A group of Stanford University researchers wondered if allowing work to be done at home was really worth it to employers. Seeking real facts upon which to base a conclusion, they set up a field experiment using call center workers at a large Chinese travel agency.

Using odd or even birth dates, 255 volunteers were randomly assigned to "at home" or "in the office" work shifts for nine months. Their performance was monitored, and an overall evaluation was made at the end of the research period. Results showed that telecommuters were online for more minutes, took more calls per hour, and were less likely to quit. They also reported more positive moods and greater job satisfaction than did the office workers. Working at home also resulted in fewer break times while on shift and fewer days of sick leave.

When productivity gains, reduced training and hiring costs, and office rentals were tallied, the company calculated it saved $2,000 for every $3,000 spent on telecommuter salaries. And when the experiment was completed and workers were given the chance to switch groups if they wished, those that ended up in the telecommuter group became even more productive.

Do the Analysis - Support your analysis with peer-reviewed articles

What are your impressions of the experiment's findings? Does this study suggest that everyone should be given the option to work from home at least part of the time? What conditions might you set on the types of jobs and job holders that qualify for work from home? Is the evidence from this study good enough to make real-world decisions about the use of telecommuting?