Reference no: EM13932863

e Economist nearly 20 years ago, "No right-thinking manager today would describe himself as a disciple of Taylor" (The Economist 1993, pp. 69) and yet, according to this year's article (The Economist 2012), managers today seem to apply a "faux" Taylorism, based on the visibility of office attendance, if not actual performance. The modern practice of telecommuting is a messy minefield of management concepts including, but not limited to organisational isomorphism, Weberian bureaucracy, Taylorism, Fayolism and the Human Relations School of management theory. Despite telecommuting's relative modernity, all these theories are relevant today.

According to the research quoted in The Economist (Elsbach & Cable 2012) corporate promotions are partially predicated on public presenteeism. This seems to indicate a breakdown of trust with regard to telecommuting. This disconnection is especially germane today: according to the latest research from the Telework Research Network (2012), the number of multiple-day telecommuting employees in the USA grew 73% from 2005 to 2011. 2.5% of the US workforce even considers the home their primary place of work. While those statistics may surprise, we should not forget that non-office working is not itself a new concept. As Handy points out (1995), working away from the office has happened for many years. Consider networks of travelling salespeople for example, whose jobs have become more "supervisable" thanks to technology, but whose core role of sale-closing has not changed.

Before commencing more detailed analysis, it is important to note that the increase in telecommuting is not driven just by employers or just by employees, but both. In the UK, the TUC has campaigned for greater entitlement to flexible working (TUC 2007), and research cited by Rafter (2009) indicates companies implementing home working accrue financial benefits beyond just saving office rents. Some benefits relate to increased worker satisfaction due to telecommuting (Belanger, 1999, Dubrin, 1991, and Norman, Collins, Conner, Martin & Rance, 1995, all cited in Golden & Veiga 2005). While Golden & Veiga (2005) state that the relationship between the two is not solely positive, nor a linear relationship, their general conclusion is that telecommuting is a positive phenomenon, which could explain why itse Economist nearly 20 years ago, "No right-thinking manager today would describe himself as a disciple of Taylor" (The Economist 1993, pp. 69) and yet, according to this year's article (The Economist 2012), managers today seem to apply a "faux" Taylorism, based on the visibility of office attendance, if not actual performance. The modern practice of telecommuting is a messy minefield of management concepts including, but not limited to organisational isomorphism, Weberian bureaucracy, Taylorism, Fayolism and the Human Relations School of management theory. Despite telecommuting's relative modernity, all these theories are relevant today.

According to the research quoted in The Economist (Elsbach & Cable 2012) corporate promotions are partially predicated on public presenteeism. This seems to indicate a breakdown of trust with regard to telecommuting. This disconnection is especially germane today: according to the latest research from the Telework Research Network (2012), the number of multiple-day telecommuting employees in the USA grew 73% from 2005 to 2011. 2.5% of the US workforce even considers the home their primary place of work. While those statistics may surprise, we should not forget that non-office working is not itself a new concept. As Handy points out (1995), working away from the office has happened for many years. Consider networks of travelling salespeople for example, whose jobs have become more "supervisable" thanks to technology, but whose core role of sale-closing has not changed.

Before commencing more detailed analysis, it is important to note that the increase in telecommuting is not driven just by employers or just by employees, but both. In the UK, the TUC has campaigned for greater entitlement to flexible working (TUC 2007), and research cited by Rafter (2009) indicates companies implementing home working accrue financial benefits beyond just saving office rents. Some benefits relate to increased worker satisfaction due to telecommuting (Belanger, 1999, Dubrin, 1991, and Norman, Collins, Conner, Martin & Rance, 1995, all cited in Golden & Veiga 2005). While Golden & Veiga (2005) state that the relationship between the two is not solely positive, nor a linear relationship, their general conclusion is that telecommuting is a positive phenomenon, which could explain why itse Economist nearly 20 years ago, "No right-thinking manager today would describe himself as a disciple of Taylor" (The Economist 1993, pp. 69) and yet, according to this year's article (The Economist 2012), managers today seem to apply a "faux" Taylorism, based on the visibility of office attendance, if not actual performance. The modern practice of telecommuting is a messy minefield of management concepts including, but not limited to organisational isomorphism, Weberian bureaucracy, Taylorism, Fayolism and the Human Relations School of management theory. Despite telecommuting's relative modernity, all these theories are relevant today.

According to the research quoted in The Economist (Elsbach & Cable 2012) corporate promotions are partially predicated on public presenteeism. This seems to indicate a breakdown of trust with regard to telecommuting. This disconnection is especially germane today: according to the latest research from the Telework Research Network (2012), the number of multiple-day telecommuting employees in the USA grew 73% from 2005 to 2011. 2.5% of the US workforce even considers the home their primary place of work. While those statistics may surprise, we should not forget that non-office working is not itself a new concept. As Handy points out (1995), working away from the office has happened for many years. Consider networks of travelling salespeople for example, whose jobs have become more "supervisable" thanks to technology, but whose core role of sale-closing has not changed.

Before commencing more detailed analysis, it is important to note that the increase in telecommuting is not driven just by employers or just by employees, but both. In the UK, the TUC has campaigned for greater entitlement to flexible working (TUC 2007), and research cited by Rafter (2009) indicates companies implementing home working accrue financial benefits beyond just saving office rents. Some benefits relate to increased worker satisfaction due to telecommuting (Belanger, 1999, Dubrin, 1991, and Norman, Collins, Conner, Martin & Rance, 1995, all cited in Golden & Veiga 2005). While Golden & Veiga (2005) state that the relationship between the two is not solely positive, nor a linear relationship, their general conclusion is that telecommuting is a positive phenomenon, which could explain why its A meeting of minds? The collision of Telecommuting, Trust and Taylorism popularity has increased, and which would suggest the Human Relations School were right to suggest greater worker freedoms.Despite the widespread support for, and benefits of, telecommuting, the article asks whether workers electingA meeting of minds? The collision of Telecommuting, Trust and Taylorism

Context of teleworking:

While Handy's assertion (1995) on the long history of non-office working has merits, it also appears clear that the rapid growth in remote working - and specifically telecommuting - is a function of a rapidly changing technical environment within which companies operate. The growth in remote working appears to validate DiMaggio and Powell's (2002, cited in Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, (2011)), work on Institutional Theory, and in particular what seems to be an ever increasing isomorphism amongst organisations (although further research would be required to determine across which organisational taxonomies this isomorphism spreads, i.e. intra-sector, or perhaps merely organisations of equivalent size). The increase in telecommuting also does not seem to fit neatly against merely one sub-set of isomorphism. Instead it combines normative (telecommuting is viewed generally as being positive by workers groups and company managements) and coercive isomorphism (increasing legislation on flexible working, such as the UK Employment Act of 2002). The normative and coercive elements also combine within an organisation - once one member of staff is granted the right to work from home one day a week to care for the children, other workforce members tend to expect the same and are legally justified in doing so.

Telecommuting's increasing popularity also appears to conform to mimetic isomorphism. One could speculate that the most successful firms have the largest technical resources and so were able to implement telecommuting first. Consequently, competitors may assume (rightly or wrongly) further success by the market leader is an actual function of telecommuting and so mimic its availability to their own workforce.

Is telecommuting anti-bureaucratic?

While non-office working may have a long history, modern telecommuting also seems to have additional features that relate varyingly to Weber's bureaucratic ideals. The most obvious disconnect is that with telecommuting, there is no clear separation between work life and personal life, even beyond that of the mere physical location. Even if the management ideal is that the same total hours get done but at a time that fits around the school run (henceA meeting of minds? The collision of Telecommuting, Trust and Taylorism the joke that Microsoft lets employees work any 18 hour shift they choose), the reality suggests home working allows for total crossover between work and private life. In the author's own experience, listening to Test cricket while writing essays can be executed simultaneously, albeit with a rather noticeable reduction in reliability of the latter. This would of course not be acceptable to Weber, who famously stated "No special proof is necessary to show that military discipline is the ideal model for the modern capitalist factory" (quoted in Clegg et al 2011, pp450).

Certain aspects of telecommuting, however, seem to relate rather well to Weber's theories(Weber 1948, cited in Clegg et al 2011), even though they might correlate less well in practice. The bureaucratic model could be said to be a rather dehumanised phenomenon, with its assignment of power to an office, rather than an individual. This is perhaps a little uncharitable, however, and it might be fairer to describe the organisational rationale at the functional level as being depersonalised (which is admittedly incongruous with thepotential importance of charisma at the organisation's head granting legitimacy and authority). It is possible to argue that moderntelecommuting actually fits rather neatly with Weber - what could de-emphasise personality more than removing an individual from the workplace and reducing the impact of personal communication and interaction to email?A meeting of minds? The collision of Telecommuting, Trust and Taylorism

Telecommuting and the measurement of performance

Within Weber's world, promotion and progression is achieved by seniority or by the attainment of sufficient skills to execute the office desired. This model explicitly excludes the importance of charisma and personality in the promotion process, but instead - and more so in the case of skill acquisition as promotion pathway - focuses on more quantitative aspects. If one believes that telecommuting is a means of de-emphasising the individual personality, this allow hypothesising that Weber would have approved of telecommuting as a means of stripping out the irrelevant ‘soft' qualities by zeroing in on the actual work done, or more specifically the competencies attained. This in turn fits with Taylor's views on the appropriate structure of organisations, which from an overall perspective focus on a quantifiable output, oft measured with a stopwatch (Taylor 1911, cited in Clegg et al 2011). Under this model, the telecommuter who achieves the greatest numerical output is the one who has performed ‘best.' The difference between Weber and Taylor comes at this point, however. Under Weber, it would be possible for the individual to be viewed as having achieved the necessary technical skills required for execution of the next office, and promotion would likely follow.

However, under Taylor, such an outcome would be more likely to be a validation that the right employee had been scientifically selected for the right role, and thus s/he should stay there. However, Elsbach & Cable's 2012 research suggests that in the modern world, neither Weber nor Taylor's outcomes would have been achieved, and instead, the promotion would have gone to whoever had stayed in the office longest.

Telecommuting as a potential own goal

There are two potential ironies when relating telecommuting to Mayo and the Human Relations School of management theory (as outlined in Clegg 2011, including citation of Mayo 1946). The first is that allowing flexible working practices corresponds perfectly with
the treatment of the workforce as individuals and not as executors of a task, and yet it also reduces some aspects of the informal social groups which Mayo held dear (Mayo 1946, in Clegg et al 2011). The full-time telecommuter has no physical water-cooler to chat at, orA meeting of minds? The collision of Telecommuting, Trust and Taylorism

colleagues to lunch with. However, the development of modern technology appears to replicate those important networks. The prevalence of private networks (company intranets, chat channels) seems to facilitate the formation of similar work-based social networks, enabling companionable social interaction despite physical remoteness. At the author's own employer, the company intranet has been redesigned along Facebook's lines to specifically allow for informal teams to function, social groups to form, andself-governance to have a hand in improving business efficiency and to build what Relja and Bandalovic (2008) refer to as ‘social glue.'

The second irony is that one can justify telecommuting on the basis of the Human Relations School, and yet it appears from Elsbach & Cable (2012) that the end effect is actually to reinforce the most Taylorist1 of ideals, i.e. stopwatch-based measurement, implying a lack of trust in the workforce. Under Mayo (1946, in Clegg et al 2011) and Follet (1941, in Clegg et al 2011), management trust of employees is shown by their greater involvement and the increase of workplace democracy via employee design of tasks and processes. This corresponds with the detail of telecommuting where faith in individuals - allowing flexible, broadly unsupervised working - is a prerequisite. On a broader level, for virtual teams to succeed, trust must also be present. Relja and Bandalovic's research (2008) concludes that "trust within the virtual working environment still represents the key element to a successful work Initially, telecommuting appears to fit well with the Human Relations School. An increased trust in individuals to set their own priorities, a heightened sense of democracy and greater autonomy should all reap the benefits alluded to by Mayo and Parker Follet. However, there are drawbacks even on a basic level, not least being that telecommuters appear to end up working longer hours than the office-based (Noonan & Glass, 2012). The perceived lack of trust within organisations also leads to altered (and not necessarily efficient) work behaviours such as sending very early or very late emails by telecommuters to superiors to signal
commitment and availability.

It also seems telecommuters are right to perceive trust as being absent. The findings cited in The Economist (2012) indicate despite the emergence of modern management theory and the promotion of greater democracy and workplace flexibility, the most important career progression decisions are still made on the basis of the number of hours, minutes and seconds one spends in the office, even if that face-time is spent face-booking. From the perspective of Facebook itself, neither Weber nor Taylor nor Follet would ‘like this.If companies abandon their HR Departments then HR policies become the responsibility of line managers. What are the incentives for line managers to implement HR policies especially when budgets are tight? You should also consider the implications of local
managerial autonomy across the organization as a whole 2500 words essay (excluding references), 60% of total mark

• You need to write an essay on the article given at your own group.