remind you, the same people who do cattle inspections). While the new push for increased access under the 2009 is far better managed as it’s being handled by communications experts this time, time will tell how big of a difference this will make on the lives of rural dwellers and eventually, on telecommuting.

Telecommuting and Urban Sprawl Revised : The Concept of Hybrid Space

Here’s a hypothetical question for you to consider: If 50% of the current workforce suddenly became teleworkers overnight, what is the first major long-term change you would expect to see over the course of say, for instance, two years? Less cars on the road? Sure. That’s a given… The rapid closure of a vast majority of Starbucks locations? Absolutely. But these are all issues related to how people live in a commuter society, not where they live. But did the idea about geographical choices for residences cross your mind?

If urban centers were no longer the primary destination of thousands of drivers, isn’t it natural to assume that residential choices would be based on less concrete, more lifestyle-based factors? And what would likely happen to our current system of suburban living as the standard? After all, one of the reasons why suburban culture emerged was to provide relatively easy access to the city with the comfort and presumed safety of non-urban life. Enter the concept of hybrid space…

One study from the Netherlands sponsored by the Urban and Regional Research Centre Utrecht (Muhammad, Ottens, and Jong, 2008) examined the concept of “hybrid space” and how, given a rise in the number of telecommuters, the concept of this new understanding of spatial geography might alter housing patterns and preferences.

The authors of the study discussed here (originally from the Dutch version of the Journal of Economic and Social Geography) define this hybrid space as being a consequence of the development and mass integration of communications technologies that “facilitate people’s access to opportunities in virtual space (through telecommuting, teleshopping, e-learning, and so forth) along with access them in physical space. In other words, with an urban center no longer being the singular choice for employment, shopping, learning, and recreation since having such a physical location is becoming less necessary, hybrid space will combine the most desirable elements of both worlds.

The study from the Netherlands used a residential land use projection model based on predictions of the type of urban decentralization that is expected to occur due to a drastically lessened emphasis on proximity to urban centers for vital goods, services, and of course, employment. The model suggests that parallel to this rapid increase in the number of people telecommuting for work as well as spending more time using remote communication to shop, learn, and access goods and services that were only available in person at a physical location before mainstream use of the internet, a new process of urban sprawl will begin—albeit based on different motivating factors. The authors predict that “Attractive regions to live in at medium distances from large cities will in particular be confronted with new urban pressure of a sprawling nature” (Muhammad, Ottens, and Jong, 2008).

While urban sprawl certainly exists already in the form of suburbs, the new form of sprawl the authors anticipate is different in its very nature as easy proximity to the downtown area of the urban center is no longer the goal. Most suburban areas were built so that people would have relatively easy access into the heart of the urban center to work without having to live with the problems associated with urban life. Now, however, it will no longer be of the utmost importance to have fast transport from the suburban haven to the urban center—instead it will be a matter of relative distance.

This new generation of migrants is expected to consider it desirable to live outside of the suburbs, even moving into rural, uninhabited areas for the peace of country living but with the ability to travel to an urban area when such a trip becomes necessary. Since it might no longer be necessary for a large portion of employees to work anywhere but in their homes, living within relatively close distance (say 30-45 minutes) of an urban center will provide them with more options for physical shopping, entertainment, and culture, but the urban center will be no more than a location for leisure—not for conducting vital business.

At the risk of sounding like too much of a futurist at a historical juncture when a telecommuting revolution has yet to begin in earnest, if the concept of hybrid space and its implications for housing choices are correct, this might completely alter the entire notion of urban areas. Instead of being essential centers of business, industry, and services, with a substantial rise in telecommuting in the employment, shopping, and learning senses, cities might eventually become associated more as centers of entertainment and culture than of business and productivity.

With that said, it is not reasonable to predict that urban areas will die off completely or that they will not serve a vital function—people will always be required to work in physical locations and while downtown areas might fall into decay with large numbers of office vacancies, downtown, urban areas will never be obsolete. What might fall out of fashion, however, are the suburbs themselves as they are no longer the newer, desirable havens in easy distance to metropolitan centers and housing prices fall as the radius of sprawl extends.

And so, the sprawl saga continues, this time for different reasons. Is this a fair trade for the benefits, especially in larger ecological and environmental contexts—a necessary evil? Can it be prevented? Are researchers in the Netherlands just too “out there” to apply in this debate? They are, after all, notorious potheads.

Source: Muhammad, S., Ottens, H. F. L.,  & De Jong, T. (2008). Modeling the impact of telecommuting on future urbanization in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic & Social Geography), 99(2), 160-177.

Why Digital Natives Will Usher in the Remote Revolution

Twitter really has become my new search engine. I am not breaking up with you yet, Google, but I’m starting to stray.

This morning, in an effort to understand what people of all ages thought about the term “digital native” I ran a search and found that there is a popular test geared toward identifying whether someone is a digital native. The results, at least from my very non-empirical survey of respondents who tweeted their scores, was around 65% with people who looked above 35 (judging from a profile picture—this is so not real science) remarking on how they were “dinosaurs” with laughably low scores and young people delighted, but passively proclaiming their scores as if they knew they’d be at the winning end of the spectrum before even taking it. There were no surprises. The informal survey of results verified what we all know is true. Young people, digital natives, understand technology and are far more proficient at using it. Earth shattering, no?

When I first heard the term “digital natives” it made complete sense, even without a full description. Even without having an idea about the host of complex issues that were connected with such a generational moniker. Aside from being far more interesting and specific than Generation X (which is about as generic as you can get generation-descriptor-wise) I found that digital natives, at least according to the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard have a unique worldview that has been shaped by instant access to computer culture. Even more interesting are the stream of studies, one of which was produced through UCLA by Gary Small (as noted in the incredible book iBrain--a must read) that examine how neural pathways of digital natives are actually quite a bit different than those of non-internet users. 

It's becoming clear--digital natives are actually posses a higher capacity to filter, consider, and make use of digital information. The author of iBrain and other similar studies are careful to make sure we're not confusing this with a process similar to rapid evolution. After all, these are new neural pathways that are the result of "practice" and use rather than biological processes, but nonetheless, this marks an important division between the new worker (the digital native) and the less tech-savvy non-native.

The main difference, at least as far as it is concerned for this post, is that digital natives have the capacity to use information and technology more effectively as it's literally like second nature. What better group to serve as mouthpieces for the remote revolution? Who understands it better and with such optimism? Certainly not a middle-aged middle manager whose experiences have not allowed for non-traditional uses of technology to simulate real working enviornments.

Demands for telecommuting are expected to continue to rise as a new generation, one dubbed as being digital natives, begins to trickle into the workforce—something that’s already happening. This generation of digital natives understands the inherent value of technology (even if it’s not always used to the most productive ends) and will be likely be far more capable of “handling” remote work simply because of an increased ability to multitask. In a 2009 article, researcher Anne Caputo suggested, “To this new work force, digital is second nature, and they are likely to approach multitasking, telecommuting, risk-taking, time-shifting, and virtual relationships much differently than earlier generations.”

With this in mind, it only seems naturally to push the burden of promoting the multifaceted value of telecommuting to those digital natives—those who have the confidence, knowledge, and experience to back up their claims about being able to work remotely. As it has been mentioned before on this blog and will continue to be addressed, the single greatest hindrance for the remote revolution is simply tradition. With an influx of highly skilled information-ready workers who can present a compelling case for telecommuting, resistance will become increasingly difficult.

With middle-aged and Baby Boomer workers retaining the majority of managerial positions and thus clinging tightly to what have become rather un-modern ways of working and understand what work means, it seems that a battle cry from a generation with specific understanding about how to work remotely using technology might resound far better than the scant intra-office debates fueled by claims of needing more “work life balance” or “flextime” will seem far less drastic for management. I am so sorry that was all one big long sentence, really, but this is an incredible thought. Once again, there is a youth population capable of a movement and while it may not be as revolutionary as burning bras in the streets, if successful, it promises so much for our future environment, communities, families, and relationship with our work within the context of these things.

Source

Caputo, Anne (2009).Making the complex simple : For better business reasons. Business Information Review. 26, 28-34.

Review of "Two Billion Cars" : A Difficult Message to Inspire Telecommuting

The desire for mobility is human nature. But transportation choices have global ramifications. There are limits to how many gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting vehicles the planet can accommodate. While we may have a vague notion that we’re on the wrong road, worldwide there’s no admission that dramatic changes must take root in the not-so-far-off future (7.)

Sperling and Gordon, the authors of a new book published by Oxford University Press, “Two Billion Cars” have quite a way words.

In their discussion of “the hegemony of a wasteful transportation monoculture” (10) all aspects of our increasingly reluctant attempts to cling, white-knuckled, to easy, affordable transportation in our own personal cars are questioned. From the automobile-based city and community planning to our daily shopping, working, and entertainment, all the way up to the ideologies supporting global oil and national automobile corporations—the authors are stating and restating what is becoming obvious to even the most casual, apathetic among us. Something has to give. Some sea change in how we’re doing things has to occur—and it has to happen now.

While there are hundreds of topics and subtopics related to the “answer” to the persistent problem of climate change, pollution, reliance on foreign oil, and all of the other nasty complementing issues addressed in “Two Billion Cars” there are no quick fixes. There are actually no slow-fixes for that matter—at least none that will come with the kind of dramatic change that’s necessary. The authors see that the only way to produce the kind of change that will serve to revolutionize the way we relate to our vehicles in our autocentric culture is to make gasoline completely unaffordable. Really. That is their solution.

There is actually nothing wrong with what they’re suggesting in “Two Billion Cars” and the case for this tough-to-stomach realization only makes good sense when put in the context of the boatloads of negative information about our impact due to driving—yes, just driving—they present. Gas needs to be expensive. Yes, it will very likely render our economy completely useless (or should I say more useless) but it’s temporary. And if the world follows suit, which it will probably have to after such a dramatic shift, they’ll recover as well. And we’ll all be better, stronger, cleaner, and more powerful as human beings because of it.

But I digress. And it’s all this book’s fault. It’s poetic, aggressive rambling has me in something of a mood and I think I’ll slap a name on that mood and call it determined. And saddened.

Here’s why:

There is a growing wealth of data to support the notion that last summer’s deadly gas prices had an effect that no other gas hike in history did. It made people stop driving—so much at least. The authors state, “According to theory, consumers become more responsive when high prices are sustained over a long time. In the short run, in the year or two after prices rise, consumers can most easily respond by carpooling, telecommuting occasionally, making fewer trips to the mall…” [and] these actions, taken together, can generate considerable oil savings” (160). While they go on in the same textual breath to talk about general ignorance when saving oil and energy, the fact remains that they are seeing telecommuting as something seemingly small but with the possibility to generate a huge return.

So there it is. Mainstream telecommuting will not happen until it’s all that anyone can (or will want to) afford. And isn’t that okay? I mean really, with all of the other problems unaffordable gasoline will create, isn’t this peanuts?

Do we really have such short memories? Do you remember hearing news stories about people in states with crappy job markets and high gas prices—people who couldn’t afford to drive to work any longer because doing so ate up something like 70% of their paycheck?

The real question after that becomes, what will these people do if they telecommute? Are there going to be telecommuting jobs for everyone? No. And that, my friend, is a nasty, sticky issue and not one I pretend to ignore.

So anyway, while “Two Billion Cars” does not mention much about telecommuting since it is more concerned with unraveling the tale about how we got here in the first place as consumers of oil, drivers of cars, goers-to of malls, livers-in of suburbs far from our workplaces. Still, there are hundreds of times I stopped at a sentence and savored it because of what it meant for the future of telecommuting and the arguments that can all too easily be used to support it. From an environmental perspective. From a city planning perspective. From a personal perspective.

There are thousands of books on the market, old and new, that have sought to build arguments in favor of the widescale shift to telecommuting but honestly, few have provided a more convincing basis while hardly ever addressing it as a meaningful side topic.

On an aesthetic level, it’s difficult to find anything but the most profound praise for the authors weaves grim, beautiful poetry out of the most stunning and bleak facts and figures. This book tackles massive, almost unfathomable world climate and air quality problems and reduces them to luxurious sentences and landscapes, suggesting that “the spreading hegemony of cars and the withering away of alternatives has resulted in the United States and increasingly elsewhere is not in low-density suburbs served almost exclusively by cars” (6).

The authors do not see mass transit as a viable alternative to the kind of dire environmental consequences we’re already facing—in an already-permanent way in some places. In their view, the level of energy consumption is too high for too few riders, a fact which they directly relate to our affluence.  Furthermore, while they see electric cars using advanced fuel cell technology as the clearest path, they also discuss at length how telecommuting can help change the “autocentric transport system pioneered in the United States” (4) and thereby completely change how we live and even where we live.

Due to their record levels of energy consumption as well as the research and development possibilities they represent as global superpowers, California and China are used as case studies throughout the book. While you might be chuckling at my inclusion of California as a world superpower on par with China, the authors, with the help of Arnold Schwarzenegger, do make a rather compelling case for opportunity. While it is a bit off topic for what my focus has been here, this book is worth reading for those simply wishing to infuse their current bitterness about either global behemoth with a rosier hue.

As this review of “Two Billion Cars” has skirted but will acknowledge fully now, this book offers plenty in the way of oil and automobile industry analysis that is worth understanding thoroughly to truly respect the kind of ingrained, socialized position we’re in. We don’t know life without our cars. Nothing about our life, especially in the United States is conducive to living without one. City planning, on-site working locations, proximity as a choice factor for businesses—all of these things have been based on our autocentric past but could change with enough of a push toward telecommuting.

This is such a good read. Not if you’re hanging out on the beach during a happy vacation or anything, but when it comes to the issue at hand, it’s worth your time.

Source : Sperling, Daniel. Gordon, Deborah. Schwarzenegger, Arnold. (2009). Two Billion Cars. Oxford University Press.

A Snarky Article Directed at Employers...

ComputerWorld is not one of the first places I usually go to when I'm researching the topic of telecommuting, which I suppose is odd considering that I just found one of the most well-written and hilarious articles on its very website this evening. 

If you're one of the many thousands wondering why we cannot achieve the Asimovian vision of world harmony through anti-human-contact or are an employer looking for great ways to cut costs in the most unethical ways possible, this article from writer Bob Lewis is for you. It's called "10 Sure Fire Ways to Kill Telecommuting" and it's one of the first recommended reads on this baby blog. Cheers, Mr. Lewis. 

The Remote Revolution : A New Paradigm for the Working World

* If you haven't already, please read this post that offers a working definition of the Remote Revolution*

Please allow me to begin by making a statement about what this blog will not do. It will not discuss the anecdotal stories of remote workers, will not tell you about the great things about working from the comfort of one's own home, and will talk about what kind of ergonomic office equipment you should buy. There are hundreds of blogs, some of them great, some of them a little scammy, that will do an excellent job of discussing the more practical issues for those who are already teleworkers. 

What you can expect here is a little different. This blog is about telecommuting theory and is far more research-based than personal or advice-laden in tone. This blog will be examining the core concepts that underlie a change in how we conceive the working world and how changes based on technological progress will alter (following a mass shift to telecommuting--a remtoe revolution) every aspect of our work and non-work-related lives. You would be surprised by all the issues that come into play, thus you can expect a discussion that crosses disciplines. Sociology, futurism, management, technology, history, literature--all of these areas of inquiry present valuable ideas that can be applied to this topic. 

So, quite simply, this blog is designed to relate pertinent information about one of the most important movements in modern working society—the telecommuting revolution or, as it’s known here, the remote revolution. 

Due to an influx of effective new technologies and a shift in the workforce in general (from production of goods to the information marketplace) the telecommuting movement that has been gaining momentum in recent years and is finally getting the credit it deserves in a changing world. More publications and academic branches are stepping outside of old boundaries and are giving this subject a great deal more face-time. Telecommuting is becoming a legitimate force in the working world and more companies than ever, if only to save money in key areas such as office rental costs and other fees associated with traditional business upkeep, are making the shift.

Remote work is within reach for many employees and in many cases, the only thing standing in the way is an ability for companies to trust that their workers will maintain the same level of proficiency and productivity when outside of the traditional on-site management paradigm. While there are a number of other complex issues that keep companies from permitting employees from making the jump to telecommuting that will be discussed here, the overarching problem—the biggest stumbling block—is simply tradition. While this blog will be objective in its approach to current research and analysis, a fact is a fact—this blog is certainly pro-telecommuting. The benefits are far too numerous to ignore or overlook but equal weight will be given to opposing arguments as they arise, if only to keep the topic alive, healthy, and with maximum public involvement.

For a long time, telecommuting was thought to be a luxury that only a few in very specific industries could enjoy but now, especially during this time of environmental and economic crisis, the tide is changing. More companies have looked beyond the traditional working arrangements and have found telecommuting to be a rewarding experience. While there certainly drawbacks to telecommuting that will be discussed here in the future as well, overall, this seems to have been a positive move for workers and employers alike—so what’s keeping us from restructuring our society to meet the challenges? Again, tradition.

Historically speaking, when tradition was the only thing preventing progress, what eventually happened? Well, a revolution, of course. And like most revolutions, this is starting with a few innovators who are not afraid to share their experiences, research, and insights so that something once thought to be applicable to a small segment of the population can be applied globally. There are thousands of companies blazing new trails in their experiments with telecommuting and academia is also producing challenging new visions and data sets that will be the source of commentary here.

Much of the emphasis of this blog will be dedicated to exploring contemporary research about telecommuting, thus you can look at RemoteRevolution as something of an ongoing literature review that takes complex ideas and relates them in a readable and succinct format. It will also be a springboard for discussion so be not afraid! Add your voice, opinions, experiences, and insights in the comments anytime.

If you have specific questions or need to contact this blog’s editor and main writer, Nicole, you can do so here. You’ll find that she’s quick to respond, especially since this is a topic that holds her interest and has since she first took a position as an independent researcher for a company that required extensive data on telecommuting experiences from other companies in its field. Since performing an analysis of over 150 sources (this was in 2004 when there was far less out there than there is now) she has remained interested in the topic and stays abreast on current research and by now, knows where to look.

Thank you so much for visiting. Hopefully you’ll check back regularly and contribute your thoughts on the host of issues that relate to the new working paradigm. We can learn from each about how to work. Differently.