What Do New Federal Pollution Regulations Mean for Remote Workers?
Recently the US Government pledged to reduce its carbon footprint by 13% in the next 10 years. This is more than simply another green measure, however. It has serious implications for all of us who work remotely or manage teams trying to function over time and distance. What does it mean for we mere mortals?
On the surface, it means the government is facing the same reality as all of us: try to reduce the amount of business travel , encourage working from home when possible and a LOT more webmeetings. As the largest growing segment of the workforce, though, what happens in Washington eventually means changes for the rest of the business world as well.
Understand, I am not one of those people who doesn't believe government can function well, or that people who work in government are somehow inferior to those in the private sector so I will avoid cheap shots or easy jokes (okay one, it was irresistible and you'll know it when you see it).
What are some of the implications of these changes?
- Telework for most companies means less investment in real estate and other fixed costs- will it do the same for the government? The budget implications in some ways are obvious- less travel on business means less carbon consumed and less money spent on travel. But there are plenty of implications beyond the obvious. For example, with more people working remotely will government offices gradually downsize and change how they are configured for efficiency, or will we be paying to heat underutilized empty space? Will we have fewer behemoth government offices and more local, accessible satellite offices which could further reduce costs and increase efficiency? This is a great opportunity to truly "reinvent government" if someone is willing to step up.
- How will performance be measured? As the fastest growing segment of the employed population, what happens in government on all levels quickly becomes a benchmark for private companies as well and HR policies are quickly studied, copied and, hopefully, improved upon. Because it's almost impossible to measure hours worked in a remote environment, the obvious choice (as it has been for private employers of choice) is to move to a performance based system, rather than simply "did they show up?". This will require an overhaul of current performance review standards and how employee effectiveness is managed. Are the various factors who will be involved in these discussions (mistrustful congressmen, defiant union reps, think tank wonks and consultants) really going to seriously address them or just posture for their constituencies?
- What about other HR issues? How will seniority and promotions be determined? Will there be true opportunities for remote workers or will working at the home office always put you in line for the better job. This question is not restricted to government work, but it will matter if we're really trying to put the best people in the right positions.
- Is there a plan in place to roll this out intelligently that includes new training and evaluation? If there's one thought scarier than the way most webinars are conducted, it's the thought of a government-run webinar. (Okay, there it was. I feel better). Seriously, these new innovations and ways of working are going to be judged in a number of ways. Obviously- does it save money? That will get all the headlines and time on C-SPAN. More important in the long run will be a more serious question: can people actually get their jobs done? Will we be able to get the services we demand? Will toxic dump sites get inspected, taxes collected and GI Loans processed? Studies in private industry say that it's possible,and the potential benefits are large but the results have been mixed so far. Will there be the training, evaluation and coaching it takes to roll out even a small technology initiative correctly when the scale is so gargantuan?
Read more