Going Virtual, Going Green: A Manifesto

A clarion call on behalf of all businesses that have transitioned from brick-and-mortar to virtual offices:

Board up your office windows!
Smash your fax machine to bits!
Send everyone home early and tell them not to come back!

We are being ironic, of course, but only mildly. If even a fraction of conventional offices switched their operations to the web, we would have a happier workforce, more efficient economy, and greener environment. Some background:

My associate and I, co-founders of Knightsbridge Strategies, worked at a top-10 communications firm together until early this year. We were continually surprised and troubled to find our firm (and dozens of peer agencies) in a state of arrested development vis-a-vis the digital age.

It was something akin to still using the Pony Express in the 1960s. Sure, the powers-that-be knew that the Internet existed. They even used it to check email and send funny videos to friends. But the real liberating power of digital technology was lost on these otherwise-savvy movers. We vowed to, if not reinvent the wheel, take a few steps back and give the industry a close look.

What we found was that 95% of what we were doing as an agency could be done from outside the office -- with much greater productivity and employee happiness (the two are, not surprisingly, inextricably intertwined). The remaining 5%? Face-to-face meetings. While vaunted for their supposed community-building power, we found these exercises to be largely time draining and ineffectual. They can be replaced by one of the abundant virtual meeting tools, and can happen via phone, online, or through web-based videoconferencing.

Now let's pause for a moment and offer a disclaimer. For some, there will never be a replacement for handshakes and "power lunches." And some people just really like wearing suits. For the rest of us, there is an understanding -- even an embrace -- that the digital realm has supplanted many aspects of the real one. While this may be worrisome when your little son is spending more time in Second Life than he is in First, it's positively refreshing when it comes to mitigating, or eliminating, hours spent in the American Workplace.

So that's what virtual firms can offer their employees -- cobble to pave their road to self-actualization. What can we offer our clients? As it turns out, quite a bit. First, a reduction of overhead (no office, no supplies) means we can pass the savings along to them. Second, quality. People perform better when they are outside the office, when they are judged on what they produce and not the manner in which they produce it. Third, we're not bounded by a talent pool that lives within a commuting radius. This allows virtual firms a level of diversity and employee caliber that is absolutely unparalleled. Our company, for example, has team members on four continents.

Fourth, in addition to providing outstanding traditional services, web-based firms fill the void that many conventional companies leave open: the digital realm. We understand interactive services and social media in a way that few traditional offices do. Clients now demand this expertise, and virtual firms deliver.

And what can we offer the environment? The results here are possibly most notable. In eliminating the physical office, virtual companies get rid of all the waste that goes along with it. Energy consumption is slashed--you only need enough power to run a computer and a desk lamp. Paper consumption becomes negligible. The least green virtual company bests even the greenest brick-and-mortar office any day of the week.

Then there is the commute. In synthesizing data from multiple government agencies, Kate Lister and Tom Harnish found that if companies made a collective push to encourage telecommuting whenever possible, the US would use 625 million fewer barrels of oil a year, cutting greenhouse emissions by 107 million tons of carbon dioxide. $43 billion would be saved on gas, and the average worker would have a full 26 extra days that would otherwise be spent commuting, not to mention $800 in his or her pocket.

Further, the health benefits -- individual and collective -- are enormous. Robust studies in Europe by the World Health Organization (WHO) shed some light on the extent of the pollution crisis. In 2005, WHO found that the average life expectancy of an EU resident is reduced by some 9 months due to airborne contaminants. In 2008 numbers, the associated health care costs are roughly 140 billion EUR, or $225 billion. The situation is arguably more dire stateside, and the harm and expense are both compounded by commuting-related stresses and highway accidents. Cutting highway miles by 154 billion in the US via virtual commuting would be a big step in the right direction.

Naysayers say that these costs are justified, that encouraging people to work from home discourages communal interaction and fraternization -- spontaneous water-cooler conversation and the like. They may be surprised to learn that many of the proponents of virtual offices are among the staunchest communitarians. We believe, however, in communities of choice -- that time spent in groups should take the form of leagues, book clubs, political and cultural organizations, and circles of friends. Perhaps most importantly, less time in the office means more time with family.

Coworkers will still naturally congregate in coffee shops, homes or even -- heaven forbid -- outdoors, where they can bang heads together in a pressure-free and comfortable environment where they make the rules.

For more of the many benefits on going virtual, check out this post:
http://blog.organizedwisdom.com/health/2008/06/20-benefits-of.html

We are, in short, hoping to document this trend as well as propagate it. Virtual offices are good for business owners, employees, clients, and -- not least of all -- the environment.

Comments

[BP1]

Excellent call to action, Jared. Thank you!

I've been a supporter of things like telecommuting and online collaboration since the early 1990s, and I'm surprised and disappointed that more companies aren't taking advantage of the benefits. I've had a 1+ hour commute each way to work for most of the last 10 years, and I can't count how many times I've thought about all the productive things I could have been doing if I weren't wasting two hours a day behind the wheel. Just for "fun" the other day, I figured out that based on a 40-hour work week, over the course of a year I spend 3 work-months (480 hours) driving back-and-forth to the office! That makes no sense!

Another sad irony: I used to run product marketing for one of the "abundant virtual meeting tools" you mention. Our company did well, using many of the same selling points; however, our CEO wanted to see every employee at their desk, every day. He forbade working from home! It just goes to show that old habits die hard.

Are there any web sites, resources, etc. that focus on companies that encourage working from home, or jobs for remote employees? I'm not talking about the "work from home, make big bucks!" kind of ads - rebate processing, customer service rep, survey taker, etc. - I'm talking about good professional jobs with companies that "get" what this article is talking about. I'd greatly appreciate any suggestions.

[Jared Seeger - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for your comment. It really is almost terrifying once you start to do the math. It's worth clarifying that those 26 days of commuting time per year are full days, not waking hours.

And that is really ironic about your former boss. I imagine the owner of a Prius with a bumper sticker saying "My Other Car is a Hummer."

You might want to check out Kate Lister and Tom Harnish's site, the aptly named Undress4Success.com. Mercifully, most of the job search engines nowadays have a box that you can check for telecommuting positions. I can't endorse it because I haven't used it, but there are also paid job search engines like FlexJobs that cater to professionals like yourself. As Lister and Harnish point out, 60% of the Fortune 500 now offer some sort of telecommuting arrangement, so things are getting better.

Good luck and keep me posted on your search.

[woodchips]

Telecommuting isn't for everyone, but there are a HUGE number of people for whom it is (or could be) an option. Implementing secure remote access isn't rocket science and collaboration via the internet is perfectly suitable for many, many workers. Just because it doesn't work for your particular environment doesn't mean that it wouldn't work for others and, in the aggregate, pay enormous dividends.

[KillTheMessenger]

Let's take a look at that oil saving piece. 635 million barrels. Sounds a lot, right? It's only 32 days worth of supply. A 10% effect, at most. With all stops pulled and probably impossible assumptions about how people collaborate.

In the real world we can save three times as much simply by raising fuel economy standards. We can save even more if we make suburbia into viable communities.

Sorry. I am not buying. Whatever works for a communications company, maybe, does not work the same once we are talking about actually productive businesses. Unless you are willing to move a three hundred thousand dollar electronics lab to this engineer's basement and replicas thereof to his forty or so colleagues, of course (at a cost of $12 million, maybe more). Maybe you want to communicate that idea to my boss and see how long it takes before he kicks you out?

[woodchips]

As noted in the article, the benefit goes well beyond the oil savings. Even so, a 10% effect is significant. In addition to the potential health and productivity gains, widespread adoption of virtual work environments would reduce highway congestion, and save money for both the employer and employee. Many companies could reduce or even eliminate the need for physical office space and thus the cost of leasing, heating, lighting and maintaining that space.

I agree that the move from urban living where mass transit is most effective to sprawling suburban development that requires more driving is an issue. Developers are now beginning to get the picture and planned communities that do not require driving for most daily activities are becoming more common.

Sorry it doesn't work for you, but just because it doesn't apply to everyone doesn't mean it shouldn't be used where appropriate. There is no magic bullet that will solve our energy problems, just lots of smaller things that when taken together will yield big improvements.

[KillTheMessenger]

I appreciate the idea but I don't see how it will work for A LOT of people. We are really at a stage of the problem where we need massive solutions that go way beyond 10%. Thirty years ago small nudges in the right direction would have done a lot. But that kind of benign environment is over. Now it's beginning to be all or nothing.

Having said that, I saw a really nice example yesterday: four people were ride sharing in a Prius. The driver dropped three employees off at a company next to mine and then took off to his own workplace. Now that is a solution that takes three cars and probably 70% of the energy consumed off the table.

I am not saying that will work for too many people, either, but it appears more flexible than working from home is. The next best thing to real public transportation systems like fast light rail systems which will take decades to build will be shuttle buses. They are vastly superior in consumption to single passenger cars and could bridge a lot of the distance between suburbs and business centers.

For everyone who can not rely on any form of public transportation and needs flexible scheduling, the one and only solution is a highly efficient car, hybrid, PHEV or, eventually EV. We are only taking baby steps into that direction and really need to speed measures up by an order of magnitude.

[Jared Seeger - Huffpost Blogger]

Kate Lister contacted me with a direct response to this comment. There may have been some technical issues in posting it to the site, so here is her message in full. I absolutely agree:

"First, while 625 million barrels of oil may only be a 32 day supply, it represents 80% of Persian Gulf imports. I do think that's a lot.

"Second, the assumptions are not impossible as suggested. They're based on peer reviewed research about the kinds of jobs that are right for telework and the amount of driving those workers typically do. Obviously not everyone holds a job that can be done remotely, that's why we assumed—based on other's research—that only 40% of the population would telecommute. That's a low estimate.

"What's more, studies have shown that a home office uses far less energy than a traditional office. We have not included those savings in our model.

"Companies have proven that the pros far outweigh the cons. As a result, over 60% of Fortune 500 companies now offer some level of telecommuting.

"The results of our research and a full list of pros and cons (with statistics to back them up) are available at http://undress4success.com/research. The interactive model we've posted there allows researchers to calculate the potential savings for every city in the country.

"The time has come to make our way to work the road less traveled." --Kate Lister, July 16, 2008

[woodchips]

Great post Jared. You echo my own thoughts almost exactly. The benefits of going virtual are many, though it does require businesses to change their way of thinking a bit. Many business execs still aren't comfortable with the idea of people working from home. Maybe they just feel as if they aren't in control if their minions aren't where they can peek over their shoulders.

That said, maybe the cost of commuting has gotten high enough to force the issue. Many, maybe most, office workers sit in their cubicles or offices all day long, communicating only via phone and email. Commuting wastes time and fuel, degrades the environment, contributes to climate change and increases congestion on the roads. Imagine how different things would look if every worker who could telecommute did so. The technology exists today. However, we need a concerted effort to expand broadband internet coverage to more areas. The US falls far short of many countries in the percentage of the population served.

To promote the move to virtual offices, reductions in carbon emissions realized by eliminating or reducing commuting should be rewarded in any future cap-and-trade schemes.

[KillTheMessenger]

This engineer happens to need a lab worth some $300,000. I share it with some forty other engineers. Can you explain to my boss how I am supposed to take that home?

[woodchips]

Sorry, I posted this above by mistake.

Telecommuting isn't for everyone, but there are a HUGE number of people for whom it is (or could be) an option. Implementing secure remote access isn't rocket science and collaboration via the internet is perfectly suitable for many, many workers. Just because it doesn't work for your particular environment doesn't mean that it wouldn't work for others and, in the aggregate, pay enormous dividends.