Perin, C. (1991). "The moral fabric of the office: Panopticon Discourse and Schedule Flexibilities" in P. S. Tolbert and S. Barley. Organizations and Professions, Volume 8, Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press.

Though telecommuting seems to be compatible with views of professionals interest in autonomy and control over work conditions, the option isn't widespread and few people seem to choose it. A cultural analysis of this rejection reveals that social constructions of places and times of work are grounded in systems of meaning governing office presence, productivity, authority, and careers. The principle of continuous visibility, prevents the development of an alternative.

Employees believe that their continuous office presence is necessary for promotion; managers see it as being essential to supervision. Yet they characterize offices as places where it is difficult to be productive.

In 1985 only 12% of workers were on a flexible schedule. Telecommuting was in fact mainly used for overtime work -- bringing work home.

On one hand, there is a cultural divide between home and work. There are appropriate times and places for work, even though people don't feel that productive in the office. Managers distrust those at home they cannot see. They need factors like functionality, presence, and cues of work progress to assess performance. They also need visibility to reinforce authority patterns. Professionals also feel they need to be present to be promoted -- "out of sight, out of mind". Overtime work also needs to be visible. As the criteria for promotion becomes more vague as you move up, it becomes even more important to "be around".

"The salaried professional working at home during regular working hours represents the most extreme form of self-managment possible, and as such, is perceived as being organizationally less legitimated and, in that a disorganizing, negative, untrustworthy force.