In our tech-savvy world of today where working for companies remotely is common place, are there adverse implications? For the employees involved in this working remotely idea the benefits are obvious. They get to work for whomever they want from any possible location in this world (within reason and of course internet connectivity) but what about the affect of those employees working remotely on the employees who are actually in the offices working? What if the people who are working remotely are the upper management type of people? I’ve been involved in a company where the CEO of the company didn’t actually reside in the location of the company. Now I’m not talking about like where I live in comparison to where I work where lots of people would call pretty remote, I’m talking about different provinces and not ones that are located beside each other. In that previous scenario, the CEO would spend alot of his time travelling between where he lived (Ottawa) and where the office was (Halifax). Now aside from the time that he wasted over the years that he did this, but what about the cost to the company? I’m sure there were hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted just in his travel and lodging expenses, money that could have been better spent on paying to move him to Halifax.
What also concerned me about this guy and what has probably tainted my views on the topic in general is that this guy was kept in his previous environment where he had all of his past contacts. This was a double-edged sword in that some of those old contacts of his became our new customers but it also allowed him to stay in touch with and have things on the go, on the side, for himself. He never really gave up what he previously did before he was chosen to become the CEO of our company. To me this is a great conflict that no one should be put in to, especially someone in such a powerful position as he had with our company. Who’s interests was he actually presenting? Oh if anyone actually had the balls to ask him of course he’s going to state that he has the company’s interests in mind all of the time, but I don’t buy it. I believe there has to be a certain amount of commitment involved, and if the “executive” person is not willing to commit to moving close to the operation of the company, how, in my mind can they be trusted that they are always working with the companys best interests in mind? When it comes down to it, they can’t as far as i’m concerned.
At the executive level it comes down to the “ol’ boys network”. “Come work as a CEO for this new company for at least three years, if it doesn’t take off in that time, simply leave and don’t worry about it…just work from home, visit the company every so often to make an appearance, chalk up your expenses and have a good time”. There’s no consideration in that situation for the company itself, nor the dedicated employees who are there for the long term. They keep the investors happy for a few years, reporting to them as frequently as they deem necessary, then bale when it doesn’t look like things are going to work out as hoped. The net result is, instead of bringing the company to fruition, they bury it quicker than otherwise may have happened on its own by racking up expenses for their lack of commitment. I hope I’m not in the middle of such a thing happening again.