New ways of working and perceived productivity of
employees
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication
Master Thesis
Name: Fatma Okay Studentnr: 10846158
Supervisor: L.A. van Oortmerssen June 26, 2015
Acknowledgements
Hereby I present you my Master Thesis, which is the final step in order to conclude my master Corporate Communication. I have been through some ups and downs through this process, but I have managed to complete my thesis successfully. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people who aided and supported me to make this possible.
First of all, I would like to thank my parents and friends who have been a continuous source of support throughout my whole master. I would also like to thank my fiancé, who was my greatest source of support and cheered me up when I really needed it.
I would also like to say a special word of thanks to my supervisor Lise van Oortmerssen, who provided guidance and help and who was always willing to answer questions and to provide feedback. Also, many thanks for your kindness and understanding!
Abstract
This study adds to the research on New Ways of Working (NWW) and its effect on employees’ Perceived Productivity. Within the conceptual model, mediators and a moderator, namely, Work-Home interaction and ICT Support, were taken into consideration. A survey was conducted among 141 employees working in four different national and international organizations. The results revealed that Perceived Productivity increases while working according to the NWW principle. The moderator was divided into five sub-variable, Positive Work-Home interaction (WHI+), Negative Work-Home interaction (WHI-), Negative Home-Work interaction (HWI-), Positive Effect of Responsibility (ER+), Positive Effect of Family Activities (EFA+). For WHI+ a partial mediating effect between NWW and Perceived Productivity was revealed. Furthermore, for HWI- a fully mediating effect was revealed. The other moderators did not mediate the relation between NWW and Perceived Productivity. The same goes for the moderator ICT Support. These results underline the importance for organizations to pay attention to external factors, which affect employees’ Perceived Productivity.
Introduction
Nowadays, globalization, digitalization and individualization are some of the challenges, which organizations have to cope with. In the current, fast changing environment, the main focus for organizations is on the knowledge driven economy and information society. The ability to adapt to these changing circumstances is of key importance to businesses in order to survive and grow. To be able to be flexible, organizations have been searching for efficient ways to change the traditional way of physical work to a new way of working (NWW). Although there is no
universal definition of NWW (Baruch, 2001), the existing definitions describe the core of NWW as time and location free work, and unlimited access and connectivity through IT (Baane,
Houtkamp & Knotter, 2010; Mitchell, 1995; Negroponte, 1995; Van Breukelen, Makkenze & Waterreus, 2014).
More organizations are implementing NWW to reach business objectives, such as increased productivity, improved performance, need for autonomy and better work-life balance (Baruch, 2001). Literature also discusses potential drawbacks of NWW, such as a decrease of social cohesion, professional isolation and social isolation. (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Bijl, 2009).
As mentioned before, increased productivity is an expected outcome of the
implementation of NWW (Blok, Groenesteijn, Schelvis, & Vink, 2011). According to literature, an increase in productivity depends on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), on the people and tasks involved, and the structural managerial and cultural context in which the work gets done (Bailyn, 1989). This study will focus on the perceived productivity of employees, which aims to measure the extent of personal productivity in their own opinion. The provision of the right ICTs can help realizing higher levels of productivity (Blok et al., 2011). Positive
relations have been found between the use of ICT and NWW in past research (Black & Lynch, 2001; Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2003). It is of importance that the organization provides a supportive climate in order to make use of ICT and to solve problems. Therefore, it is interesting to see whether NWW leads to increased perceived productivity when considering ICT support instead of just ICT use.
Demands from home might influence the work environment of employees. This can be a changing factor in the relationship of NWW and perceived productivity. With respect to work-home interaction, some studies conclude that NWW has a beneficial effect on work-life balance (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Greenhaus and Powell, 2006). Other studies conclude that NWW has a negative effect on work-life balance (Hammer, Neal, Newson, Brockwood & Colton, 2005, Raghuram & Wiesenfeld, 2004). The aim of this study will be to clarify the effects of work-life dynamics, and how these affect perceived productivity.
Scientific relevance
Literature on NWW has comprehensively researched the different effects of NWW on
organizations. However, there is still not one agreed-upon conclusion about the effects of NWW on perceived productivity. Also, no study has been found which looked at the effect of ICT support on the relationship between NWW and perceived productivity. Most literature has focused on ICT use. Furthermore, the interaction between home and work and NWW has revealed different conclusions. Some studies have seen a rise in satisfaction levels (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007) while others report a rise in family conflict due to NWW (Hammer et al., 2005). A rise in satisfaction levels might increase productivity, yet a rise in family conflict might
decrease productivity. This study aims to thoroughly examine the effects of work-home interaction on perceived productivity when working according to NWW.
Research question
This study focuses on the relationship between NWW and perceived productivity. The main research question that will be answered in the current study is:
Theoretical background
New ways of working
In the current economic environment, New Ways of Working (NWW) has been a praised and popular organizational implementation for a lot of companies. The most important attributes of this approach are that employees are free to organize and structure their work in a flexible way. Working flexibly according to the NWW principle entails that employees can decide for
themselves when they work, where they work and via which communication medium they work (Baarne, Houtkamp, & Knotter, 2010). In literature these characteristics are generally referred to as schedule flexibility, telecommuting and smart-phone, e-mail and videoconferencing (Baarne et al., 2010). Bijl (2009) defined NWW as “a vision of making work more effective, efficient, but also more enjoyable for the organization and employees. This can be reached by giving
employees a central role, space and freedom (within certain boundaries) to decide how, where, when, and with who they want to work” (p.27).
The first characteristic of NWW, which is schedule flexibility, entails that the employee has autonomy in deciding what time he/she wants to work (Baarne et al., 2010). Thus, fixed working hours (e.g. working from 9 to 5) are not applicable anymore. The second characteristic, which is telecommuting, gives employees the freedom and autonomy to choose where they want to work. Instead of fixed office spaces, the employee is provided with plain office spaces, which are open and accessible for every employee (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008).
The term ‘telecommuting’ was first coined by Nilles (1975), who explained the
phenomenon as a strategy to solve organizational and social problems. It remained a quite general term still until Egan (1997) explained it as being an organizational strategy to decrease real-estate
costs, adhere to employees’ needs for a healthy work-life balance (Shamir & Salomon, 1985), and to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion by employees who are driving back and forth to work every day (Handy & Mokhtarian, 1995; Novaco, Kliewer, & Broquet, 1991).
Telecommuting in combination with schedule flexibility, is also referred to as flexible working, flexible working conditions and/or flexible arrangements.
The final characteristic is the facilitation of communication by new media technologies, such as e-mail, smartphones and videoconferences.
These three characteristics are the building blocks of new ways of working, in which the employee has the autonomy of deciding on time schedule and work place, while being supported by new media technologies. NWW has been implemented in the past few years by numerous organizations because they aim to benefit from this strategy in terms of employer productivity (Blok, Groenesteijn, Van den Berg, & Vink, 2011).
New ways of working and productivity
Flexibility is a crucial factor in comprehending work environments in this century. Having the autonomy to decide upon the time and space to work is thought to enhance the job quality of employees (Kelliher & Anderson, 2008). Flexible working enables employees to use their time more efficiently and gives them more control. In a research done by Haddock, Ziemba, and Lyness (2006), the results have shown that autonomy in deciding of the working times led to the ability to better keeping pace at work and to even finish additional work. The most important benefits and organization outcomes of NWW are productivity, organizational loyalty and belonging, job satisfaction and employee retention and attraction (Pinsonneault & Boisvert 2001). A lot of research has been done in the past, which noted an increase in productivity due to
new ways of working (Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Bélanger, 1999; Hartman, Stoner, & Arora, 1992; Eaton, 2003; Konrad & Mangel, 2000). In these studies, NWW is referred to as telework, meaning working remotely. There are also more recent studies looking at productivity and NWW, which found no effect on productivity (Hill, Hawkins & Miller, 2003; Bailey & Kurland, 2002) or a negative effect on productivity (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Van Echteld (2007) stated in his study that an increase of work through telework would be more likely to lead to a risk factor for health than to an increase in productivity. Furthermore, De Croon, Sluiter, Kujer & Frings-Dresen (2005) conclude that there is a lack of evidence that flexibility in work
environment will lead to increased productivity. To conclude, there is no clear conclusion on how productivity is affected by new ways of working. There is still need for in-depth research about this aspect of new ways of working.
According to a literature review done by van der Voordt (2013) on real estate, facility management, business administration and environment psychology there are five ways of
measuring productivity, which are; actual labour productivity, perceived productivity, amount of time spent, absenteeism due to illness and indirect indicators. Actual labour productivity entails the actual amount of time an employee spends on finishing his/her task. Examples might be, the number of outbound calls a salesman makes per day or the number of social media messages a marketing employee sends out per day. Perceived productivity is the opinion of the employee about being productive. Absenteeism due to illness is a form of non-productivity whereby the employee is not able to spend any time on work and work related issues. Finally, there are the indirect indicators of productivity. Some questions that Van der Voordt (2013) poses about this type of productivity are “To what extent can people concentrate properly, or are they actually distracted? How quickly can employees solve a problem or supplement a lack of knowledge
through interaction with colleagues?”
For this research, perceived productivity of employees will be used as the outcome variable. In order to analyse this, the following hypothesis has been formulated:
H1: New ways of working has a positive effect on the perceived productivity of the employee.
New ways of working and work-home interaction.
Quite a few studies indicate benefits of flexible working when considering work-home interaction, which is also referred to as work-life balance. Wagena and Geurts (2000) have
defined work-home interaction as a process in which “the possibilities to act (and the behavior) of a person in one domain are influenced by the (quantitative and qualitative) task demands from the other domain”. Gajendran and Harrison (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 42 studies wherein they found that flexible working arrangements among others, lead to lower work-family conflict as well as satisfaction. Hartman et al. (1992) suggest that higher job satisfaction through flexible work will eventually lead to life satisfaction. They explain this by stating that flexibility in scheduling time and work place will cause employees to pursue family and non-work interest more. However, in a qualitative study done by Hill, Hawkens and Miller (1996), the results showed the telecommuters (or flexible workers) experience more work-family interference. These interferences led to increased levels of stress. The family-life boundary in this case was blurred due to flexible working arrangements. Furthermore, employees who have the autonomy to schedule their own working times and places, make longer workweeks than employees who have fixed working times and places (Van Echtelt, Glebbeek, & Lindenberg, 2006). There are different outcomes in literature when looking at stress levels when working flexibly. Raghuram and Wiesenfeld (2004) for example, have founded lower levels of stress for flexible workers,
whereas other studies have indicated new sources of stress (Tietze & Musson, 2005) and greater evidence of mental ill health (Mann & Holdsworth, 2003). Some studies also found evidence for family conflict (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Hammer et al., 2005; Rothausen, Fonzalez, Clarke & O’Dell, 1998), whereas other studies have found evidence for work-family enrichment due to flexible working (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Also electronic communication causes stress levels to increase due to continuous connectivity with work. Increased usage of electronic communication leads to a blur in work and family boundaries communication as well (Katz & Aarhus, 2002). Furthermore, stress increases when the employee compulsively looks at his/her e-mail all day, which eventually becomes a routine (Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2005), and thus will increase stress. A majority of research done in the field of home and work domains, have focused on the negative aspects of these dimensions (Carlson, Dacmar & Williams, 2000; Netemeyer, Boles & McMurrian, 1996). Wagena and Geurts (2000) have analyzed work-life balance or work-life interaction in four distinguished ways, including the positive aspect. In order to analyze whether work-home interaction has a an effect on perceived productivity when
working according to the new ways of working principle, the following hypothesis has been formulated:
H2: Work-home interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
New ways of working and ICT support
New technologies improve the communication processes between employees by creating an environment for high pace information sharing and constant connectivity (Katz & Aarhus, 2002). In this way, working becomes more efficient because of the amount of time that is being saved
(Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Some positive effects of new media technologies, according to research, is the use of efficient time and better coordination of work tasks (Hurme, 2005), more structure and selection than face-to-face communication (Kraut, Fish, Root, & Chalfonte, 1993), less informal conversation than communicating face-to-face and enhancement of the quality of communication enabling employees to reflect on the received message and to carefully formulate their response (Warkentin, Sayeed, & Hightower, 1997). Past research confirms that co-worker relations are fostered by using new technologies (Lee & Kossek, 2004) and computer-mediated team communication within organizations show a positive relationship (Walther, 1995).
Baumeister and Leary (1995) state in their research that close connection between co-workers, due to new technologies, satisfy the basic need for belongingness among employees. Besides all these positive outcomes of new technologies on flexible working, there are also some studies that suggest the opposite. The use of new technologies when communicating leads to an increase in interruptions during work (Rennecker & Godwin, 2005). These interruptions lead to
concentration problems for the employee and is time consuming (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005). Shifting from one task to another causes frustration and irritation, which in turn, leads to an increase in exhaustion (Cropley & Purvis, 2003). Besides a loss in concentration, interruptions also lead to de-motivation of the employee (Beal et al., 2005). The employee is not able to finish the task at hand and is forced to shift his/her attention constantly to something else. Thus, providing ICT is a very significant factor in realizing new ways of working within an organization. Organizations should therefore foster a supportive climate in order to support the use of ICT. This can be done by having competent IT professionals, who can assist in solving ICT problems and/or providing up-to-date ICT (Day, Scott & Kelloway, 2010). Another way to foster a supportive climate is to provide resources such as training programs when new ICT is introduced, which in turn may lead to a boost of self-efficacy and confidence of employees (Beas
& Salanova, 2006). Furthermore, providing such resources as ICT training programs cause employees to experience less dissatisfaction, stress and strain (Beas & Salanova, 2006). O’Driscoll, Allan & Smith (2009) have found that sufficient ICT support may increase
employees’ engagement with ICT. Effective technical support minimizes disruptions during work (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008), which causes employees to work more efficiently. No study to date has investigated whether organizational ICT support can influence the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity. Therefore, this study examines the moderating effect of ICT support on the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
H3: ICT support moderates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
The foundation of the research: the conceptual model
Based on the existing literature the conceptual model is introduced (Figure 1). First, the model considers New Ways of Working as an independent variable. Second, Work-Home interaction is used as a mediator with Perceived Productivity as a dependent variable within the model. Finally, as a moderator, the model includes ICT Support.
Method
Procedure
An online survey in the Dutch language was designed in order to collect data for this research. The survey provides quantitative results in order to assess the research question and the hypotheses. All concepts used in this research are well known and measurable by validated scales. The survey was divided into five main parts, which were, demographic and personal information of the respondent, questions about the nature of the New Ways of Working (NWW) arrangement, questions about the Perceived Productivity of the respondent, questions about Work-Home interactions (WHI), and questions about the extent of provided ICT Support by the organization. The survey was designed and launched on the online survey tool Qualtrics and was officially distributed between May 1th 2015 and May 30th 2015. The survey was distributed among employees working for four different organizations, which have already implementing NWW. These organizations were Hewlett-Packard, Starwood Hotels, Pameijer and Natuur & Milieu.
Hewlett-Packard is an American multinationals operating in a lot of different countries over the world. The international headquarter is located in Palo Alto, California, United States of America. The headquarter of Hewlett-Packard in the Netherlands is in Amstelveen. The company operates in the computer hardware, computer software, IT services and IT consulting industry.
Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. is a large American hotel and leisure organization, which also operates internationally. The main headquarter of the company is located in Stamford, Connecticut, United States of American. They currently do not have a head office in the Netherlands but do operate in the Netherlands.
The third company, Pameijer, is a nationally operating Dutch company. The organization is committed to helping and educating disabled people. The organization is located in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
The fourth organization, Natuur en Milieu, is a Dutch organization. Their main strategy is to help other organization to create a sustainable and eco-friendly strategy. They are located in Utrecht, the Netherlands.
In each company, a contact person was assigned who helped distributing the website link to the online survey by work e-mail, on the Facebook personal profile and on the LinkedIn business groups. Although the main focus was on reaching employees of these main organizations, the survey might have been filled in by employees of other companies who
worked according to the NWW principle. This cannot be traced back, since there was no question asking for which company the respondent works. This option was not included since it might interfere with the anonymous nature of the respondent.
Sample
The total amount of respondents was 141. Since the survey was in Dutch, only Dutch speaking respondent could participate. This research was directed at employees who work according to the new ways of working principle. The sample exists out of 107 female respondents (75.9%) and 34 male respondents (24.1%) with an average age of 30 (SD = 11.26). The respondents have average contract hours of 26.5 hours (SD = 14.66) a week. More than half of the respondents are not married (61%). Accordingly, 61.7% does not have a child living at home. Furthermore, 33.3% has finished the Secondary Vocational Education (MBO), 32.6% has completed the Higher Professional Education (HBO), and 19.9% has a University degree
Variables
This research analyzes the relationship between New Ways of Working (NWW) and Perceived Productivity of the employee. Variables that might influence this relationship are Work-Home interaction (WHI) and ICT Support.
Almost all variables have been measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “always”. The Perceived Productivity variable was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. All scales have been assessed on whether they actually form a scale and how reliable the scale is. This is done by conducting factor analyses (Appendix B) and a reliability analyses on the items of NWW, Perceived Productivity, WHI and ICT Support.
The independent variable, NWW, was measured by 6 items from the validated scale of Ten Brummelhuis, Bakker, Hetland & Keulemans(2012). Items contained questions such as: “I choose the location where I work”. A principal component analysis (PCA) with a Varimax rotation shows that the 6 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue = 4.32). Furthermore, all items correlate positively with the first component. Reliability of the scale is good (α= .92).
Perceived Productivity is the dependent variable, which was measured by a 6 item scale developed by Staples, Hulland & Higgins (1998). An example of one of these items is “I believe I am an effective employee”. According to the PCA the 6 items form a uni-demnsional scale with one component having an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue = 3.75) with a good reliability (α= .86).
To measure the variable WHI, the SWING scale, consisting out of 22 items, is used (Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Hooff & Kinnunnen, 2005). A PCA on these 22 items show a multidimensional scale existing out of 5 subscales (Appendix B). The 5 components are divided as follows: Negative Work-Home interaction (WHI-) (eigenvalue = 4.95), Positive Effect of Responsibility (ER+) (eigenvalue = 4.05), Negative Home-Work interaction (HWI-) (eigenvalue = 2.29), Positive Work-Home interaction (WHI+) (eigenvalue = 1.25), Positive Effect of Family Activities (EFA+) (eigenvalue = 1.08). The highest eigenvalue is that of WHI- which explain 22.5% of the variance. Hence, the possible mediated effect of WHI on the relationship of NWW and Perceived Productivity will later be individually analyzed for all 5 variables, WHI-, ER+, HWI-, WHI+ and EFA+. Respectively, hypothesis 2 has to be adjusted accordingly:
H2a: Negative work-home interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
H2b: Positive effects of responsibility mediate the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
H2c: Negative home-work interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
H2d: Positive work-home interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
H2e: Positive effects of family activities mediate the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity.
The moderating variable in this study, ICT Support was measured with a scale consisting of 8 items developed by Day, Paquet, Scott, & Hambley (2012). An example of one of these items is “My organization implements appropriate software as it becomes available.” According to PCA, the 8 items of ICT Support form a uni-dimensional scale (eigenvalue = 5.73), with a very good reliability (α= .94).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the variables New Ways of Working (NWW), Perceived Productivity, Positive Work-Home interaction (WHI+), Negative Work-Home interaction (WHI-), Negative Home-Work interaction (HWI-), Positive Effect of Responsibility (ER+), Positive Effect of Family Activities (EFA+) and ICT Support (ICT).
It is interesting to note that most of the variables correlate significantly with the Perceived Productivity variable except for the variables WHI- and the variable EFA+. The independent variable NWW and the dependent variable Perceived Productivity show a weak, positive correlation (r = 0.19, p < .05). There is a strong, negative correlation of HWI- on Perceived Productivity (r = -0.34, p < .01) and a strong positive effect of EFA+ on Perceived Productivity (r = 0.27, p < .01). WHI+ (r = 0.22, p < .05) and ICT Support (r = 0.23, p < .05) have a weak, yet significant and positive effect on Perceived Productivity. All positive variables of Work-Home interaction (WHI) correlate significantly with each other. Accordingly, all negative variables of WHI correlate significantly with each other. WHI+ has the strongest positive correlation NWW (r = 0.24, p < .01). HWI- has the strongest negative correlation on NWW (r = -0.30, p < .01). Furthermore, ICT Support shows a weak, positive correlation on NWW (r = -0.30, p < .01). WHI- and ER+ are the only two variables, which do not have a significant correlation on the dependent or independent variable.
Table 1
Summary of correlations of all variables (N= 142)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
New ways of working -
Perceived productivity ,192* -
Positive work-home interaction ,244** ,215* -
Negative work-home interaction -,051 -,047 ,166 -
Negative home-work interaction -,295** -,337** -,014 ,268** -
Positive effect of responsibility ,004 ,268** ,448** ,142 ,018 - Positive effect of family
activities ,128 ,163 ,180 * -,038 -,156 ,397** - ICT support ,250* ,230* ,411** -,199* -,105 ,370** ,409** *. p < .05 **. p < .01
Mediating effect of Negative Work-Home interaction on New Ways of Working, and Perceived Productivity
To examine the effects of all 5 mediating variables on the relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity the process criteria outlined by Baron and Kenny (1989) is used.
Individual regression analyses tested the relationships between Negative Work-Home interaction (WHI-), NWW, and Perceived Productivity.
First, the direct effect of NWW and WHI- was analyzed. The model was found to be not significant (R2 = 0.00, F(1, 122) = 0.32, p = .573). As a result, NWW had no significant effect on WHI- (b* = -0.00, t = -0.57, p = .573). This result needs to be highlighted, as it is important for the following mediation analysis. Because of the non-significance of the relationship between NWW and WHI- hardly any mediating effect is expected.
Further, the direct effect of WHI- on Perceived Productivity was tested, revealing a non-significant model (R2 = 0.00, F(1, 122) = 0.28, p = .601). WHI- had no significant effect on PP (b* = -0.05, t = -0.52, p = .601).
The last model, NWW and its direct effect on Perceived Productivity was supported to be significant (R2 = 0.04, F(1, 132) = 5.079, p < .05) just as the direct effect of NWW on Perceived Productivity (b* = 0.19, t = 2.25, p < .05). In light of the above, hypothesis 1 “New ways of working has a positive effect on the perceived productivity of the employee” is supported, as the relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity correlated significantly.
The direct effect of NWW on the mediator, and the mediator on the depended variable showed no significant results. Therefore it can be concluded that no mediating effect is found of WHI- on NWW and Perceived Productivity. Thus, Hypothesis 2a “Negative work-home
interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity” is not supported.
Mediating effect of the Positive effect of Responsibility on New Ways of Working, and Perceived Productivity
With individual regression analysis the direct relationships between Positive effect of Responsibility (ER+) on New Ways of Working (NWW), and Perceived Productivity was measured.
First, the direct effect of NWW and ER+ was analyzed: the model was found to be non-significant (R2 = 0.00, F(1, 121) = 0.00, p = .969). As a result, NWW had no significant effect on
ER+ (b* = 0.00, t = 0.04, p = 0.969). No significance has been found between NWW and WHI-, thus no mediating effect is expected.
Second, the direct effect of ER+ on Perceived Productivity was tested, revealing a significance of the model (R2 = 0.07, F(1, 21) = 9.38, p < .05), meanwhile ER+ had a significant effect on Perceived Productivity (b* = 0.27, t = 3.06, p < .05).
The third individual regression analysis tested the direct effect of NWW on Perceived Productivity, has already be proven to be significant. Because the effect of the individual variable on the mediating variable has found to be not significant it can be concluded that there is no mediating effect of ER+ on NWW and Perceived Productivity. Accordingly, hypothesis 2b “Positive effects of responsibility mediate the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity” is not supported.
Mediating effect of Negative Home-Work interaction on New Ways of Working, and Perceived Productivity
The direct relationship of NWW and Negative Home-Work interaction (HWI-) is found to be significant (R2 = 0.09, F(1, 111) = 10.54, p < .05) and NWW had a significant effect on HWI- (b* = -0.30, t = -3.25, p < .05).
Second, the direct relationship between HWI- and Perceived Productivity is also found to be significant (R2 = 0.11, F(1, 111) = 14.26, p < .05) while HWI- had a significant, negative effect on Perceived Productivity (b* = -0.34, t = -3.78, p < .05).
The third individual regression analysis, which tests the direct effect of NWW on Perceived Productivity, has already proven to be significant.
Finally, a multiple regression analysis for Perceived Productivity with the variables NWW and HWI- as predictors, revealed the following: R2 = 0.12, F(2,110) = 7.19, p < .05 and b* = 0.04, t = 0.47, p = .640 for the controlled effect NWW and HWI-. There is a difference between the uncontrolled and the controlled effect of NWW and HWI-, where the uncontrolled effect is significant while the controlled effect is not. This indicates a full mediation. The Sobel’s Z test supports this conclusion (Sobel’s Z = 2.36, p < .05), so H2c “Negative home-work interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity” is supported.
Mediating effect of Positive Work-Home interaction on New Ways of Working, and Perceived Productivity
The relationship between WHI+, NWW and Perceived Productivity were analyzed with three separate regression analyses.
The first model, NWW and its direct effect on WHI+ was examined to be statistically significant (R2 = 0.06, F(1,122) = 7.75, p < .05). NWW also had a significant effect on WHI+ (b* = 0.24, t = 2.78, p < .05).
Second, the model of WHI+, as independent variable, and Perceived Productivity, as dependent variable, was tested. This model was tested as significant (R2 = 0.05, F(1,122) = 5.91, p < .05) with a significant effect of WHI+ on Perceived Productivity (b* = 0.22, t = 2.43, p < .05).
The third individual regression analysis, which tested the direct effect of NWW on Perceived Productivity, is already proven to be significant.
A multiple regression analysis for Perceived Productivity with the variables NWW and WHI+ as predictors, revealed the following: R2 = 0.07, F(2,121) = 4.23, p < .05 and b* = 0.18, t = 2.43, p > .05 for the controlled effect NWW and WHI+. There is a difference between the
uncontrolled and the controlled effect of NWW and WHI+, where the uncontrolled effect is significant while the controlled effect is not. To test the mediation hypothesis a Sobel’s Z test was performed, calculating how much of the influence of NWW on Perceived Productivity is removed by controlling for WHI+ (Sobel’s Z = 1.61, p > .05). These results show that there is a partial mediation of WHI+ on the direct relationship of NWW and Perceived Productivity. Thus, H2d “Positive work-home interaction mediates the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity” is partially supported.
Mediating effect of Positive effect of Family Activities on New Ways of Working, and Perceived Productivity
Individual regression analyses tested the direct relationships between Positive effect of Family Activities (EFA+) on NWW, and PP.
First, the direct effect of NWW and EFA+ was analyzed. The model was found to be not significant (R2 = 0.02, F(1, 122) = 2.02, p = .158). As a result, NWW had no significant effect on EFA+ (b* = 0.13, t = 1.42, p = .158).
Second, the direct effect of EFA+ on Perceived Productivity was tested, which resulted in a non-significant model (R2 = 0.03, F(1, 122) = 3.34, p = .070). EFA+ had no significant effect on Perceived Productivity (b* = 0.16, t = 1.83, p = .070).
The direct effect of NWW on Perceived Productivity has already been established to be significant. According to these results, EFA+ has no mediating effect between NWW and
Perceived Productivity. Consequently, H2e “Positive effects of family activities mediate the relationship between new ways of working and perceived productivity” is not supported.
Moderating effect of ICT Support on New Ways of Working, and Perceived Productivity
In the moderation analysis, the relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity was tested under the influence of ICT Support, according to the moderation criteria of Baron and Kenny (1989).
First, the direct relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity was tested. As can be seen in the previous analyses, this model has already proven its significance (R2 = 0.04, F(1, 132) = 5.08, p < .05). The relationship between NWW and ICT Support showed the following result: R2 = 0.06, F(1, 102) = 6.78, p < .05. Thus, indicating a significant relationship between NWW and ICT Support. In order to proceed, standardized versions were made of the variable NWW and ICT Support. These were called ZNWW and ZICT. These standardized variables were then multiplied and computed into a new variable, which is the interaction term (ZNWWxZICT). A multiple regression analysis was run between ZNWW, ZICT and PP on ZNWWxZICT. However, no significant model was produced (b* = 0.06, t = 0.63, p = .532) and therefore H3 “ICT support moderates the relationship between new ways of working and
Conclusion
The central aim of this study was to investigate if New Ways of Working (NWW) had a positive effect on the Perceived Productivity of employees (H1). This relationship was tested on
mediation by positive Work-Home interaction (WHI+), positive Effects of Responsibility (ER+), negative Home-Work interaction (HWI-), positive Work-Home interaction (WHI-) and, positive Effects of Family Activities (EFA+) (H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d, H2e) and moderation by ICT Support (H3). Firstly the research question and Hypothesis 1 will be discussed, secondly Hypothesis 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and 2e will be discussed, and finally Hypothesis 3 will be discussed.
The research question was “to what extent do new ways of working increase perceived productivity among employees”. This research has revealed that there indeed is an increase in Perceived Productivity by NWW. The effect of this relationship was not very strong. Thus, employees did believe that their productivity has increased by working according to the NWW principle, although the increase was not great.
The initial Hypothesis 2 looked at how Work-home Interaction mediates the relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity. The Work-Home interaction variable was divided into 5 parts which were: positive Work-Home interaction, positive Effects of Responsibility, negative Home-Work interaction, positive Work-Home interaction and, positive Effects of Family Activities. WHI+ partially mediated the direct relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity and HWI- fully mediated the direct relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivty.
According to the results, the provision of sufficient ICT Support does not moderate the relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity according to the results. Meaning that
whether organizations provide technical support or not, there is no effect on perceived productivity of the employee.
Discussion
The increase in productivity is in line with previous research (Bailyn, 1988; Baruch & Nicholson, 1997; Belanger, 1999; Eaton, 2003; Frolick, Wilkes, & Urwiler, 1993; Hartman, Stoner, & Arora, 1992; Konrad & Mangel, 2000). Employees who have participated in this research believe that they are productive when working according to NWW. This is a good outcome for organization, since productivity if one of the most important business objectives (Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001).
The effect of NWW on Perceived Productivity is strengthened by WHI+ and by HWI-. For WHI+, this means that demands at work that lead to a positive home situation, show an increase in Perceived Productivity. A possible explanation for this is that people enjoy working harder or better when their work demands do not negatively affect the home situation. For HWI-, this means that a negative work environment due to home demands also increases Perceived Productivity when working according to NWW. An explanation for this might be that employees put even more focus on their work because they want to keep their minds off of the demands from home. HWI- revealed a decrease in Perceived Productivity when NWW was not taken into consideration. This is an interesting result since by adding NWW the effect of HWI- leads to an increase in Perceived Productivity. An explanation for this might be that employees who do not work according to NWW experience more difficulty at work due to demands from home.
It is important to note that positive Effects of Responsibility (ER+), which did not show a mediating effect on NWW and Perceived Productivity, did show a significant effect on Perceived
Productivity directly. Therefore, it can be concluded that positive effects of having
responsibilities at home and at work increases the Perceived Productivity of employees. Giving responsibilities to employees at work is very important to consider if you want to increase the productivity. However, it should be kept in mind that NWW is not taken into consideration.
ICT Support did not moderate the relationship of NWW and Perceived Productivity. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) had found that effective technical support minimized disruptions during work, which leads to employees working more efficiently. The results from this research were not in line with this. The reason for this rejection might be that employees do not face a lot of restrictions or problems with ICT or they have sufficient knowledge of fixing the problem themselves.
Practical implications
From the result, it is clear that implementing NWW is beneficial to employees’ Perceived Productivity. However, an immediate implementation of NWW might not lead to a direct
increase in Perceived Productivity. Since the effect of NWW was found to be weak, practitioners should assess whether there are other factors influencing productivity.
One factor influencing Perceived Productivity individually was the factor of having responsibilities at home and at work. Having these responsibilities increases Perceived
Productivity regardless of NWW. Managers might consider giving more responsibilities to their employees to increase their productivity in order to reach business objectives. This should be handled very carefully though, because more research needs to be done in this field in order to draw more precise conclusions.
Limitations and future research
Some limitations of this research need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, the cross-sectional design of the study is a limitation since it only looks at data at on single point in time. A
longitudinal design might provide more reliable insight in the relationship between NWW and Perceived Productivity.
Second, this research only looked at Perceived Productivity, which was collected by self-reports of employees. It would be interesting for future research to focus on overall productivity. In order to do this, managerial support is needed because you need real organizational statistics in order to assess actual production increase or decrease.
Finally, the number of respondents for this research was relatively low, because the main focus was on four organizations, which incorporated new ways of working. For future study it would be interesting to reach more people who work according to the new ways of working principle. This can be done by using more social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn.
For future research it would be interesting to examine the relationship of NWW and productivity from a managerial point of view. This point of view might give more insight in how organizations view the outcomes of new ways of working and how the overall productivity is affected by it. With respect to ICT Support, it might be advisable to ask employees whether they face problems and restriction with ICT first. If this might be the case, one can proceed by asking further questions about the extent of ICT Support. A very interesting subject for future research might be the interaction between HWI-, NWW and Perceived Productivity. HWI- shows an increase in Perceived Productivity when working according to NWW and shows a decrease in
Perceived Productivity when leaving NWW out. These dynamics should be researched more in-depth in order to understand the relationships better.
Literature
Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld. Assen: Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of Telework Research: Findings, new
directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4), 383-400.
Bailyn, L. (1988). Freeing work from the constraints of location and time. New Technology, Work, and Employment 3: 143–165.
Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 113–129.
Baruch, Y & Nicholson N. (1997). Home, sweet work: requirements for effective home working. Journal of General Management 23: 15–30
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1054 –1068
Beas, M.I & Salanova, M. (2006). Self-efficacy Beliefs, Computer Training and Psychological WellBeing among Information and Communication Technology Workers. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1043-1058.
Beauregard, T.A. & Henry, L.C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices and organizational performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(1), 9–22
Bélanger, F. (1999). Workers’ propensity to telecommute: an empirical study. Information & Management, 35(3), 139-53.
Bijl, D. (2009). Aan de slag met Het Nieuwe Werken. (1 – 190). Zeewolde: Par CC.
Black, S. E., & Lynch, L. M. (2001). How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(3), 434–445.
Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Van den Berg, C., & Vink, P. (2011). New ways of working: a proposed framework and literature review. Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers, 3-12
Brummelhuis ten, L. L., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., & Keulemans, L. (2012). Do new ways of working foster work engagement? Psicothema, 24(1), 113-20.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. (2003). Computing productivity: firm-level evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 793–808.
Carlson, D.S., Dacmar, M.K. & Williams, L.J. (2000). Construction and validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249– 276.
Carlson, D.S., Dacmar, M.K., Wayne, J.H. & Grzywacz, J.G. (2006). Measuring the positive side of the work-family interface: Development and validation of a work-family enrichment scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 131–164.
Cropley, M., & Purvis, L. J. (2003). Job strain and rumination about work issues during leisure time: A diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 195–207.
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes: The moderating effect of organizational ICT support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 473-491
Day, A., Scott, N., & Kelloway, K.E. (2010). Information and communication technology: Implications for job stress and employee well-being. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 317-350
De Croon, E.M., Sluiter, J.K., Kuijer, P.P.F.M. & Frings-Dresen, M.H.W., (2005). The Effect of Office Concepts on Worker Health and Performance: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Ergonomics, 48(2): 119-134.
Eaton, S. E. (2003). Getting down to business: Marketing and promoting of ESL programs. Paper presented at the California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (CATESOL), 34th Annual State Conference, “Making Changes – Making a Difference”.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Frolick, M. N., Wilkes, R. B., & Urwiler, R. (1993). Telecommuting as a workplace alternative: An identification of significant factors at home in American firms’ determination of work-at-home policies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2, 206-222.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: Meta analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524-1541.
Geurts, S.A.E. & Demerouti, E. (2003). Work/non-work interface: A review of theories and findings. In M.J. Schabracq, J.A.M. Winnubst & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Geurts, S., Taris, T., Kompier, M., Dikkers, J., Hooff, M. & Kinnunnen, U., (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: development and validation of a new
questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19 (4), 319-339.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on Work, Family and Gender: Current Status and Future Directions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Powell, G.N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. The Academy of Management Review 31: 72–92.
Grzywacz, J.G. & Marks, N.F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111–126.
Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Ziemba, S. J., & Lyness, K. P. (2006). Practices of dual earner couples successfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family & Economic Issues, 27, 207-234.
Hammer, L.B., Neal, M.B., Newson, J.T., Brockwood, K.J., & Colton, C.L. (2005). A
longitudinal study of the effects of dual-earner couples’ utilisation of family-friendly workplace supports on work and family outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 799–810.
Handy, S.L. & Mokhtarian, P.L. (1996).The future of telecommuting. Futures, 28(3), 227- 240.
Hartman, R. I., Stoner, C. R. & Arora, R. (1992). Developing successful organizational
telecommuting arrangements: worker perceptions and managerial prescriptions. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 57(3), 35-42.
Hill, E.J., Hawkins, A.J., & Miller, B.C. (1996). Work and family in the virtual office: perceived influences of mobile telework. Family Relations 45, 293–301.
Hill, E.J., Ferris, M. & Martinson, V. (2003). Does It Matter Where You Work? A Comparison of How Three Work Venues (Traditional Office, Virtual Office, and Home Office) Influence Aspects of Work and Personal/Family Life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 220-41.
Hurme, P. (2005). Mobile communication and work practices in knowledge-based organizations. International Journal Of Mobile Communications, 1, 101-108.
Katz, J.E., & Aarhus, M.A. (2002). Making meaning of mobiles: A theory of apparatgeist. In J.E. Katz & M. Aarhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public
performance (pp. 301-318). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2008). For better or for worse? An analysis of how flexible working practices influence employees’ perceptions of job quality. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19, 419–31
Kinsman, F. (1987) The telecommuters. Chichester: Wiley.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Perceptions of nonwork-to-work spillover: Challenging the common view of conflict-ridden domain relationships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 231–249.
Konrad, A.M., & Mangel, R. (2000). The impact of work-life programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal 21(12), 1225–1237
Kraut, R., R. S. Fish, R. W. Root, & B. Chalfonte. (1993). Informal communication in organizations: Form, function, and technology. In Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work: Assisting human-human collaboration, ed. R. Baecker, 287–314. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Lee, M.D. & Kossek, E. (2004). Crafting lives that work: A six year retrospective on reduced-load work in the careers and lives of professionals and managers. School of Labor and Industrial Relations. Michigan University.
Mann, S., & Holdsworth, L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking: Stress, emotions and health. New Technology, Work and Employment 18, 196–211.
Manning, R. A. (1985). Control Data Corporation: Alternate work site programs. In Olson, M. H. (Ed.), Office workstations in the home. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
Mazmanian, M.A., Orlikowski, W.J., & Yates, J. (2005). Crackberries: The social implications of ubiquitous wireless e-mail devices. In C. Sorensen, K. Lyytinen, & J.I. DeGross (Eds.),
Designing ubiquitous information environments: Socio-technical issues and challenges (pp. 337-344). Springer: Ney York
Mokhtarian, P. L., Salomon, I., & Choo, S. (2005). Measuring the Measurable: Why Can't We Agree on the Number of Telecommuters in the U.S.? Quality and Quantity, 39(4), 423-452.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and work-family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410
Nilles, J. M. (1975). Telecommunications and Organizational Decentralization. IEEE Transactions On Communications, COM-23(10), 1142 – 1147
Novaco, R. N., Kliewer, W., & Broquet, A. (1991). Home environment consequences of commute travel impedance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 881-909.
O'Driscoll, M., Allan, H. & Smith, P. (2009). Still looking for leadership: who is responsible for student nurses' learning in practice? Nurse Education Today, 30, 212-217
Olson, M.H. (1982). New information technology and organizational culture. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 71-92.
Pinsonneault, A., and Boisvert, M. (2001). The Impacts of Telecommuting on Organizations and Individuals: A review of the literature. In Johnson, N. J. (Ed.) Telecommuting and Virtual
Offices: Issues and opportunities (163-185). Hershey, PA.: Idea Group Publishing.
Raghuram, S., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2004). Work-nonwork conflict and job stress among virtual workers. Human Resource Management, 43, 259 –277
Ragu-Nathan, T.S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. & Tu, Q. (2008). Consequence of
Technostress in End Users: Conceptual Development and Empirical Validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433.
Rennecker, J., & Godwin, L. (2005). Theorizing the unintended consequences of Instant Messaging for worker productivity. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organizations, 3(3), 137-168.
Rothausen, T.J., Gonzalez, J.A., Clarke, N.E. & O’Dell, L. (1998). Family-friendly backlash – fact or fiction? The case of organizations on-site child care centres. Personnel Psychology 51, 685–706.
Shamir, B. & Solomon, I. (1985). Work-at-Home and Quality of Working Life. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 455-464.
Shirley, V.S. (1985). F International: twenty years’ experience in homeworking. In National Research Council, Office Workstations in the Home (51–56). National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1998). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 3(4).
Stephens, G.K. & Sommer, S.M. (1996). The measurement of work to family conflict. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 475–486.
Tietze, S., & Musson, G. (2005). Recasting the home-work relationship: A case of mutual adjustment. Organization Studies, 26: 1331–52.
Van Breukelen, W. Van, Makkenze, S., & Waterreus, R. (2014). Kernaspecten van Het Nieuwe Werken en een checklist om deze in kaart te brengen. Gedrag & Organisatie, 27(2), 157–187
Van Echtelt, P. (2007). Time-greedy employment relationships. Four studies on the time claims of post-Fordist work. Dissertation, Groningen
Van Echtelt, P. E., Glebbeek, A. C., & Lindenberg, S. M. (2006). The new lumpiness of work: explaining the mismatch between actual and preferred working hours. Work employment and society, 20(3), 493-512.
Van der Voordt, T. J. M. (2004), Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6(2), 133-148.
Wagena, E., & Geurts, S. (2000). SWING. Ontwikkeling en validering van de ‘Survey Werk-thuis Interferentie-Nijmegen’ [SWING. Development and validation of the ‘Survey Work-home Interference-Nijmegen’]. Gedrag & Gezondheid, 28, 138 –158.
Walther, J.B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186-203.
Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, L., & Hightower, R. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28, 975–996.
Appendix A: Survey Q1 Uw geslacht: Man (1) Vrouw (2) Q2 Uw leeftijd: Q3 Uw burgerlijke staat: Niet getrouwd (1) Getrouwd of samenwonend (2)
Q4 Minstens één kind dat thuis woont: Ja (1)
Nee (2)
Q5 Wat is uw hoogst voltooide opleiding? Geen (1)
Lager- of basisonderwijs (2) VMBO / MAVO / LBO (3) HAVO / VWO (4)
Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO) (5) Hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO) (6) Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO) (7)
Anders, namelijk, (8) ____________________
Q6 Hoe lang werkt u al bij dezelfde organisatie? Q7 Voor hoeveel uur per week heeft u een contract?
Q8 Het Nieuwe Werken
De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op flexibilisering van werk. Op de volgende stellingen kunt u aangeven in hoeverre het van toepassing is bij u, waarbij 1 (nooit) en 5 (altijd) is.
Nooit (1) Soms (2) Regel matig (3) Vaak (4) Altijd (5)
Ik heb de mogelijkheid zelf mijn werktijden te bepalen (1) Ik bepaal zelf wanneer mijn werkdag start (2)
Ik plan zelf mijn werktijden (3)
Ik kies zelf op welke tijdstippen ik werk (4) Ik bepaal zelf de planning van mijn werktaken (5) Ik heb de mogelijkheid zelf mijn werkplek te bepalen (6)
Q9 Werkproductiviteit
De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op de werkproductiviteit. Op de volgende stellingen kunt u aangeven in hoeverre u het eens bent, waarbij 1 (zeer oneens) en 5 (zeer eens) is.
Zeer oneen s (1) Oneen s (2) Neutra al (3) Eens (4) Zeer eens (5)
Ik vind dat ik een effectieve werknemer ben (1) In mijn team/werkgroep, zou ik mijn prestatie in de top kwart
waarderen (2)
Ik ben blij met de kwaliteit van mijn werk resultaat (3)
Ik werk heel efficiënt (4)
Ik ben een zeer productieve werknemer (5)
Q10 Werk en privé
De volgende vragen gaan over de invloed die uw werk kan hebben op uw thuissituatie. Hoe vaak komt het voor dat ...
Nooit (1) Soms (2) Regel matig (3) Vaak (4) Altijd (5)
u thuis prikkelbaar bent, omdat uw werk veeleisend is? (1) u moeilijk aan uw verplichtingen thuis kunt voldoen, omdat u in
gedachten steeds met uw werk bezig bent? (2) u thuis efficiënter met uw tijd omgaat door de manier waarop u
uw werk uitvoert? (3)
u vanwege verplichtingen op uw werk afspraken met uw
partner/familie/vrienden moet afzeggen? (4) u thuis beter functioneert in omgang met uw
partner/familie/vrienden door dingen die u op het werk leert? (5) u zich thuis beter aan afspraken houdt, omdat dat op het werk
ook van u gevraagd wordt? (6)
uw werktijden het moeilijk maken om aan uw verplichtingen thuis
te voldoen? (7)
u door uw werk geen energie heeft om met uw
partner/familie/vrienden leuke dingen te doen? (8) u zoveel werk te doen heeft, dat u niet toekomt aan uw hobby’s?
(9)
u thuis beter uw verantwoordelijkheden nakomt, omdat u dat op
uw werk ook geleerd heeft? (10)
de eisen die uw werk aan u stelt het moeilijk maken u thuis
ontspannen te voelen? (11)
uw werk tijd in beslag neemt die u liever aan uw
partner/familie/vrienden zou besteden? (12)
u na een plezierige werkdag/werkweek meer zin heeft om met uw
Q11 Werk en privé
De volgende vragen gaan over de invloed die uw thuissituatie kan hebben op uw werk. Hoe vaak komt het voor dat ...
Nooit (1) Soms (2) Regel matig (3) Vaak (4) Altijd (5)
u na een gezellig weekend met uw partner/familie/vrienden met
meer zin uw werk uitvoert? (1)
u zich moeilijk kunt concentreren op uw werk, omdat u zich druk
maakt over zaken in uw thuissituatie? (2) u op uw werk beter uw verantwoordelijkheden nakomt, omdat u
dat thuis ook moet doen? (3)
uw thuissituatie irritaties veroorzaakt die u op uw collega’s op het
werk afreageert? (4)
u zich op het werk beter aan afspraken houdt, omdat dat thuis
ook van u gevraagd wordt? (5)
uw prestaties op het werk verminderen door problemen met uw
partner/familie/vrienden? (6)
u op uw werk efficiënter met uw tijd omgaat, omdat u de tijd thuis
ook goed moet indelen? (7)
u met meer zelfvertrouwen uw werk uitvoert, omdat u alles thuis
goed geregeld heeft? (8)
u geen zin heeft om aan het werk te gaan vanwege problemen
Q12 ICT ondersteuning
De volgende stellingen hebben betrekking op ICT ondersteuning tijdens werk. Op de volgende stellingen kunt u aangeven in hoeverre het van toepassing is bij u, waarbij 1 (nooit) en 5 (altijd) is.
Nooit (1) Soms (2) Regel matig (3) Vaak (4) Altijd (5)
Mijn organisatie implementeert passende software als deze
beschikbaar is (1)
Mijn organisatie maakt gebruik van de nieuwste technologie (2) Ik ontvang de technologie upgrade die ik nodig heb (3) In mijn organisatie worden nieuwe IT-systemen tijdig ingevoerd
(4)
Technische ondersteuning op het werk is beschikbaar wanneer ik
deze nodig heb (5)
Ons IT-personeel is behulpzaam (6)
IT-personeel in mijn organisatie reageert snel op mijn technische
problemen (7)
Mijn IT-afdeling leert mij om problemen om te lossen voor het
Appendix B: Factor Analysis of all variables
New Ways of Working
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 4,319 71,980 71,980 4,319 71,980 71,980 2 ,700 11,670 83,650 3 ,421 7,019 90,669 4 ,253 4,215 94,884 5 ,188 3,126 98,010 6 ,119 1,990 100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Perceived Productivity
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3,570 59,496 59,496 3,570 59,496 59,496 2 ,708 11,801 71,297 3 ,560 9,339 80,636 4 ,455 7,583 88,219 5 ,432 7,200 95,419
6 ,275 4,581 100,000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Work-Home interaction
Total Variance Explained Co
m po ne nt
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Varianc e Cumulativ e % Tota l % of Varianc e Cumulativ e % Tota l % of Varianc e Cumulativ e % 1 4,950 22,499 22,499 4,95 0 22,499 22,499 4,44 5 20,204 20,204 2 4,053 18,421 40,920 4,05 3 18,421 40,920 3,41 2 15,509 35,712 3 2,291 10,413 51,333 2,29 1 10,413 51,333 2,59 2 11,783 47,495 4 1,251 5,687 57,020 1,25 1 5,687 57,020 1,64 9 7,494 54,989 5 1,079 4,903 61,924 1,07 9 4,903 61,924 1,52 6 6,934 61,924 6 ,973 4,421 66,345 7 ,849 3,859 70,203 8 ,744 3,380 73,583 9 ,742 3,373 76,955 10 ,647 2,942 79,897 11 ,624 2,836 82,733 12 ,572 2,602 85,335
13 ,514 2,338 87,673 14 ,472 2,145 89,819 15 ,422 1,918 91,736 16 ,366 1,665 93,401 17 ,303 1,379 94,780 18 ,285 1,297 96,078 19 ,249 1,133 97,210 20 ,232 1,056 98,267 21 ,216 ,980 99,247 22 ,166 ,753 100,000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
u thuis prikkelbaar bent, omdat uw werk veeleisend is? ,736 u moeilijk aan uw verplichtingen thuis kunt voldoen,
omdat u in gedachten steeds met uw werk bezig bent? ,755 u thuis efficiënter met uw tijd omgaat door de manier
waarop u uw werk uitvoert? ,541
u vanwege verplichtingen op uw werk afspraken met uw
partner/familie/vrienden moet afzeggen? ,700 u thuis beter functioneert in omgang met uw
partner/familie/vrienden door dingen die u op het werk leert?
,829
u zich thuis beter aan afspraken houdt, omdat dat op het
uw werktijden het moeilijk maken om aan uw
verplichtingen thuis te voldoen? ,562
u door uw werk geen energie heeft om met uw
partner/familie/vrienden leuke dingen te doen? ,748 u zoveel werk te doen heeft, dat u niet toekomt aan uw
hobby?s? ,795
u thuis beter uw verantwoordelijkheden nakomt, omdat u
dat op uw werk ook geleerd heeft? ,511
de eisen die uw werk aan u stelt het moeilijk maken u
thuis ontspannen te voelen? ,734
uw werk tijd in beslag neemt die u liever aan uw
partner/familie/vrienden zou besteden? ,706 u na een plezierige werkdag/werkweek meer zin heeft om
met uw partner/familie/vrienden activiteiten te ondernemen?
,713
u na een gezellig weekend met uw
partner/familie/vrienden met meer zin uw werk uitvoert? ,840 u zich moeilijk kunt concentreren op uw werk, omdat u
zich druk maakt over zaken in uw thuissituatie? ,811 u op uw werk beter uw verantwoordelijkheden nakomt,
omdat u dat thuis ook moet doen? ,852
uw thuissituatie irritaties veroorzaakt die u op uw
collega?s op het werk afreageert? ,701
u zich op het werk beter aan afspraken houdt, omdat dat
thuis ook van u gevraagd wordt? ,853
uw prestaties op het werk verminderen door problemen
met uw partner/familie/vrienden? ,749
u op uw werk efficiënter met uw tijd omgaat, omdat u de
tijd thuis ook goed moet indelen? ,830
u met meer zelfvertrouwen uw werk uitvoert, omdat u
u geen zin heeft om aan het werk te gaan vanwege
problemen met uw partner/familie/vrienden? ,819
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
ICT Support
Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 5,728 71,603 71,603 5,728 71,603 71,603 2 ,809 10,108 81,711 3 ,401 5,008 86,719 4 ,379 4,732 91,451 5 ,222 2,777 94,228 6 ,186 2,324 96,553 7 ,143 1,783 98,336 8 ,133 1,664 100,000
