Acronym

Great post Steve. I worked for almost 2 1/2 years or as a remote employee for my last association. I was separated from the office by 1,500 miles and 3 time zones. It was still a successful arrangement, in my view, because I synched my hours with the 'home' office (5:30 start to my workday), and participated in frequent conference calls. I traveled back to the office a couple of times per year (though not for most of the first year, as I had a newborn at the time).

I honestly think it wouldn't have worked if I hadn't worked with most of my colleagues "in person" first. And I am a communicator - a sense of isolation was ultimately a big factor in my seeking other work.

Having said that, out here in ultra-hip Portland, where it seems every other person I know works from home (not me anymore, alas), there are office space solutions designed for just such workers, where one can go and work and be a bit social either by paying by the hour, or renting a more permanent 'share' of such a space. I imagine such workers even potentially brainstorm with other people totally outside their professions.

Shared workspaces like this may in the end be a great solution for a dispersed workforce, and may unleash a great deal of innovation we can't see coming at the moment.

I agree that shared workspace will increase in prevalence, in part from doing an industry study last year for an association regarding alternative workplace practices, and from personal experience. Lots of us who transitioned from association work to consulting talk about the balance of ultra-convenience with the relative isolation of having to do our brainstorming on the phone (if at all). I do know that starting my day yesterday at 3 a.m. to hit deadlines was not fun, but later as I could look out at the weather and the lines of traffic I could also feel very grateful for making the trade that I did moving to a home office.

As studies show, home offices have become so common in the corporate world that the trend creates its own momentum now--normal objections from an HR perspective fall by the wayside when there are more cases demonstrating that workers are responsible, efficient, etc. in the alternative setting. But it would be interesting to see how prevalent this is in associations. Including Betsy, I can think of perhaps 5 people out of 300 or 400 folks I still know reasonably well in the association world). I know when Kevin Mead of IGAF does his presentations on becoming virtual there is a lot of interest but little action.

Clearly the technology is there (and has been for some while) to do telecomuting and clearly it works for many people and organizations in a variety of circumstances; but the question I am grappling with is: will this always be a marginal activity for most organizations or is this an inexorable trend that will lead to business and association offices ceasing to exist as we know them?

The implications here are enormous for city centers, organizations and management structures, as well as pricing. For example, if an organization can find professional talent in India say for a fraction of the cost of what exists in the US...well, you know the rest. In fact this is already happening, so maybe I am answering my own question; but I do wonder whether there are any natural brakes that will slow this trend.

Virtual offices are getting more and more popular in this world of cost cutting efforts and internet capitalizations. What was once considered integral in a company’s business strata now is a bane to business because of their high costs and restrictive contracts. Many have turned to virtual offices for their office solutions as they pay only as much as they use.I think for small business owners these offices are like dream comes true.

I was once part of a small team of people responsible for merging two quite large organizations. One of the managers we were working with was slated to move his family from California to the East Coast to be part of the headquarters operations of the US firm. The only problem was the exact location of the headquarters had not been decided at that point! So I asked him how he chose where to look for the new house that he would have to buy. He said, "It was easy. I just found out where the president lived and chose the place closest to him!" This proved to be a wise decision, as the headquarters location--coincidentally of course--ended up being in the same town where the president already had his home!

Was this a cynical calculation on the part of this manager or just recognition of the facts of corporate life? The fact is not only do CEOs tend to live close to their place of work (or vice versa) but it is also true that the fast track to organizational advancement tends to be reserved for those people closest to headquarters. "Out of sight, out of mind," is more true than many would care to admit.

Do virtual offices wreck this truism, or have those who have chosen to go virtual consciously chosen to step off the corporate treadmill and the rewards that go with it?

Having a virtual AMC that is based essentially in my home office, I am naturally a proponent of the concept. My caveat is that you have to do this because it makes business sense not strictly as a cost saver. Our business model is to serve small relatively underfunded and emerging small associations who want to grow (and yes that may mean move onto larger AMCs or other models). This requires tapping technology, tapping business partners, and maintaining low overhead. So, the model works because it supports the business model.

What I'd like to see "change" is more acceptance of the model as a true business model and therefore not a eyebrow raiser: "oh, you work out of your home" translate really?

Thanks for starting the conversation!