I'm writing a feature story tentatively titled, "Why the Company You Want to Work For Won’t Hire Telecommuters." I'd like your input.
Plenty of businesses are interested in hiring only onsite staff. I want to explain the viewpoints behind such policies – and then, ideally, address what it would take for those organizations to hire telecommuters or remote workers.
So I’d like to hear from two types of respondents:
* Someone who has been in a hiring role at an organization where the job requisitions typically say, “Local candidates only, please.” (Whether or not you’re in agreement with the policy.)
* Someone who’s applied to a job that says, “on site only” and gotten a remote job despite that requirement.
If you applied to an “on-site only” job ad and got the gig anyway, there’s just one question: How’d you make that happen?
My questions are primarily for the people on the hiring side:
* Why does the person who does this job need to be on-site?
Please be specific. Give me examples of things that can only be done if she were in the office.
* Have you been in a position where you personally would be okay with an employee being a telecommuter, but a decision-maker deemed otherwise? How did you handle it?
* How has the policy affected your company’s ability to attract candidates?
* Have you hired someone for an in-the-office job, and later given permission for the individual to work from home? What happened to make the change okay?
* What would it take for the company to change the no-telecommuters policy, even if only for one specific position?
For example, “If a rock star in my field applied for the job, we’d do anything to get him to say Yes – including letting him work remotely.” But there can be many other answers, and I’d very much like to hear yours.
When I was at the office for a decade, 90% of the insight and productivity came from informal conversations in the hallway, lunches and things I overheard in passing. As a remote worker, nearly all communication is very deliberate so I am not exposed to those ad-hoc conversations. Everything is very deliberate: I receive an email, a text or a meeting. The net result is my personal career becomes very confined and stunted... I become that guy who does that one thing rather than a team-member who has an awareness of everything and the ability to jump in as needed.
Being remote also limits my upward mobility. Most of my promotions and moves were because I would walk back from a meeting with an executive and talk about what was discussed and express interest in taking ownership. These walk-and-talks are the only availability in an execs schedule. I tried to get time with an exec remotely and it was a full two months before I could get any time-- and since it was scheduled it wasn't ad-hoc and overly formal ("What would you like to discuss?").
So, in my judgement, remote workers are fine for very defined single tasks. For dynamic workers that move about the company and immerse themselves in lots of projects and want upward mobility, I can't recommend it.
I feel like my experience of being in office and remote at the same company gives me some unique perspective versus the people who join a company remotely and never fully appreciate what they are missing.