An empirical study about employees’ intentions to telework
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 11, 2012
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION:
New technologies make it possible for employees to work anywhere and anytime (Currie & Eveline, 2010). Teleworking is one form of these new technologies. Teleworking refers to paid work carried out by a knowledge worker, away from the employers’ premises, often at home and using modern information technology and excluding self employers (Haddon & Brynin, 2005). With teleworking there is more flexibility in where and when employees work with weak physical and temporal boundaries between work and home (Currie & Eveline, 2010). Telework makes it possible for employees to flexibly switch between different roles. Teleworking have largely been implemented in some industries, where other manufactories still work with traditional work places and explicit work schedules (Currie & Eveline, 2010).
Many organizations implement telework as a way to increase the flexibility of work. With the opportunity to telework, employees receive the possibility to reduce the time and energy spent on commuting. Additionally, employees acquire more autonomy and independence with the use of telework (O’Neill, Hambley, Greidanus, MacDonnell & Kline, 2009). Employers are offering the opportunity to telework in response to the increase in employees’ work and family demands (Shockley & Allen, 2009). Today, a lot of the employees experience tension while fulfilling roles in the work and family domain (Frone & Yardley, 1996). This trend was caused by several demographic developments, like the increase in numbers of women with children joining the workforce and the increase in dual-earner families. As a consequence this has reshaped the composition of the workforce (Scandura & Lankau, 1997; Higgins, Duxberg & Irving, 1992; Frone, Russell, Barnes, 1996). In addition, this changed the allocation of time spent on work and family roles among men and women (Frone & Yardley, 1996).
telework representing employees’ overall attitude to telework, and intended percentage of job to spend on telework representing employees’ expected behavior toward telework.
The present study is also new in the sense that it considers the effect of need for achievement in the relation work/family conflict and telework. Given that work/family conflict in literature is mentioned as employees’ main reason to telework (Mokhtarian, Bagley & Salomon, 1998), it would be interesting to know whether need for achievement moderates the relation between work/family conflict with intentions to telework. Need for achievement is the motivational part of employees’ personality (McClelland, 1985), and includes the desire for personal achievement (Shockley & Allen, 2009). Research has shown that employees suppose that teleworking would hinder their development and that the lack of visibility to the management will have a negative impact on their career advancement (Duxbury, Higgins & Irving, 1987). In this light, it can be expected that, even when there are difficulties combining family and work responsibilities, not all employees are open to teleworking for motivational reasons. Nonetheless, this suggestion is not tested before, and this study will shed light upon the expectation that need for achievement interacts with the relationship between work/family conflict with intentions to telework.
employee’s perception of the quality of the relationships with the peer members (TMX) (Anand et al., 2010).
Thus, the first purpose of the present study is to extend the work/family conflict literature by assessing the relations between the different directions of work/family (work to family and family to work) conflict with intentions to telework. The second purpose of this study is to determine whether need for achievement moderates the relationships between work to family and family to work conflict with intentions to telework. The third purpose is to examine whether work to family and family to work conflict are rooted in CSE and in quality of the workplace relationships. The fourth purpose is to view whether the antecedents are indirectly related with intentions to telework, mediated by work to family and family to work conflict. The last purpose is to determine whether the moderator need for achievement moderates in this mediated model, between work/family conflict with intentions to telework.
To clarify these purposes a conceptual model is set up. The conceptual model will be explained in the theory section. The model was tested by the use of a survey among employees of a banking organization, which can be found in the method and result section. Thereafter, the theoretical and practical implications as well as the limitations of the present study will be presented in the discussion.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model Core self-evaluations Leader member exchange Team member exchange
Work to family conflict
Family to work conflict
Intentions to telework
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Intentions to Telework
Teleworking is an upcoming trend, due to an increase in the amount of dual career families (Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Teleworking refers to working from home through the use of computer-based technologies. It can be fulfilled full-time, but is mostly executed part-time; one to two days a week (O’Neill et al., 2009). The spatial flexibility, offered by teleworking allows employees to work away from the traditional office, whereby telecommunication facilities maintain a link to the office. Working from home reduces peak-period travel demand and congestion, and increases the flexibility of the employees (Kossek et al., 2005). Especially professional workers can use these new technologies to work at home (Perrons, 2003), while taking care for a child or elder simultaneously (Currie & Eveline, 2010). Thereby, teleworking is cost-efficient for the employer; savings are reported in turnover-related costs due to telework programs (Schneider, 2011), and more favorable work attitudes and behaviors are found, like improved loyalty, commitment, satisfaction and increased productivity (Scandura & Lankau, 1997).
Intentions to telework are the employees’ intentions to make use of telework, with the requirement that the employees perceive the job suitable for this (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). When the job is perceived as unsuitable for telework, the employees’ choice to make use of telework is constrained (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). In this situation, the intention to telework will be low, inherently to the role environment. When the employees’ intentions to telework are high, the employees’ work environment is mentioned as suitable and the employees are willing to apply for telework. In general, professional workers have more possibilities to telework than clerical workers, since they have more autonomy in their work roles (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Intentions to telework have been differentiated in this study into two constructs to measure both the attitudinal aspect and the behavioral aspect of the employees’ intentions regarding telework. Only measuring employees’ attitude toward telework, has the drawback that it doesn’t declare employees’ expected behavior, whereby employees’ attitude and behavior are not the same (Mokhtarian et al., 1998). Therefore, the variable intentions to telework will be measured in this study by the following two constructs: general attitude to telework to measure employees’ general attitude toward telework, and intended percentage of job to spend on telework to measure employees’ expected behavior regarding telework.
family domain to fulfill more easily family roles, and for the leisure domain to have more time to practice sport or hobby (Haddad et al., 2009).
Work/family Conflict
Work/family conflict refers to responsibilities and demands from work and family roles that interfere with each other (Frone, Russell & Cooper, 1992a). Demographic trends in the work force (increase in number of working mothers and two-earners) have led to an upcoming focus on employees’ attempts to combine work and family responsibilities. Time constraints between the demands of work and family life are increasingly growing (Schneider, 2011). Employees feel stressed about the combination of work and family role responsibilities (Frone, 2003). For contemporary employees is successfully combining work and family demands a major issue (US Department of Labor, 1999). In this setting, organizations set up organizational work/family initiatives, like telework, to reduce work and family conflicts (Frone, 2003).
The work and family domain have inherently role norms and requirements that can be incompatible with the other domain (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The stressors in one domain (family or work) can lead to irritability, fatigue or preoccupation with those problems, which in this way limit the ability of employees to meet the requirements of other domains (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Role conflicts undermine the employees’ perception of successfully meeting the different demands, and may deteriorate the employees’ family-related self image (Frone et al., 1996). Perrons (2003) and Schneider (2011) state that employees with children suffer the most from these competing demands. Since work/family conflict can lead to a decrease in individuals’ psychological well-being, and consequently organizational performance, employers are looking for initiatives to reduce the negative impact of the conflict on work and family outcomes (Frone & Yardley, 1996).
Work/family conflict consists of two directions, work interfering with family (work to family conflict) and family interfering with work (family to work conflict) (Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Frone, 2003; Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, 2000). Work to family interferences are rooted in the work domain, whereas family to work conflict interferences comes from the family domain (Frone, 2003). The distinction of work/family conflict into work to family and family to work conflict is necessary to understand the different antecedents and role related consequences of those conflicts (Frone et al., 1992a).
Work to family conflict
frequently with family life than vice versa (Frone, Russel & Cooper,1992b; Wiley, 1987). This means, that the work domain has a more harmful impact on the family domain than the family domain has on the work domain. Work to family conflict impedes employees to meet family demands, because the employees are preoccupied with the work role. Work to family conflict is related to the number of hours worked, number of hours spent on commuting, the inflexibility of work schedules and the experience of work demands and stressors by the employees (Frone & Yardley, 1996; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Thereby, personality can affect the chance on work to family conflict, since some personalities are more committed to the work role than others (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Work to family conflict leads to negative family outcomes, amongst others, family dissatisfaction and decreased family performance (Frone & Yardley, 1996).
Family to work
Family to work conflict is the extent to which family life interferes with the work domain (Frone & Yardley, 1996). This conflict is caused by responsibilities in the family domain, and is related to the hours of time devoted to family life, the experience of family demands and stressors, the (un)marriage state of the employee and whether the employee has children or not (Frone & Yardley, 1996). Especially, family role characteristics that require employees to spend a lot of time on family activities, can lead to family to work conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Family to work conflict has negative outcomes for the work domain, like a decrease in performance and job satisfaction (Frone & Yardley, 1996).
For employees, managing time is a serious concern, since responsibilities in work and family domain need to be fulfilled. Work to family and family to work conflict lead to a decrease in the employees’ well-being (Schneider, 2011). So, a configuration whereby employees can meet the needs of work and family domain is desirable (Schneider, 2011). Telework is a configuration which offers flexibility in where and when one works (Kossek et al., 2005). So, when employees experiences work/family conflict, telework can offer the flexibility for fulfilling these competing demands. Accordingly, balancing work/family needs is better for the employees’ well-being (Kossek et al., 2005). From this view, it would be logical that professional workers are intended to telework when they perceive work to family or family to work conflict, since those different roles can be more easily managed with the use of telework. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Need for Achievement
Need for achievement (NFA) is a motivational factor that drives individuals to work toward a standard of excellence and is a stable part of employees’ personality (McClelland, 1985). There is variation in the extent that individuals desire achievement (Shockley & Allen, 2009). Highly achievement-oriented employees get intrinsic satisfaction from achieving and aspire to accomplish moderate difficult tasks (McClelland, 1985). Furthermore, they attribute failure or success to their own efforts (McClelland, 1985). Employees who are highly achievement-oriented pay attention to cues related to improvement, set strict goals for themselves, want to overcome obstacles, strive to take moderate risks and prefer working independently (McClelland, 1985; Shockley & Allen, 2009). In addition, they prefer receiving feedback on how the job or task is done. Otherwise, the employee can’t know whether he or she is doing better compared to other employees (McClelland, 1985). Individuals who have a high desire to achieve want to perform at the limit of their capabilities and expertise (O’Neill et al., 2009).
Employees who are highly achievement-oriented are more career conscious than those with a lower achievement-orientation. Consequently, highly achievement-oriented employees are suggested to be concerned that their career will be damaged when they apply for telework (Eisenberger, Jones, Strinlhamber, Shanock & Randall, 2005; O’Neill et al., 2009). They are concerned that telecommuting would hinder their development, through a reduction in facing and interacting with peers at the workplace (Mokhtarian et al., 1998). In addition, they are afraid that due to the lack of visibility toward the management they will be an unlikely candidate for promotion (Duxbury, et al., 1987). Moreover, the feedback in a remote work setting is more ambiguous and occurs less frequently, whereas employees high in NFA favor concrete feedback (O’Neill et al., 2009). In contrast, individuals with a low achievement-orientation are less motivated to strive for occupational success (Eisenberger et al., 2005). They do not feel as many positive emotions when attaining goals, and gain less satisfaction from seeking achievement goals (McClelland, 1985). The importance to achieve in professional areas of life is lower for them.
teleworking increases flexibility, it is expected that employees with a high achievement-orientation will be less inclined to telework when they face work/family conflict than those with a low achievement-orientation. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Need for achievement moderates the relationship between work to family conflict with intentions to telework: the positive relationship is stronger for employees with low need for achievement than for those with high need for achievement
Hypothesis 2b: Need for achievement moderates the relationship between family to work conflict with intentions to telework: the positive relationship is stronger for employees with low need for achievement than for those with high need for achievement
Core Self-Evaluations (CSE)
Core evaluations, also labeled positive self concept, is a personality concept, which includes self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and non-neuroticism (Westring & Ryan, 2010). CSE is the totality of inferences individuals hold about themselves and the ability to function in the environment successfully (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge & Scott, 2009). Self-esteem is the central concept of a positive CSE, and can be defined as the self-acceptance, self-liking and self-respect of individuals (Judge et al., 1998). Generalized self-efficacy deals with the individuals’ perceptions of their ability to perform in prospective situations (Judge et al., 1998). Non-neuroticism is the employees’ ability to adjust emotionally and refers to low levels of dependence and helplessness (Judge et al., 1998). Locus of control is the individuals’ perceived degree to control outcomes in life (Judge et al., 1998).
Employees with a positive CSE place high value on themselves (high self-esteem), believe that they can perform well in different kind of situations (high generalized self-efficacy), feel in control when new events happen (internal locus of control) and have low levels on anxiety (low neuroticism) (Judge et al., 1998; Westring & Ryan, 2010). So, individuals with a positive CSE appraise themselves as capable and in control of their lives. Employees with a positive CSE are attracted to challenging jobs, because they believe in their ability to handle the challenge (Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000). They manage the multiple life roles more easily and see them as less demanding and conflicting than employees with a lower CSE, since they are positive, confident, believe in their own abilities and can adjust to different situations very well (Judge, Bono & Thoresen, 2003).
positive self-construal and a positive idea of life, which is necessary for successfully functioning in the environment. The CSE-characteristic emotional stability leads to low anxiety levels, where a high self-efficacy is related to higher creative performance in life. The locus of control leads to leadership and the perception that life can be steered (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011). In contrast, individuals low on CSE avoid challenging jobs, as those individuals expect difficulties and are afraid of potential failure (Judge et al., 2000). The CSE-characteristic low self-efficacy refers to the fact that employees are sensitive to stressors, where the characteristic low core self-esteem means that individuals are mainly influenced by the environment (Beauregard, 2006). Employees low on neuroticism are prone to negative stimuli, whereas being low on internal locus of control means that individuals are skeptical towards influencing the outcomes of life (Boyar & Mosley, 2007).
Overall, employees low on CSE see challenging environments as demanding and conflicting and perceive the workplace more negatively than those with a positive CSE. Consequently, they experience more home and work stressors (Beauregard, 2006). Accordingly, those individuals are more susceptible to work/family conflict, whereas employees with a positive CSE are less sensitive to work and home stressors (Beauregard, 2006). Additionally, employees with a positive CSE implement more effective strategies when they have to deal with different roles and different role stressors (Boyar & Mosly, 2007). So, it is expected that employees with a positive CSE are less prone to work/family conflicts than those with a low CSE. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: CSE is negatively associated with work to family conflict Hypothesis 3b: CSE is negatively associated with family to work conflict
Quality of Workplace Relationships
Leader Member Exchange
Leader member exchange (LMX) was originally developed by Graen and Cashman (1975). The concept was developed to assess the quality of the dyadic relationship between an employee and the supervisor (Akremi et al., 2010). The supervisor has a different exchange relationship with each employee (Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Mojar & Morganson, 2011). This social exchange process already begins in the initial stages of working together (Mojar & Morganson, 2011). The supervisor tests the subordinate with various work assignments, wherein the employee has the opportunity to perform in extra-role performance (Kosset et al., 2006). The degree to which the subordinate complies with the task demands, and demonstrates the ability to perform independently dictates the quality of the LMX relationship (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). When the subordinate’s work-related behavior exists of just performing the tasks, the exchange relationship will be low. When the employee’s work-related behavior impresses the supervisor, especially by performing extra role tasks, a high quality relationship will be developed. Consequently, the quality of this relation determines the extent to which work-related resources are provided by the supervisor to the subordinate (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). So, the employee invests in providing assistance to the supervisor, where the supervisor invests in providing valued resources to the employee (Mojar & Morganson, 2011).
In a low-quality exchange relationship is the resource exchange purely based on the employment contract, which entails minimal resource exchange. It comprises the exchange of information and other resources necessary for the completion of the task (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). The higher the quality of the exchange relation, the greater the extent of exchange of resources between the supervisor and the subordinate (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). So, when the employee, in a series of role making episodes, engage in tasks which are beyond what is formally required, a high-quality relationship will be developed (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). A high LMX between supervisor and subordinate consists of task completion beyond what is required by the role definition and includes, besides the instrumental exchange, also the exchange of socio-emotional resources, like listening to problems and showing empathy (Anand et al., 2010; Akremi et al., 2010). In this way, employees in a high-quality exchange relationship perceive more supportiveness for fulfilling the demands of family and work life than employees in a low exchange relationship. Consequently, they may feel better able to manage their job well, while still meeting family needs (Kossek et al., 2005). The employees feel supported and provided in resources to fulfill the work and family responsibilities (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000). Hence, when employees have a high-quality relation with the supervisor, they experience the work more positively (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe, 2000).
instrumental and socio-emotional resources are shared (Anand et al., 2010). The supervisor shows empathy and provides to the subordinates physical and emotional resources, which the employees can use to balance the needs of the work and family domain (Mojar & Morganson, 2011). It is expected, that employees are better able to cope with the conflicting demands of the work and family domain when they receive assistance and recognition from the supervisor. This means that the probability that work to family and family to work conflict will occur, will be lower in a situation where employees are in a high LMX, than for employees in a low LMX. In addition, there is reported that when the manager provides support to the employees to balance the needs of work and life, this will have beneficial effects on employees’ attitude and behavior (Kossek et al., 2005). This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a:LMX is negatively associated with work to family conflict Hypothesis 4b:LMX is negatively associated with family to work conflict
Team Member Exchange
The team member exchange (TMX) construct is developed by Seers (1989). TMX is a way to assess the reciprocity between a member and the peer group (Seers, 1989). In contrast to LMX, TMX is not a dyadic relationship, because it is about the employee’s relationships with the peer group as a team (Seers, 1989). It reflects the ongoing process of reciprocation of the employee with the peer group (Seers, Petty & Cashman, 2011). On individual level, an analysis of TMX reflects an employee’s perception of reciprocity with the other team members, whereas on the team level TMX refers to the quality of the exchanges between all group members (Seers et al., 2011). In this study, the focus lays upon the individual level, given that high-quality exchange relationships of individual employees with their fellow team members may influence their attitude toward telework through a decrease in their work/family conflict.
work roles since expectations are set more clearly through the enhanced interaction between the members (Seers, 1989).
Overall, employees in high-quality exchange relationships interact with the other members in a relatively tightly coupled manner. They exchange instrumental and socio-emotional support with their peer members. Members low in TMX direct fewer efforts toward other peers and receive less social rewards than those in a high TMX (Seers et al., 2011). Receiving socio-emotional support and resources from team members can take for employees partly away the negative effect of unexpected demands in the work and family domain (Liden et al., 2000). In addition, employees can use those resources to balance the needs of work and family life (Mojar & Morganson, 2011). Consequently, it is expected that employees can more easily handle the conflicting demands in the work and family domain when they are in high-quality relationships with their coworkers, with an exchange of social support and resources with those peers. This means that the probability that work to family and family to work conflict will occur, will be lower when employees are in a high TMX, than when employees are in a low TMX. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a: TMX is negatively associated with work to family conflict Hypothesis 5b: TMX is negatively associated with family to work conflict
Mediation Model
In current literature is stated that positive personality characteristics, in this study measured with CSE, and good work characteristics, in this study measured with quality of the workplace relationships constructs LMX and TMX, lead to a decrease in work to family and family to work conflict (Carlson & Kacmar, 2000; Frone, et al., 1996). However, researchers have not incorporated yet whether CSE, LMX and TMX lead indirectly to intentions to telework, mediated by work to family and family to work conflict. Following the reasoning that CSE, LMX and TMX influence work to family and family to work conflict, and the prediction that employees with work/family conflict want to make use of organizational initiatives as telework to increase their flexibility, one would expect that work to family and family to work conflict mediates the relation between CSE, LMX and TMX with the dependent variables general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework. As such, this mediation model seeks to clarify why lower core self-evaluations (CSE) and lower quality of relationship with the leader (LMX) and peer group members (TMX) may lead to stronger intentions to telework, mediated by an increase in work to family and family to work conflict. To test this, the following hypotheses are set up:
Hypothesis 7: The indirect relationship between LMX with intentions to telework is mediated by work to family conflict (H7a) and family to work conflict (H7b)
Hypothesis 8: The indirect relationship between TMX with intentions to telework is mediated by work to family conflict (H8a) and family to work conflict (H8b)
Moderated Mediation
Moderated mediation occurs when a moderator interacts with one or more mediators, such that the magnitude of the indirect effect changes depending on the value of the moderator (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007). In this case, these indirect relationships may be conditional on the moderator variable of need for achievement for the paths from work to family and family to work conflict to intentions to telework. As such, the moderated mediation model seeks to clarify why lower levels of core self-evaluations (CSE) and lower quality of the relationship with the leader (LMX) and peer group members (TMX) may lead to stronger intentions to telework through higher work to family and family to work conflict, moderated by need for achievement. To test this moderated mediation model, the following hypotheses are set up:
Hypothesis 9: The indirect relationship between CSE with intentions to telework is mediated by work to family (H9a) and family to work conflict (H9b), and moderated by need for achievement for the paths from work to family (H9a) and family to work conflict (H9b) to intentions to telework
Hypothesis 10: The indirect relationship between LMX with intentions to telework is mediated by work to family (H10a) and family to work conflict (H10b), and moderated by need for achievement for the paths from work to family (H10a) and family to work conflict (H10b) to intentions to telework
Hypothesis 11: The indirect relationship between TMX with intentions to telework is mediated by work to family (H11a) and family to work conflict (H11b), and moderated by need for achievement for the paths from work to family (H11a) and family to work conflict (H11b) to intentions to telework
3. METHOD
Procedure
statistics placed on those intranets about the number of completed questionnaires. A week before the closing date, a bulletin was placed to remind the employees to fill out the questionnaire. Additionally, a reminder was sent by e-mail to the employees who didn’t respond yet.
Design of the Questionnaire
The questionnaire was about employees’ intentions to telework and consisted of 107 questions. It took around 15 minutes to complete it. The language was Dutch. There were two different versions of the questionnaire. One version for those employees who already made structural use of telework, and a version for those who did not. The questionnaire was split up after the question: ‘Do you already make use of telework?’ When the employees filled out that they were already teleworking, the part about ‘intentions to telework’ was skipped. In the questionnaire were questions about the following variables; intentions to telework, work to family and family to work conflict, need for achievement, core self-evaluations, leader member exchange, team member exchange and motives and constraints toward teleworking. In addition, control variables like gender, age, household, years of work experience at the company, contract hours and distance between home to work were included.
Respondents
From the sample of 324 employees, 189 employees filled out the questionnaire completely, yielding a response rate of 58,34%. Among those 189 respondents, were 112 non-teleworkers who are able to perform their tasks with the use of telework, 55 teleworkers, and 22 non-teleworkers who are not able to perform (a part of) their tasks with the use of telework (e.g. receptionist, facility services).
The target population of the present study were the non-teleworkers who can perform (a part of) their tasks with the use of telework. Accordingly, the dataset to test the hypotheses exists of 122 respondents. The information received from the employees who were already teleworking (55 employees) was used as additional information for the banking organization, amongst others, to notice what were the employees’ main reasons to chose for telework and to register the amount of hours the teleworkers were teleworking on average a week.
Measures
Intentions to telework. The outcome variable intentions to telework has been measured using two indicators, namely, general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework.
General attitude to telework was measured by a scale developed for the purpose of this study, using the following five items: ‘I think I will make use of the possibility to telework’, ‘I have the intentions to telework’, ‘I have a very positive attitude toward telework’, ‘I am not willing to make use of the possibility to telework (r)’, and ‘My intentions is to telework as soon as possible’. A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91.
Intended percentage of job to spend on telework was measured using the item ‘What percentage of your job do you want, on average, to spend on telework?’ with 7 response categories (1 = 0%, 2 = >0% - <10%, 3 = 10% - < 30%, 4 = 30% - < 50%, 5= 50% - <70%, 6 = 70% - <90, 7 = 90% - 100%).
Work to family conflict was measured using the six-item scale developed and validated by Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000). Example items are ‘My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like’, ‘When I got home from work I am often too frazzled to participate in family activities/responsibilities’, and ‘Due to all the pressures at work, sometimes when I come home I am too stressed to do the things I enjoy). A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.
Family to work conflict was measured using the six-item scale developed and validated by Carlson, Kacmar and Williams (2000). Example items are ‘The time I spend on family responsibilities often interfere with my work responsibilities’, ‘Due to stress at home, I am often preoccupied with family matters at work’, and ‘Tension and anxiety from my family life often weakens my ability to do my job’. A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.
Need for achievement was measured using the nine-item scale developed and validated by Eisenberger, Jones, Strinlhamber, Shanock, and Randall (2005). Example items are ‘I am pleased when I can take on added job responsibilities’, ‘I am always looking for opportunities to improve my skills on the job’, and ‘I like to set challenging goals for myself on the job’. A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.
Core self-evaluation was measured using the twelve-item scale from the Dutch SCE scale established by De Pater, Schinkel and Nijstad (2007). Example items are ‘I am confident I get the success I deserve in life’, ‘I complete tasks successfully’, and ‘I determine what will happen in my life’. A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.
me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake’. A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.94.
Team member exchange was measured using the ten-item scale developed and validated by Seers (1989). Example items are: ‘How often do you make suggestions about better work methods to other team members?’, ‘How well do other members of your team understand your problems and needs?’, and ‘In busy situations, how often do you volunteer your efforts to help others on your team?’). A 7-point Likert response scale was used, ranging from 1 (in a very low extent) to 7 (in a very high extent). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87.
Control Variables
Gender, age, amount of contract hours, children and household were included as control variables. Gender was measured with the categories ‘man’ (1) and ‘woman’ (2), age in years, amount of contract hours in hours, children with the categories ‘yes’ (1) and ‘no’ (2) and household with the number of individuals in a household using 6 categories (1, 2 ,3 ,4 ,5, >5 people).
Data Analysis
To test the first hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the effects of work to family and family to work conflict on intentions to telework. This first analysis consisted of two steps. In the first step the standardized control variables (gender, age, contract hours, children and household) were entered. In the second step, the standardized work to family and family to work conflict variables were added. The dependent variables were the unstandardized general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework.
For the second hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyses were executed to test whether the variable need for achievement moderates the relations between the independent variables work to family and family to work conflict with the dependent variables general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework. This second analysis existed of three steps. In the first step were the standardized control variables included, in the second step were the standardized work to family conflict, family to work conflict and need for achievement variables added. The third step included the product term of the standardized work/family conflict and need for achievement, and the product term of the standardized family to work conflict and need for achievement. The dependent variables were the unstandardized general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework, respectively.
To test the sixth, seventh, and eighth hypotheses, the bootstrapping method was used to test for mediation. Specifically, this fourth analysis was to test the mediation between CSE, LMX, and TMX with the dependent variables general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework mediated by work to family and family to work conflict. Bootstrapping is the preferred method to test whether mediation is present (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping is preferred above the frequently applied Sobel method, since strapping does control for non-normal distribution, which is mostly the case in small samples. In addition bootstrapping has the option to test for multiple mediators simultaneously (Preaches & Hayes, 2008). The bootstrap method involves repeatedly sampling from the data set with replacement, and estimating the indirect effect of an antecedents on the dependent variable in each data set, called the a*b coefficient product, whereby confidence intervals (CI’s) are built. The a*b coefficient is the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through one or multiple mediators. When the confidence intervals (the lower and upper CI) of the indirect effect does not contain zero mediation is present. Consequently, whenever a confidence interval of a specific indirect effect does contain zero, there is absence of mediation (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Executing the bootstrapping method existed of 4 steps. In the first step the unstandardized dependent variables general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework, respectively, were entered. In the second step were the standardized mediators work to family and family to work conflict added. In the third step the standardized independent variables CSE, LMX and TMX were inserted. In the fourth step the standardized control variables were added.
4. RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Hypotheses Testing
General attitude to telework. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the first hypotheses (1a/d) and the results are shown in Table 2. Results revealed that both work to family and family to work conflict were not significantly positively related with general attitude to telework (b = .05, b = -.01, p = n.s., respectively). Therefore, hypotheses 1a and 1c were not supported, since neither work to family conflict nor family to work conflict did significantly positively predict general attitude to telework.
Intended percentage of job to spend on telework. Beforehand was predicted that work to family (H1b) and family to work conflict (H1d) were significantly positively related with intended percentage of job to spend on telework. The results showed that work to family conflict was significantly positively related with intended percentage of job to spend on telework (b = .18, p < 0.05), whereas family to work conflict was not (b = .03, p = n.s.). Thus, hypothesis 1b was supported, whereas no support was found for hypothesis 1d.
TABLE 2
Results of Regression Analyses Testing Effects of Work to Family and Family to Work Conflict on General Attitude to Telework and Intended Percentage of Job to Spend on Telework
General attitude to telework Intended % telework
Step and variables 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Gender -.05 -.09 -.09 kjhttttkkhjj -.12 -.13 -.13 Age -.18 -.15 -.14 .00 .02 .02 Contract hours Children Household .15 -.39* -.05 .04 .03 -.39* -.41 -.07 -.10 -.06 -.07 -.03 -.10 -.10 -.05 -.05 -.07 -.07 2. Work to family conflict .05 .03 .18* .18*
Family to work conflict -.01 .01 .03 .03 Need for achievement .38** .40** .02 .02
3. Work to family conflict * .21 .01
Need for achievement
Family to work conflict * -.08 -.02
Need for achievement
Core self-evaluations. It was expected that CSE was significantly negatively related with work to family (H3a) and family to work conflict (H3b). Results showed that CSE was highly significantly and negatively related with work to family and family to work conflict (b = -.43, b = -.37, p < .01, respectively). Consequently, hypotheses 3a and 3b were supported, since CSE significantly negatively predicted both work to family and family to work conflict.
Leader member exchange. It was predicted that LMX was significantly negatively related with work to family (H4a) and family to work conflict (H4b). Results revealed that LMX was not significantly negatively related with both work to family and family to work conflict (b =.03, b = .03, p = n.s., respectively). Hence, hypotheses 4a and 4b were unsupported, given that LMX did not significantly negatively predict work to family and family to work conflict.
Team member exchange. It was expected that TMX was significantly negatively related with work to family (H5a) and family to work conflict (H5b). Results indicated that TMX was moderately significantly and negatively related with work to family conflict (b = -.15, p < .10), but is not significantly negatively related with family to work conflict (b= -.10, p = n.s.). Therefore, hypothesis 5a was supported, whereas hypothesis 5b was rejected. TMX did significantly negatively predict work to family conflict, whereas this antecedent did not significantly negatively predict family to work conflict.
TABLE 3
Results of Regression Analyses Core Self-Evaluations, Leader Member Exchange and Team Member Exchange on Work to Family and Family to Work Conflict
Work to family conflict Family to work conflict
Step and variables 1 2 1 2
1. Gender Age Contract hours .06 -.06 .21 -. .06 .03 .33 -.10 -.19** -.12 -.10 -.12 -.02 Children -.07 -.20 -.03 .14 Household .22 .18 .01 -.02 2. Core self-evaluations -.43** -.37**
Leader member exchange .03 .03
Team member exchange -.15* -.10
Mediation for general attitude to telework. In order to test for mediation, the bootstrapping method was used to test hypotheses 6,7, and 8. It was expected that work to family conflict mediates the relation between the independent variables CSE (H6a), LMX (H7a) and TMX (H8a) with the dependent variable general attitude to telework. Additionally, there was predicted that family to work conflict mediates the relations between the independent variables CSE (H6c), LMX (H7c) and TMX (H8c) with the dependent variable general attitude to telework. The results revealed that work to family conflict did not mediate the relation of CSE (CI of -.37 to .07), LMX (CI of -.02 to .06) and TMX (CI -.16 to .01) with general attitude to telework. Family to work conflict did also not mediate the relation between CSE (CI of -.15 to .43), LMX (CI of -.08 to .02) and TMX (CI -.02 to .16) with general attitude to telework. This leaves H6a&c, H7a&c and H8a&c unsupported. Neither work to family conflict nor family to work conflict did significantly link the antecedents of CSE, LMX and TMX to the dependent variable general attitude to telework.
TABLE 4
Test of Mediation of the Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Leader Member Exchange and Team Member Exchange on General Attitude to Telework through Work to Family and
Family to Work Conflict
Percentile 95% CI
Mediation Point Lower Upper
Indirect effect Estimate
1. Core self-evaluations Work to family conflict -.0984 -.3699 .0672 Family to work conflict .0989 -.1542 .4337 Both .0005 -.3260 .3597 2. Leader member exchange Work to family conflict .0040 -.0174 .0630 Family to work conflict -.0050 -.0805 .0170 Both -.0010 -.0670 .0430 3. Team member exchange Work to family conflict -.0307 -.1617 .0123 Family to work conflict .0227 -.0223 .1643 Both -.0080 -.1241 .0896
Mediation for intended percentage of job to spend on telework. It was expected that work to family conflict mediates the relations between the independent variables CSE (H6b), LMX (H7b) and TMX (H8b) with the dependent variable intended percentage of job to spend on telework. Additionally, it was predicted that family to work conflict mediates the relations between the independent variables CSE (H6d), LMX (H7d), and TMX (H8d) with the dependent variable intended percentage of job to spend on telework. The results showed that work to family conflict did mediate the relations between CSE (CI -.31 to -.03) and TMX (CI -.14 to -.001) with intended percentage of job to spend on telework, whereas work to family conflict did not mediate the relation between LMX (CI -.02 to .06) with intended percentage of job to spend on telework. In addition, family to work conflict did not mediate the relations of CSE (CI of -.15 to .43), LMX (CI of -.08 to .02), and TMX (CI -.02 to .16) on intended percentage of job to spend on telework. Consequently, hypotheses 6b and 8b were supported, given that CSE and TMX significantly predicted the intended percentage of job to spend on telework mediated by work to family conflict. LMX did not significantly predict the intended percentage of job to spend on telework, so hypotheses 7b was rejected. Hypotheses 6d, 7d and 8d were neither supported, given that CSE, LMX and TMX did not significantly predict the intended percentage of job to spend on telework mediated by family to work conflict.
TABLE 5
Test of Mediation of the Effects of Core Self-Evaluation, Leader Member Exchange and Team Member Exchange on Intended Percentage of Job to Spend on Telework through
Work to Family and Family to Work Conflict
Percentile 95% CI
Indirect effect Mediation Point Lower Upper Estimate
1. Core self-evaluations Work to family conflict -.1433* -.3143 -.0261 Family to work conflict -.0267 -.2506 .1268 Both -.1700 -.4218 .0173 2. Leader member exchange Work to family conflict .0058 -.0246 .0590
Family to work conflict .0013 -.0099 .0413 Both .0072 -.0295 .0650 3. Team member exchange Work to family conflict -.0447* -.1400 -.0014
Family to work conflict .0061 -.0881 .0263 Both -.0508 -.1637 .0075
Notes: N = 112 5000 bootstrap samples
Moderated mediation and intentions to telework. Testing for moderated mediation, is testing whether the moderator interacts with the mediator. When moderated mediation is present, the value of the indirect effect on the dependent variable changes depending on the value of the moderator (Preacher et al, 2007). It was expected that the indirect relationships between CSE (H9), LMX (H10) and TMX (H11) with intentions to telework is mediated by work to family and family to work conflict and moderated by need for achievement for the paths from work to family and family to work conflict to intentions to telework. Unfortunately, as was already proven above, the moderation effect for need for achievement was not present (hypotheses 2a/d). When the moderation effect is not present, the moderated mediation is inherently unsupported. Consequently, hypotheses 9, 10, and 11 were rejected.
5. DISCUSSION
Both work to family and family to work conflict were hypothesized to be significantly positively related with employees’ general attitude to telework and employees’ intended percentage of job to spend on telework. In literature was stated that employees refer to more easily handling the different demands of work and family domain as the main determinant to adopt teleworking (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 1997), and that the more stress pops up regarding work/family conflict the higher the employees’ intentions to telework would be (Mokhtarian & Salomon, 1996). Findings showed that work to family conflict was significantly positively related with employees’ intended percentage of job to spend on telework, whereas family to work conflict was not. A reason that family to work conflict was not significantly and positively related with employees’ intended work hours spent teleworking, can lay in the fact that work to family conflict occurs more frequently, and has a more deleterious impact on employees than family to work conflict (Frone, 2003). Nonetheless, neither work to family nor family to work conflict were significantly positively related with employees’ general attitude to telework. This can be explained from the view that telework reduces the employees’ professional and social interaction at the workplace (O’Neill, 2009). It can be concluded that the influence of work/family conflict on employees’ attitude to telecommute is different from that on employees’ expected behavior toward telework (Mokhtarian et al., 1998). Furthermore, there is found that the employees in the sample in general had a rather high general attitude to telework (a mean of 5.47 on a scale from 1 to 7).
which consequently could damage their career opportunities (Mokhtarian et al., 1998). As opposed to those expectations, results in this study showed that need for achievement did not moderate the relationships of work to family and family to work conflict with general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework. Therefore, those predictions were not supported. Nonetheless, a notable finding is that, need for achievement was significantly positively correlated with general attitude toward telework. An explanation for this outcome might be that highly achievement-oriented individuals believe that they can get more work done, and consequently achieve higher performance levels when they apply for telecommuting (Mokhtarian et al., 1998). Employees who want to achieve, strive for standards of excellence in competition with others (McClelland, 1985) and with the use of telework employees can even work at home on work-based tasks.
Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the personality variable CSE was negatively related with both work to family and family to work conflict, and there was expected that social support at work, measured with quality of the workplace relationships constructs LMX and TMX, were negatively related with work to family and family to work conflict. Prior research suggested that positive core self-evaluations promotes actively coping with problems in the work and family domain, thereby reducing the level of work/family conflict (Frone, 2003). Likewise, previous research found that high levels of social support at work were related with lower levels of work to family and family to work conflict (Frone, 2003). The results were partly in line with this previous work; whereas the variable CSE was significantly and negatively related with both work to family and family to work conflict just as expected, TMX was significantly and negatively related only with work to family conflict, but not with family to work conflict. LMX was, contrary to prediction, not significantly negatively related with work to family and family to work conflict.
In addition, there was hypothesized that the antecedents CSE, LMX and TMX had an indirect influence on general attitude to telework and intended percentage of job to spend on telework through work to family and family to work conflict. Where CSE and TMX were related with intended percentage of job to spend on telework mediated through work to family conflict, LMX was not. This means that CSE and TMX have an indirect influence on intended percentage of job to spend on telework, mediated through work to family conflict. LMX had not an indirect influence mediated through work to family conflict. No mediating role was found for family to work conflict in the relationships of CSE, LMX and TMX on intended percentage of job to spend on telework. Moreover, CSE, LMX and TMX had no indirect influence on general attitude to telework through work to family and family to work conflict.
So, although support was found for some hypotheses, most hypotheses were not supported by the data. A reason for this can be that the data was gathered under professional workers, whereas literature suggests that clerical workers see reducing work/family conflicts by means of teleworking as more important than professional workers (Mokhtarian et al., 1998).
Strength and Limitations
A strength of this study is that the work/family conflict is differentiated into two directions; work to family and family to work conflict. This makes this study unique and an extension to the current literature and business research. Another strength is that employees’ intentions to telework is measured with an attitudinal and behavioral construct. That is, the present study included employees’ general attitude toward telework and their intended percentage of job to spend on telework. Another strength is the data gathering at two local banks instead of only one, making the sample more representative and larger, as well as the generalization of the results better. Furthermore, a methodological strength is testing the mediation model with the bootstrap method. With the bootstrap method, developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008), mediation can be tested for multiple mediators simultaneously. This method is preferred above the Sobel test, whereby only total mediation can be tested and so, the possibility exist that the mediation effects across multiple mediators cancel each other out (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
A limitation of the present study is the sample size. A sample size of 112 respondents is acceptable, but still small. Another limitation is that only one type of organization - a banking institution - was included. Despite of the heterogeneity in, amongst others, age, educational level and working areas all these employees were working for the same organization. This makes generalization of the results to other, nonfinancial, organizations low. Another limitation that should be born into mind is the method which was used to gather data; the self-report questionnaire. Despite the fact that the treatment of the data happened strictly confidential, the use of a self-report questionnaire had the risk to include social desirability bias in the data set. Social desirability bias refers to the tendency of respondents to answer the questions in a way they think they should answer. This means that a self-report questionnaire as the only method to gather data, can cause systematic measurement error in the data set. So, the use of this method to gather data is a major drawback of this study.
Theoretical Implications
conflict. As emphasized by Frone (2003), both types of work/family conflict may have different antecedents and outcomes (Frone, 2003). Indeed, the present results showed that work to family and family to work conflict has different outcomes. There is a significant and positive relation found between work to family conflict with intended percentage of job to spend on telework, whereas family to work conflict is not significantly and positively related with intentions to telework. This supports the fact that work/family conflict should not be considered as a one-dimensional, but as a multidimensional construct. The fact that work to family conflict is significantly and positively related with intentions to telework is important for the contemporary literature. Thereby, the results of the present study show that work to family conflict occurs more frequently than family to work conflict. This means that work to family conflict is a more central variable in the telework literature than family to work conflict. Consequently, it is crucial to differentiate work/family conflict into work to family and family to work conflict to provide unambiguous research findings and knowledge on how these different aspects are related to antecedents and outcomes.
The second implication is that need for achievement was for the first time used as a moderator in the relation between work/family conflict with intentions to telework. Although no empirical evidence was found for such a moderator role, need for achievement appeared to be significantly and positively related with employees’ general attitude to telework. This means that the more achievement-oriented the employees are, the more positive the general attitude toward telework. Employees with a high achievement-orientation want to excel in their work, and telework might facilitate and permit the employees to coordinate their schedule in the most personally efficient manner. With telework facilities achievement-oriented employees may expect to get more work done, since they can also work at home as many hours as it takes to get the job done (Kosset et al., 2005). It is important to take up in the motivational literature the new insight that employees with a high-achievement orientation report a highly positive overall attitude to telework.
Another implication is the review of the personality concept CSE as an antecedent of work/family conflict. The results show that a positive CSE is significantly and negatively related with work to family and family to work conflict. So, individual differences in personality have their effects on the amount of work to family and family to work conflict. The insight that high core-self evaluations are important to decrease both directions of work/family conflict, is an elaboration for the contemporary CSE literature.
relationship (Frone et al., 1997). These high levels of resources to be invested might operate as a kind of trade off for the received support and can lead to a depletion of personal resources which are needed to fulfill family domain demands (Dierdorff & Ellington, 2008). Thus, on the one hand, a high-quality relationship with the supervisor has the positive effect of supervisor’s support for employees, but, on the other hand, it also takes up a lot of the employees’ energy and resources as well, since a high-quality LMX implies that the employees have to invest a lot in the relationship. This review of LMX is new, since in general, employees are assumed to benefit from a high-quality relationship with their supervisor. Nonetheless, TMX is significantly negatively related with work to family conflict, which is a new insight for the contemporary literature.
Furthermore, work to family conflict was tested for mediation between the antecedents CSE, LMX and TMX with the dependent variable intentions to telework. Where work/family conflict is used earlier as a mediation variable, the direction of the conflict - work to family and family to work conflict - as mediator variables gives the literature new insights, since the present results show that only work to family conflict emerges as mediator. Work to family conflict operates as mediator between CSE and TMX with intended percentage of job to spend on telework, where family to work conflict does not. This means that employees’ with lower levels of CSE or TMX experienced higher levels of work to family conflict and, therefore, reported higher intentions to spend a percentage of the job on telework. This finding supports again the fact that work to family conflict plays a more significant role in employees’ intentions to telework than family to work conflict.
Practical Implications
A first practical implication of this study is that the results show that general attitude to telework is rather high among the respondents of this study (5.47 on a scale from 1 to 7). Thus, in general, employees are rather positive towards the use of telework. These positive intentions are partly related with employees’ experiences of having difficulties with managing their different roles at the workplace and in the family domain. That is, the more employees’ experienced work to family conflict, the higher percentage of their job they preferred to spend on telework. So, telework can be used by management of organizations to facilitate employees to handle their work and family roles more efficiently and effectively.
The second implication that should born into mind is that CSE is a central factor for decreasing the amount of work to family and family to work conflict. Work to family and family to work conflict limits the employees’ ability to meet demands in work and family domain simultaneously. So, it is desirable to reduce the employees’ experience of work to family and family to work conflict. Hereby, employees with a positive CSE experience less conflict than those with a low CSE. So, managers should take personality characteristics into account when they hire new employees.
support at work from peers. This support improves the employees’ functioning in the work role, and so reduces work to family conflict. Consequently, management of organizations should view TMX as an important variable, since it reduces work to family conflict. Moreover, members in a high TMX do not hesitate to show effort to pick up the slack with each other (Murphy, Wayne, Liden & Erdogan, 2003). The quality of the TMX relationships improves when peers engage in behaviors that support and benefit one another in both instrumental and socio-emotional terms (Tse & Dasborough, 2008). This happens more easily when the peers trust and knows each other. So, management can, for example, organize team-based seminars to facilitate this process.
Additionally, management of organizations should born into mind that telework reduces the opportunity for interaction with peers and supervisors, potentially leaving affiliative needs unsatisfied (Shockley & Allen, 2009). Consequently, managers should pay attention to still maintaining interactions with teleworkers (Golden & Raghuram, 2010). This means that employees should be asked to execute teleworking part-time -only one to two days a week- to maintain the interaction with the traditional workplace.
Future Research
This study focused on intentions to telework among professional workers. Professional workers are willing to telework with the reason, amongst others, to reduce work/family conflict (Mokhtarian et al., 1998). For future research it would be interesting to test the employees’ intentions to telework under clerical workers. Clerical workers view reducing work/family conflict by means of teleworking as more important than professional workers (Mokhtarian et al., 1998), so it can be that the correlations under clerical workers would be stronger. In addition, it would be interesting to test the research model in a nonfinancial sector, to make the generalization of the results better.
Furthermore, a deeper exploration of the significant and positive relation between need for achievement with general attitude to telework would be interesting. Contrary to the prediction and previous research, the present results show that highly achievement-oriented employees have a positive attitude toward teleworking. It can be that the negative effect of being less visible on the workplace is neutralized with the fact that the employees can work at home on work-based tasks, and consequently can excel in the work domain. Nonetheless, this finding asks for future research.
demands in the other role (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Carlson et al., 2000). It is apparent that the need to distinguish work/family conflict into those different aspects was already recognized more than 30 years ago by Greenhaus and Beautell (1985) (source: Dierdorf & Ellington, 2008), but future research on this topic still needs to be executed.
This study showed that TMX was significantly negatively related with work to family conflict, where LMX did not demonstrate this effect, while both constructs determine the quality of the workplace relationships. As such, this study can trigger future research aimed at providing further understanding of the different influences of quality of the workplace relationships constructs LMX and TMX, not only on work to family and family to work conflict, but also on other work-relevant attitudes and behaviors.
REFERENCE LIST
Akremi, A.E., Vandenberghe, C., & Camerman, J. 2010. The role of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human Relations, 63(11): 1687-1717.
Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P.R., Liden, R., & Rousseau, D.M. 2010. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5): 970-988.
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(1): 383-400.
Beauregard, T.A. 2006. Predicting interference between work and home. A comparison of dispositional and situational antecedents. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3): 244-264.
Boyar, S.L., & Mosley, D.C. 2007. The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family satisfaction: The mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2): 265-281.
Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., & Williams, L.J. 2000. Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2): 249-276.
Carlson, D.S., Grzywacz, J.G., & Zivnuska, S. 2009. Is work-family balance more than conflict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62(10): 1459-1486.
Currie, J., & Eveline, J. 2010. E-technology and work/life balance for academics with young children. Higher Education, 62(4): 533-550.
De Pater, I.E., Schinkel, S., & Nijstad, B.A. 2007. Validatie van de Nederlandstalige Core Self-evaluations Vragenlijst. Gedrag & Organisatie, 20, 82-100.
Dierdorff, E.C., & Ellington, J.K. 2008. It’s the nature of the work: Examining behavior-based sources of work-family conflict across occupations. American Psychological Association, 93(4): 883-392.
Eisenberger, R., Jones, J.R., Strinlhamber, F., Shanock, L., & Randall, A.T. 2005. Flow
experiences at work: For high need achievers alone? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7):
755-775.
Frone, M.R. 2003. Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.) Handbook of occupational health psychology: 143-162. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Frone, M.R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G.M. 1996. Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1): 57-69.
Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. 1992a. Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(1): 723-729.
Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, M.L. 1992b. Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1): 65-78.
Frone, M.R., & Yardley, J.K. 1996. Workplace family-supportive programmes: Predictors of employed parents’ importance ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(4): 351-366.
Frone, M.R., Yardley, J.K., & Markel, K.S. 1997. Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(2): 145-167.
Golden, T.D., & Raghuram, S. 2010. Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1): 1061-1085.
Greenhaus, J.H., & Beutell, N.J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1): 76-88.
Haddon, L., & Brynin, M. 2005. The character of telework and the characteristics of telework. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1): 34-46.
Higgins, C.A., Duxbury, L.E., & Irving, R.H. 1992. Work-family conflict in the dual-career family. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1): 51-75.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., & Locke, E.A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 237-249.
Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. 2003. The core-self evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2): 303-331.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., & Bono, J.E. 1998. The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2-3): 167-187.
Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. 2011. Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, (21): 331-341.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Judge, T.A., & Scott, B.A. 2009. The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1): 177-195.
Kossek, E.E., Lautsch, B.A., & Eaton, S.C. 2005. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2): 347-367.
Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. 1998. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1): 43-72.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Sparrowe, R..T. 2000. An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 407-416.
Mojar, D.A., & Morganson, V.J. 2011. Coping with work-family conflict: A leader-member exchange perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1): 126-138.
Mokhtarian, P.L., Bagley, M.N., & Salomon, I. 1998. The impact of gender, occupation, and presence of children on telecommuting motivations and constraints. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(12): 1115-1134.
Mokhtarian, P.L., & Salomon, I. 1996. Modeling the choice of telecommuting 2: A case of the preferred impossible alternative. Environment and Planning A, 28(10): 1859-1876.
Mokhtarian, P.L., & Salomon, I. 1997. The desire to telecommute: The importance of attitudinal factors in behavior models. Transportation Research A, 31(1): 35-50.
Murphy, S.M., Wayne, S.J., Liden, R.C., & Erdogan, B. 2003. Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships, Human Relations, 56(1): 61-84.
O’Neill, T.A., Hambley, L.A., Greidanus, N.S., MacDonnell, R., & Kline, T.J.B. 2009. Predicting teleworker success: an exploration of personality, motivational, situational, and job characteristics. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2): 144-162.
Perrons, D. 2003. The new economy and the work-life balance: conceptual explorations and a case study of new media. Gender, Work & Organization,10(1): 65-93.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3): 879-891.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1): 185-227.
Scandura, T.A., & Lankau, M.J. 1997. Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4); 377-391.
Schneider, B. 2011. The human face of workplace flexibility. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1): 103-122.
