CONDUIT

A century of change...

I’m doing a presentation on the role employee engagement plays in driving adoption and utilization of new business practices at The Motivation Show in Chicago next month. And while the subject of change management can be serious for executives who’s careers are on the line, I thought I’d have some fun today looking at how far we as a society have come as a result of all those hundreds of thousands of things that have changed in our world over the least 100 years. 

This will boggle your mind, I know it did mine! The year is 1906. One hundred years ago. What a difference a century makes! Here are some of the U.S. statistics for that year.

In 1906 :

• The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.
• Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.
• A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost eleven dollars.
• There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles of paved roads.
• The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
• Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union.
• The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents per hour.
• The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year. A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian about $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.
• More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at home.
• Ninety percent of all U.S. doctors had no college education. 
• Sugar cost four cents a pound. Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen. Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.
• The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was only 30 people
• Two out of every 10 U.S. adults couldn't read or write.
• Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.
• Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least one full-time servant or domestic help.

Try to imagine what it may be like in another 100 years.

Get ready for an increasingly virtual world

Nearly 1 out of 2 people in the US work from home in some capacity. Over 16 million people in the US work from home and the popularity is increasing.  33% of people in the US work from home at least once a month (Source Dieringer Research Group, The Dieringer Research Group’s 2004 - 2005 American Interactive Consumer Survey). 

It’s no wonder many of today’s most cherished employees are also their family unit’s providers. We are talking about the ‘sandwich generation’—breadwinners often taking care of elderly parents and supporting grown children simultaneously. As these workers get pulled in multiple directions, making the work schedule fit with various life demands is not simply a luxury it’s a necessity.

The business question is; what’s the tradeoff? Do organizations that allow employees the flexibility to work in a home or virtual office environment concede a level of output or are virtual employees more productive? The other issue on the table is this; does working away from the traditional office (and coworkers) negatively impact the sense of shared mission and mutuality that plays such an important role in igniting a common culture and mission?   

While the data is still evolving early evidence suggests that virtual workers are actually more productive than those who do not have the option. A survey of almost 1,000 remote and mobile workers worldwide by Insight Express and SonicWALL found that 75% of telecommuting workers believe working remotely aids productivity and 60% of their managers agree with them.

But are virtual employees more emotionally and intellectually committed to the enterprise? Does a virtual work situation promote or deter the level of employee engagement? While there is no definitive data on this, we can make the assumption that any work condition that facilitates, rather than conflicts with the personal values, goals, requirements, real world responsibilities and personal aspirations of the employee will drive a higher sense of mutuality. In other words, if a worker sees his position in the firm as a personal means to an end, rather than a source of continuous personal conflict, he is much more likely to feel that the enterprise shares his values and goals.