New Ways of Working = Effective Ways of Working?
Case study on the effects of New Ways of Working on organizational outcomes and the role of communication
Name: Sebastian Sawicki Student number: 5883652
Thesis supervisor: Pernill van der Rijt Graduate School of Communication Words: 8361
Abstract
New Ways of Working (NWW) is a work design in which employees can control the timing and place of their work, while being supported by electronic communication. NWW may result in employee’s higher job performance, job satisfaction and better work-life balance. But employees working remotely may feel more professional isolated. The main objective of this study was to examine whether New Ways of Working (NWW) has an influence on job performance and which role communication plays in this process. Therefore, the following research question was formulated: How does New Ways of Working influence job performance, and what is the role of communication in this process? In order to answer the research question, a case study was conducted at a Dutch organization operating in financial services. The results provide empirical support for a direct link between NWW and job
performance, job satisfaction and work-life balance. Furthermore, the results show an indirect influence of NWW on job performance mediated by work-life balance and professional isolation. Next, empirical evidence shows that NWW has a negative effect on professional isolation. The moderating role of communication on the
relationship between NWW and work-related outcomes has been partially confirmed. The results show that communication only moderates the relationship between NWW and professional isolation.
Introduction
Technological innovations made it possible to change the communication within organizations. Because of the Internet, temporal and geographical barriers to the exchange of information are overcome. This major change has its effects on how
work is done (Sproull & Kiesler, 1992). It became possible for organizations to choose the new approach of New Ways of Working (NWW) over old fashion work design (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012).
The term NWW, introduced by Baarne, Houtkamp and Knotter (2010),
combines the concepts of teleworking (Fonner & Roloff, 2012) and Flexible Working Arrangements (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). This new work design consists of three interrelated elements: increased use of media technologies, and temporal and spatial flexibility (Korunka & Gerdentisch, 2014). Due to NWW employees have more control about when and where they work and via which communication media (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012).
NWW environments comprise both positive and negatives aspects (Korunka & Gerdentisch, 2014). On the one hand, NWW can positively influence job
performance (De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011), job satisfaction (Fonner & Roloff, 2010; De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011), effective communication (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012), efficient work process (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012) and work
engagement (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; De Menezes & Kelliher, 2011). In addition, NWW allow employees to establish a better work-life balance (Fonner & Roloff, 2010). Furthermore, NWW help organizations to reduce long-term costs (Rennecker & Godwin, 2005). Despite the positive effects, some studies emphasize possible drawbacks of NWW such as professional isolation (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006) and work intensification (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Moreover, employees might experience more stress caused by interruptions from work (Fonner & Roloff, 2012; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012) and exhaustion from work (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012).
Due to those mixed findings in previous NWW research, De Menezes and Kelliher (2011) conclude that there is a lack of clear evidence in support of a universal business case for NWW. There is still a need for quantitative and
multifactorial scientific research that clarifies the effects of NWW (Blok et al., 2011).
Furthermore, Blok et al. (2011) state that organizations do not fully understand the concept of NWW; companies implement NWW because they have certain
benefits in mind, without having a clear understanding of the overall effects. According to The National Survey about New Ways of Working 2014 (Nationale Enquête Over Het Nieuwe Werken 2014), 36% of Dutch companies already implemented NWW. The survey was conducted among almost 5,000 employees (mostly HR-professionals and managers). However, the opposite movement already has been signalled. Despite the possible advantages that come along with NWW, companies like Yahoo and Hewlett Packard recall their employees into the offices and are stopping the NWW programs (Polderman, 2013). This shows the urgency for more research in the field of NWW in order to facilitate a better understanding of the concept and both its possible positive and negative effects. Furthermore, like every management change programme, NWW, could be affected by communication related obstacles (Vokla & Bouradas, 2005). The lack of communication is one of the reasons that change programs may fail (Beer and Nohria, 2000). Trust in top management can reduce feelings of uncertainty and unfounded fears (Weber & Weber, 2001).
Therefore, the role of top management is considered crucial for the success of change in the change management literature (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Prior research shows that ‘when communication opportunities exist and communication channels are open, there is involvement in decision making, active participation in discussions about organizational issues, and trust in management is increased’ (Vokla & Bouradas,
2005, p. 445). Moreover, over the last decades, many scholars have reported the importance of communication to organization’s effectiveness (Pincus, Knipp & Rayfield, 1990). Despite the potential importance of communication in the successful implementation of NWW and its possible influence on job performance and other work-related outcomes, this area of research calls for more examination (Garnett, Marlowe & Pandey, 2008). This leads to the following research question:
RQ: How does New Ways of Working influence job performance, and what is the role of communication in this process?
In order to answer the research question, this research was conducted as a case study at a Dutch organization operating in financial services. This organization
introduced NWW in 2011. The main goal was to increase employee’s job
performance. Research has shown that job performance can be considered as the most associated benefit of NWW (McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003). Another goal for the organization to implement NWW was improving employee’s job satisfaction as well as the establishment of a better work-life balance. Previous research suggests positive effects of employee’s autonomy in deciding when and where to perform their work on job satisfaction and work-life balance (Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Despite those benefits, the organization acknowledged that the social cohesion within teams could be affected by the new work design. This potentially could lead to professional isolation. Thatcher and Zhu (2006) and Golden et al. (2008) report that employees can feel professional isolated while working remotely. This case study follows both the existing literature and the organization’s goals and fear and focuses on job-performance, job satisfaction and work-life balance as potential advantages of NWW and professional isolation as a potential threat of NWW. Also, the role of
communication as a tool to maximize the advantages, and minimize the threats, of NWW is examined.
The aim of this study is to conduct a multi factorial research on NWW as proposed by Blok et al. (2011). This contributes to a better understanding of the concept of NWW, its potential outcomes and the effects of NWW on employee behaviour. Moreover, mixed findings are reported in prior research on outcomes of NWW. Those mixed findings call for more empirical examination. Furthermore, the role of communication as a potential tool to maximize the advantages of NWW and minimize the threats of NWW is not examined so far. This creates a knowledge gap on the role of communication on the relationship between NWW and its potential outcomes. The present study also extends prior research on NWW by adding a new characteristic to special flexibility within the offices as proposed by Van Breukelen et al. (2014). The insights of this study could help the organization to gain a better understanding of the effects of their NWW investment or policy decisions regarding the implementation of NWW. Once positive outcomes have been established, organizations new to NWW can use those results in order to legitimize
implementation of NWW. More importantly, this study may provide insights on the positive effect(s) of communication within a NWW environment.
Theoretical background
New Ways of Working
Since the 1950’s, organizations experiment with employees doing their jobs from outside the offices. The interest in more flexible work designs grew further in
the 1970’s when teleworking was introduced (Baruch, 2001). In 2010, Baarne, Houtkamp and Knotter (2010) combined different aspects of flexible work designs like teleworking, telecommuting, flexible work arrangements, and introduced the term New Ways of Working (NWW). According to Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012), NWW consists of three interrelated elements: spatial and temporal independency and new media technologies. The first two elements enable employees to work where and when they want. The third element makes the other two possible. Due to new media technologies employees can connect with others or gain access to digital resources (Baane, Houtkamp & Knotter, 2010). In the next paragraphs, these three elements will be explained more in-depth.
According to Van Breukelen et al. (2014), the most important feature of NWW is that work became space independent. In literature, this autonomy of space is called teleworking or telecommuting (Fonner & Roloff, 2012; Van Breukelen et al., 2014). Organizations offer their employees various ways of working. Working remotely has its impact on the use of the office space. In organizations where NWW has been implemented, it is common that employees no longer have fixed workspaces (Van Breukelen et al., 2014; Blok et al., 2011). Furthermore, the offices are often divided in different areas where different types of work are performed, for example meeting rooms, brainstorm rooms and project rooms (Van Breukelen et al., 2014). Besides the office, the most important working space is the employee’s home (Blok et al., 2011). The second feature of NWW is the flexibility in time, since employees receive the autonomy to decide when and how long they work. According to Van Breukelen et al. (2014), this autonomy comes under certain conditions. Those
conditions differ between organizations. While in some organizations (regardless the location where employees work, e.g. home or at the office) employees need to work
their contracted hours, in other organizations employees solely have to achieve their targets regardless the hours they work. As long as required tasks are completed, it is (to some extent) irrelevant how long it took the employee to achieve those tasks. This implies the disappearance of fixed work schedules like 9AM to 5PM jobs (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; Van Breukelen et al., 2014). This temporal and spatial flexibility is facilitated by new media technologies, such as e-mail, smart-phones and videoconferences. Due to Web 2.0, NWW offer employees various options for communicating with co-workers, supervisors and clients at any time and any place. These options include, among others, making phone calls, online messaging and having digital meetings (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; Baarne et al., 2010; Van Breukelen et al., 2014).
Combining these three characteristics of NWW, this study follows Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012) and defines NWW as ‘a work design in which employees can control the timing and place of their work, while being supported by electronic communication’ (p. 114). Because employees are in control of when and where they work, they perceive a higher feeling of autonomy (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Baruch, 2001). Hackman and Oldham (1976) defined autonomy at work as ‘the degree to which a job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedure to be used in carrying it out’ (p. 258). Research has shown that perceived autonomy because of NWW can lead to an increase in job performance, job satisfaction and a better work-life balance (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Baltes et al., 1999; Baruch, 2001). These outcomes are in line with the expectations of the organization where this case study was conducted. Despite those potential advantages, NWW can also lead to
development options (Baruch, 2001). This subsequently may lead towards
professional isolation (Gajendran & Harrison 2007). Professional isolation has been noted as a potential drawback by the organization of this study. In the following sections, the relationship between NWW and its positive outcomes will be further elaborated. Subsequently, a threat of professional isolation as a result of NWW will be described. Finally, the role of communication and its effect on the relationship between NWW and the potential outcomes is hypothesized.
Job performance
The improvement of employee’s job performance is probably one of the most desired outcomes associated with NWW (McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 1999; Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Job performance represents the level of achievement of each job (Byars & Rue, 2000) and the fulfilment of organizational regulations, expectations or requirements for an official role (Campbell, 1990). Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) defined job performance as ‘scalable actions,
behaviours and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with and contribute to organizational goals’ (p. 216). Job performance consists of two elements: in-role behaviour and extra-role behaviour. In-role behaviour represents role requirements or activities associated with the formal and explicit job descriptions. Extra-role behaviour is defined as discretionary and spontaneous behaviour that goes beyond recognized and required job duties (Organ, 1988; Pond et al., 1997; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Williams, 1988). In order to gain a more complete picture of employee performance, this research follows the approach of combining both in-role
and extra-role behaviours as the two elements of employee performance (Allen & Rush, 1998, Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995).
Prior research provides five main reasons for the improvement of job performance by NWW. The first of the main assumptions is that telecommuting means fewer disruptions while working (Daniels, et al., 2001). Hunton (2005) found that employees working part of their time outside the office reported the least number of work and non-work interruptions from work. These findings are in line with Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012) who found that NWW support employees to avoid excessive informal face-to-face interruptions by colleagues while working at home. Fewer interruptions mean higher productivity and job performance (Daniels, et al., 2001; Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012; Bélanger, 1999). Second, and as already mentioned before, NWW provide employees with the autonomy to decide when, where, and how they perform their job. In their meta-analysis, Baltes et al. (1999) found that employees make more efficient use of their circadian rhythms (24-hr physiological cycle) because of this perceived autonomy. According to this approach, there are only a few hours a day when employees enjoy their peak period and perform at optimal levels. Efficient use of the circadian rhythms results in better fit between employee’s abilities and the tasks requirements. This individual control over the timing of work could also have a significantly positive effect on productivity (Bailyn, 1989). Third, the spatial and temporal autonomy may result in less amount of stress experienced by employees (e.g. work arrival related stress). Less stress on a daily basis results in higher job performance (Baltes et al., 1999). Furthermore, Kelliher and Anderson (2010) found that, facilitated by technology, some employees worked the time saved by not commuting to work, rather than using it for non-work activities. Kelliher and Anderson (2010) explained the use of these principles by social
exchange theory; they propose that employees are ‘grateful to their employers for accommodating changes to their working arrangements, reciprocate by extending greater effort, a benefit to the employer’ (p. 16). Finally, Haddock et al. (2006) reported that telecommuters are better able to keep pace at home and work more efficient to finish their work on time in order to lose no time with their families. In line with these findings, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 1: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job performance.
Job satisfaction
A second potential advantage of NWW is increased job satisfaction (Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010). Job
satisfaction is the employee’s attitude towards the level of satisfaction with his/her job. This study follows the classical definition of job satisfaction by Locke (1976). Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’. The appraisal involves various elements related to the job such as salary, working conditions, colleagues and boss, career prospects and, of course, the intrinsic aspects of the job itself (Arnold et al. 1998).
In literature, several positive effects of NWW on job satisfaction are reported. According to Fonner and Roloff (2010) and Gajendran and Harrison (2007), there are two main factors that help increase employee’s job satisfaction in a NWW
environment. First, teleworkers who are able to diminish work-life conflict reported to be more satisfied with their jobs (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). These results are in
line with Kossek and Ozeki (1998) who suggest that teleworkers who succeed in decreasing work interferences in personal lives are more satisfied with their jobs. The relationship between work-life conflict and NWW will be elaborated in more detail in the next section of this paper. The second factor is the perceived autonomy as a result of NWW (Fonner and Roloff, 2010). According to Baltes et al. (1999), perceived autonomy fosters job satisfaction because the flexible work arrangements meet the employee’s need for independence and increase in responsibility. In addition to these two factors, Raghuram and Wiesenfeld (2004) argue that teleworkers experience less job related stress. According to Fairbrother and Warn (2003), less job related stress is positively related to job satisfaction because employees experience less uncertainty and they are more in control. It is therefore expected that:
Hypothesis 2a: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
According to literature, satisfied workers are productive workers (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). In their meta-analysis, Judge et al. (2001) found that job
satisfaction is a predictor of job performance. In 1998, Timothy et al. found
quantitative support for the ‘happy productive worker’ theory. The theory states that ‘more satisfied employees will outperform employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs and experience negative moods’ (Timothy et al., 1998a; p. 174). Judge et al. (1998) also found evidence for the job satisfaction – job performance relationship, and they also found that the job satisfaction-performance correlation varies by occupation and level of job complexity. Judge et al. (1998) reported a stronger correlation in jobs higher in complexity. Those jobs often allow for increased employee decision discretion and more autonomy. In line with these findings, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 2b: Job satisfaction has a positive effect on job performance.
Hypothesis 2c: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job performance through enhanced job satisfaction.
Work-life balance
The third potential positive outcome of NWW is a better established work-life balance. Work-life balance has become an important issue in modern, post-industrial societies because of its link to concerns about the quality of life (Hilbrecht et al., 2008). The concept of work-life balance deals with finding the ways of balance that an individual creates between competing demands of work and home. This balance means how individuals do or should fulfil their employment related and personal responsibilities in such a way that an overlapping situation is not created (Konrad & Mangel, 2000). Work-life balance has been defined as ‘satisfaction and good
functioning at work and at home with a minimum of role conflict’ (Clark, 2000; p. 751). According to Hilbrecht et al. (2008), ‘the dominant work–life balance discourse suggests that when work becomes time consuming, either in number of hours, timing of the work schedule or intensity of pace, it can lead to the neglect of important relationships and responsibilities, with negative implications for physical health, emotional and psychological well-being and overall quality of life’ (p. 455). This statement is in line with Chalofsky and Krishna (2009) who found that ‘when work takes the upper hand, people are more likely to become stressed or suffer in their health, family and social lives’ (p.197).
The spatial and temporal flexibility, which comes along with NWW, has been identified as an important factor in shaping the way in which work interacts with the rest of employee’s life (Hill, Erickson & Holmes, 2010). The positive effects of NWW on work-life balance are supported by the meta-analysis of Gajedran and Harrison (2007). Flexible work arrangements (e.g. working from home) increase the perceptions of control over work and family matters and this, in turn, lowers work– life conflict (McNall, Masuda & Nicklin, 2010). It is therefore expected that:
Hypothesis 3a: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on work-life balance.
Stress caused by work-life conflict may lead to less performing employees (Gajedran & Harrison, 2007). However, a good work-life balance leads to employee’s positive state of mind and psychological well-being (Scandura & Lankau, 1997; Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Gajedran & Harrison, 2007). Wright and Cropanzano (2000) report that reducing employee’s stress levels has a positive effect on employee’s psychological well-being. Psychological well-being leads to higher job performance ratings. For example, family friendly policies as flex-time and childcare have been proposed to reduce employee’s levels of stress and enhance levels of employee’s psychological well-being (Wright, Cropanzano & Bonett, 2007). In line with those findings, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 3b: Work-life balance has a positive effect on job performance.
Hypothesis 3c: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job performance through enhanced work-life balance
Professional isolation
Despite the advantages, NWW can be described as a “double-edged sword” due to the different ways employees in which employees might experience it – what is a plus for one, might be a downside for the other. For example, teleworkers can miss informal interactions that occur in the workplace and feel professional isolated from their colleagues (Piskurich, 1996). Interpersonal networking can exist in various forms, including office gossip and work-related, spontaneous discussions (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Diekema (1992) defines professional isolation as ’a state of mind or belief that one is out of touch with others in the workplace’.
Several studies found that employees can feel detached and isolated from the workplace and colleges because of NWW (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden, Veiga & Dino, 2008; Thatcher & Zhu, 2006). Professional isolation may occur because employees spend less time at the office and work more often remotely (Thatcher & Zhu, 2006; Golden et al., 2008). According to Gajendran and Harrison (2007), a decrease of eye-to-eye contact, lower frequency of communication, and less social presence are responsible for weaker bonds between teleworkers, their colleagues and supervisors. This may result in the threat of decreased work promotion opportunities. The authors claim that this effect of teleworking is especially severe for those
teleworkers who spend most of their time during the week working at home rather than going to office (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). It is therefore expected that:
Hypothesis 4a: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on professional isolation.
Furthermore, little previous research has been done on the impact of
professional isolation on job performance (Golden et al., 2008). According to Golden et al. (2008), professionally isolated teleworkers are less likely and able to receive,
accurately interpret, or use important information, which affects their job
performance. Moreover, professionally isolated teleworkers lack the ability to launch valued job initiatives. Their findings suggest ‘that the negative impact of professional isolation on job performance is greater for those who spend extensive amounts of time teleworking and for those who engage in limited face-to-face interaction’ (p. 1417). It is therefore expected that:
Hypothesis 4b: Professional isolation has a negative effect on job performance.
Hypothesis 4c: New Ways of Working has negative effect job performance through enhanced professional isolation.
Role of communication
Over the last decades, many scholars have reported the importance of communication to organization’s effectiveness (Pincus, Knipp & Rayfield, 1990). According to literature, communication has positive effects on work-related outcomes like job performance and job satisfaction (Pincus, 1986). Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel (2001) concluded that there are two important components that shape the
communication within an organization and the way employees perceive it. The first aspect is the actual content of organizational messages, since it concerns members' satisfaction with what is being communicated. Second, the communication climate, or how the information is communicated within an organization. Closely related to the concept of communication climate is the concept of communication opportunities, introduced by Vakola and Bourdas (2005). According to Vakola and Bouradas (2005) ‘communication opportunities here are related to openness and trust in
communication, information sharing, perceived feelings of having a voice and being taken seriously’ (p. 445). Previous research shows that when communication
opportunities exist and communication channels are open, there is involvement in decision making, active participation in discussions about organisational issues and trust in management is increased (McCauley & Kuhnert, 1992; Smidts et al., 2001). It can help organizations to motivate and simulate their workers to meet
organizational goals (Clampitt & Downs, 1993).
In a NWW environment, work became spatial and temporal independent as a result of the increased use of advanced IT technology (Ten Brummelhuis et al., 2012). This changed the communication within organizations (Rico & Cohen, 2005) and made it possible for teams to become more virtual (Kirkman et al. 2004). In the beginning, scholars divided virtual teams into two categories: as completely virtual or completely face-to-face. However, recent research suggests this distinction is
unrealistic and artificial. Instead, virtuality of a team lies on a continuum ranging for highly to minimally virtual (Cohen & Gibson, 2003). For example, some teams that are referred to as non-virtual actually communicate electronically between face-to-face meetings, and teams that are viewed as virtual often have initial face-to-face-to-face-to-face meetings. Despite the advantages of working remotely, NWW also face challenges like geographic dispersion and technological dependence (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). For example, geographically separated team members can lack “mutual knowledge” of each other’s situations, increasing coordination problems in acquiring knowledge and resources (Cramton, 2001). Electronic dependence creates logistical and
technological constraints that limit informal spontaneous interaction, hindering knowledge interpretation (DeSanctis and Monge, 1999). In order to maximize the benefits of NWW and minimize the disadvantages, it is important to overcome those
challenges. Communication is found to be one of the factors to achieve this goal (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). First, communication can help in ‘ironing out the potential kinks in daily operations across geographic locales and make for a satisfactory working relationship, increasing the likelihood that team members will efficiently accumulate the necessary external links to acquire knowledge and resources’ (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006, p. 463). Second, an open communication climate helps to increase informal communication and creates an environment where giving and/or receiving feedback is possible. This is necessary in order to overcome problems of subtle control, low message clarity, and knowledge interpretation that result from reduced face-to-face interaction (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976), and lack of social cues (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986) during electronic communication. Finally, an open communication climate encourages frequent, spontaneous, informal, and direct communication in quick conversations or short e-mails (Monge, Cozzens & Contractor, 1992). This helps in creating trust and good relationships among team members (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).
Given the important role of communication in an NWW environment, it is plausible to expect communication’s moderation effect on work-related outcomes of NWW. According to Garnett et al. (2008), a moderation effect implies that ‘a
moderating variable alters the independent variable’s effect on the dependent variable’. Instead of being channelled through the mediator, the independent
variable’s effect is instead characterized by its interaction with the moderator. Some moderators mitigate or dampen the independent variable’s effect, others amplify or strengthen it, and some have an effect such that the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables is present only when the moderator takes on a particular value or range of values.’ (p. 271). In the next section, the moderation effect
of communication on the relationship between NWW and job performance, job satisfaction and professional isolation will be hypothesized. Because no literature was found on the role of communication in the relationship between NWW and work-life balance, work-life balance was left out of this study.
Open communication climate, personal feedback and face-to-face
communication with supervisors and co-workers have been reported to have positive effect on job performance, job satisfaction and professional isolation (Pincus, 1986; Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Robbins, 2001; Golden et al., 2008; Golden, 2006). This positive influence has a number of explanations. For example, the literature suggests that when teleworkers devote more time to face-to-face interactions, they are better able to reduce a number of communication and interpersonal obstacles associated with being physically absent from the office milieu. Reducing communication
obstacles helps employees to build a relationship based on trust with their co-workers and supervisors. This relationship can result in an information exchange needed in order to finish the tasks (Golden et al., 2008). According to Gajendran and Harriso (200), another plausible explanation for this pattern of findings is that telecommuters are aware of the potential for deterioration in relationship quality, and they
strategically focus on developing high-quality employee–supervisor relationships. For example, they may ensure that the supervisor is kept updated of their efforts through regular reports and phone conversations. Supervisors, too, might focus greater attention on and employ structured communication with telecommuters because they have fewer opportunities to observe those employees on a casual basis. According to literature, this may lead to better task performance, more job satisfaction and less professional isolation (Gajendran &Harrison, 2007; Golden et al., 2008; Golden, 2006). Based on those findings, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 5a: Communication opportunities moderate the relationship between New Ways of Working and job performance. Communication opportunities positively influence the relationship between NWW and job performance.
Hypothesis 5b: Communication opportunities moderate the relationship between New Ways of Working and job satisfaction. Communication opportunities positively
influence the relationship between NWW and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5c: Communication opportunities moderate the relationship between New Ways of Working and professional isolation. Communication opportunities negatively influence the relationship between NWW and professional isolation
The hypotheses resulted in de following model (see Figure 1): Figure 1 - Model
Methods Procedure
This study was conducted as a case study at a Dutch organization operating in financial services. The organization operates in insurances, trust funds and keeps its own bank for both private and corporate clients. The organization has more than 5,000 employees contracted. The implementation of NWW started in 2011. One of
the elements of the implementation is the renovation of the Amsterdam-based office. Relocation to the renovated floor is meant as final step in implementation of NWW. For this study a quantitative method is used in order to analyse the proposed model and hypotheses. To test the proposed model and hypotheses an online survey among employees was held to collect the relevant data. The data for this study were collected in May 2015 within a one-week period. The survey was published on the organization’s intranet with a short introduction of the subject, the method and the researcher. The survey was conducted in Dutch.
Respondents
The respondents could voluntarily complete the survey. 381 employees started the online questionnaire and 268 employees (n=268) completed it. The incomplete surveys were deleted. The missing values (n=13) have been replaced by series mean. The respondents came from all the divisions across the company. 160 male workers (59.7%) and 108 female workers (40.3%) completed the survey. The average age of the respondents was 42 years (M=41.64, SD=10.62) 60 respondents (22.4%) were single and 208 respondents (77.6%) were married or lived together with their partner. The average distance between respondents’ home and the office was 37.94 km (M=37.94, SD= 34.86). At the time the survey was conducted average number of years the respondents worked for the organization was 11 years (M=11.03, SD=9.60). 177 respondents (66%) were full-time contracted, 69 respondents (25.7%) had a part-time contract, 1 respondent was an intern (0.4%), and 21 respondents (7.8%) were hired via another company. The average of respondents’ contracted hours was 36 hours (M=36.19, SD=5.46). However, the respondents suggested that they actually work more hours than contracted, the average of actual worked hours was 39 hours
(M=39.08, SD=6.93). The average difference between actual hours and contracted hours was 2.89 over hours (M=2.89, SD=4.61). 221 respondents (82.5%) had higher degree of education (WO or HBO), 47 respondents (17.5%) had a middle of lower degree of education (44 respondents: MBO, HAVO or VWO and 3 respondents elementary school or LBO). 37 respondents (13.8%) had a managing role. Average respondents’ team existed out of 18 employees (M=18.16, SD=26.94). Finally, 39 respondents (14.6%) worked at the new designed floor since Spring 2014, 23
respondents (11.9%) since summer 2014, 83 respondents (31%) since fall/winter 2014 and 114 respondents (42.5%) did not work (yet) at the new designed floor.
Measures
The measures used in this study were based on existing scales in the literature about NWW, job-performance, job-satisfaction, work-life balance, professional isolation and communication opportunities. In the survey, all variables (except the demographical questions) were measured using a 1–5 point Likert Scale, from 1= totally disagree to 5= totally agree. The first variable NWW is measured by the 17-items New Ways of Working Scale (NWW Scale) (α =.84) developed by Ten Brummelhuis, et al. (2011). The scale is a theory-driven survey instrument designed to measure NWW. The scale existed out of 3 sub-elements: time (e.g. “I work at a time schedule that I plan myself), space (e.g. “I can choose at which location I work”) and communication (e.g. “I have the feeling of being in control over the
communication I have for work.”). Job performance is measured with a 9-items scale developed by Goodman and Svyantek (1999) (e.g. “I could manage more
responsibility than typically assigned”). Churchill et al. (1985) have demonstrated that self-ratings of performance are a validated measure and correlates highly with other
measures of performance. The scale was reliable (α =.86). Six items selected (e.g. “Most days I am enthusiastic about my job”) from the Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) developed by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) measured job satisfaction. A number of researchers have adopted a 6- item version of this measure as it has displayed
adequate reliability (e.g. Aryee, Fields & Luk, 1999; Moorman, 1993). The scale was also reliable (α =.85). For measuring work-life balance variable, the first part of WIPL scale presented by Hayman (2005) was used. The scale existed out of seven items (e.g. ‘‘I neglect personal needs because of work’’). The next variable, professional isolation is measured with a 7-items scale developed by Golden et al. (2008). WIPL scale had to be reversed because the scale actually measured the work-life imbalance. After reversion the scale showed to be reliable (α=.89). Golden et al. (2008) used their scale to measure effects of teleworkers’ professional isolation on job performance (e.g. ‘’I feel isolated’’). The scale was reliable (α=.84). The final variable,
communication opportunities, is measured by 5-items scale (α =.79) proposed by Vakola and Bouradas (2005). The scale measures different levels of communication between organization and its employees (e.g. “The company keeps employees informed regarding its mission, plans and progress.”). In addition, several control variables were tested: gender, education level, over hours, and relocation to the new floor. For complete survey see Appendix C.
After the survey was completed, a dataset in SPSS was created in order to perform a statistical analysis. All the measures have been tested at 95% confidence interval.
First, the correlations between the variables and the control variables were tested. Although there were some correlations, the correlations were weak (<.25) (see Table 1 Appendix A). Therefore it was decided to exclude the control variables from the further analyses.
H1: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job performance. The first hypothesis tested the influence of NWW (M= 3.53, SD= .51) on job performance (M= 3,93, SD= .46). The regression model with job performance as dependent variable and NWW as independent variable was significant, F(2,659)= 1.266 , p<.01. The
regression model can therefore be used to predict job performance. 4.6% of the variation in job performance can be predicted on the basis of NWW (R2 = .046). The regression model showed that there is a significant positive effect of NWW (b*=.22, t=3.57, p<.01) on job performance (see table 2 Appendix A). Respondents with higher scores on NWW often scored their job performance higher than the respondents with lower score of NWW. Therefore the first hypothesis is accepted.
H2a: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job satisfaction. The first part of the second hypothesis tested the influence of NWW (M= 3.53, SD= .51) on job satisfaction (M= 3,94, SD= .69). The regression model with job satisfaction as dependent variable and NWW as independent variable was significant, F(21,454)= 1,266, p<.01. The regression model can therefore be used to predict job satisfaction. 7.5% of the variation in job satisfaction can be predicted on the basis of NWW (R2 = .075) The regression model showed that there is a significant positive effect of NWW on job satisfaction. Respondents with higher score on the NWW scale showed to be more satisfied with their jobs (b*=.27, t=4.63, p<.01) (see table 3 Appendix A). Hypothesis 2A is accepted.
of the second hypothesis tested the influence of job satisfaction (M= 3,94, SD= .69) on job performance (M= 3,93, SD= .46). The regression model with job performance as dependent variable and job satisfaction as independent variable was not significant, F(1,727)= 1,266, n.s (see table 4 Appendix A). Therefore hypothesis 2b is rejected.
H2c: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on job performance through enhanced job satisfaction. For the third part of the second hypothesis, the mediation effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between NWW and job performance was measured. Although there was a significant effect of NWW on both job performance (b*=0.215, t=3.57, p<.01) and job satisfaction (b*=.273, t=4.632, p<.01) there was no significant relationship between job performance and job satisfaction (b*=.080, t=1.314, n.s.). Therefore it can be stated that there was no mediation effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between NWW and job performance (see figure 2 Appendix B). Hypothesis 2c is rejected.
H3a: New Ways of Working has a positive effect on work-life balance. Hypothesis 3a tested the influence of NWW (M= 3.533, SD= .51) on work-life balance (M=2.30, SD=.79). The regression model with work-life balance as dependent variable and NWW as independent variable was significant, F(6,884)= 1,99, p=.01. The regression model can therefore be used to predict work-life balance. 6.5 % of the variation in work-life balance can be predicted on the basis of NWW (R2 = .065). The regression model showed that there is a significant positive effect of NWW on work-life balance. Respondents with high scores on NWW showed to have more work-life balance (b*=.255, t=2.624, p=.01) (see table 5 Appendix A).
Therefore hypothesis 3a is accepted.
3b tested the influence of work-life balance (M=2.30, SD=.79) on job performance (M= 3,93, SD= .46). The regression model with job performance as dependent variable and work-life balance as independent variable was significant F(7,877)= 1,99, p<.01). The regression model can therefore be used to predict job performance. 7.4% of the variation in work-life balance can be predicted on the basis of NWW (R2 = .074). The regression model showed that there is a significant positive effect of work-life balance on job performance (b*=.271, t=2.807, p<.01) (see table 6 Appendix A). Hypothesis 3b is accepted.
H3c: New Ways of Working a positive effect on job performance through enhanced work-life balance. The mediation was measured with Model 4 by Hayes (2014). There was a significant indirect effect of NWW on job performance through work-life balance, b=.047, 95%-CI[.0019,.1566]. This represents a relatively small effect k²=0.42 95%-CI[.011,. 093] (see Figure 3 in Appendix B). H3c is accepted.
H4a: New Ways of Working has a positive effect professional isolation. Hypothesis 4a tested the influence of NWW (M= 3.533, SD= .51) on professional isolation (M=2.42, SD=.66). The regression model with professional isolation as dependent variable and NWW as independent variable was significant, F(39,139)= 1,266 p<.01. The regression model can therefore be used to predict work-life balance. 12.8 % of the variation in professional isolation can be predicted on the basis of NWW (R2 = .128) The regression model showed that there is a significant negative effect of NWW on professional isolation. Respondents with higher scores on the NWW scale showed to feel less professional isolated (b*=-.358, t=-6.256, p<.01) (see table 7 Appendix A). Because NWW showed to reduce the feeling of professional isolation hypothesis 4a is rejected.
H4b Professional isolation has negative effect job performance. Hypothesis 4b tested the influence of professional isolation (M=2.42, SD=.66) on job performance (M= 3,93, SD= .46). The regression model with job performance as dependent variable and professional isolation as independent variable was significant,
F(14,261)= 1,266, p<.01. The regression model can therefore be used to predict job performance. 5.1 % of the variation in job performance can be predicted by
professional isolation (R2 = .051). The regression model showed that there is a significant negative effect of professional isolation on job performance. Respondents with a higher score on the professional isolation scale scored their performance lower (b*=-.226, t=-3.776, p<.01) (see table 8 Appendix A). Because professional isolation results in lower job performance hypothesis 4b is accepted.
H4c: New Ways of Working has a negative effect job performance through enhanced professional isolation. For the third part of the fourth hypothesis the mediation effect of professional isolation in the relationship between NWW and job performance was measured. The mediation effect was measured by Model 4 by Hayes (2014). There was a significant indirect effect of NWW on job performance through professional isolation, b=.055, 95%-CI[.0158,.115]. This represents a relatively small effect k²=0.06, 95%-CI[.018,. 118]. (see Figure 3 in Appendix B) Therefore H4c is accepted.
H5a: Communication opportunities moderate the relationship between New Ways of Working and job performance. Communication opportunities positively influence the relationship between NWW and job performance. Hypothesis 5 subs a tested the moderating effect of communication opportunities on the relationship between NWW and job performance. The moderating effect is tested by Model 1 by Hayes (2014). The model showed no significant effect of the interaction between
NWW and communication opportunities (b*=-.038, n.s.) (see table 9 Appendix A). Therefore hypothesis 5a was rejected.
H5b: Communication opportunities moderate the relationship between New Ways of Working and job satisfaction. Communication opportunities positively influence the relationship between NWW and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 5 subs b tested the moderating effect of communication opportunities on the relationship between NWW and job satisfaction. The moderating effect is tested by Model 1 by Hayes (2014). The model showed no significant effect of the interaction between NWW and communication opportunities (b*=-.107, n.s.) (see table 10 Appendix A), Therefore hypothesis 5b was rejected.
H5c: Communication opportunities moderate the relationship between New Ways of Working and professional isolation. . Communication opportunities
negatively influence the relationship between NWW and professional isolation. The final hypothesis tested the moderation effect of communication opportunities on the relationship between NWW and professional isolation. . The moderating effect is tested by Model 1 by Hayes (2014). The model showed to be significant
95%-CI[.0583,.4669]. Thus communication was a significant moderator of the relationship between NWW and professional isolation (b*=.262, t=2.53, p=.01) (see table 11 Appendix A). The effect of NWW on professional isolation became weaker as the score on communication opportunities scale increased (see table 12 Appendix A). Therefore hypothesis 5d is accepted.
The main objective of this study was to examine whether New Ways of
Working (NWW) has an influence on job performance and which role communication plays in this process. Therefore, the following research question was formulated: How does New Ways of Working influence job performance, and what is the role of
communication in this process? In order to answer the research question, a case study was conducted at a Dutch organization operating in financial services. The results provide empirical support for a direct link between NWW and job performance, job satisfaction and work-life balance as shown in previous research (McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 1999; Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Fonner & Roloff, 2010; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; McNall, Masuda & Nicklin, 2010). Furthermore, the results show an indirect influence of NWW on job performance mediated by work-life balance and professional isolation. Both findings are in line with prior research on the mediating effect of work-life balance (Gajedran & Harrison, 2007; Wright et al., 2007) and professional isolation (Golden et al., 2008) on the relationship between NWW and job performance. In contrast with previous research (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden, Veiga & Dino, 2008; Thatcher & Zhu, 2006), empirical evidence shows that NWW has a negative effect on professional isolation. The moderating role of communication on the
relationship between NWW and work-related outcomes has been partially confirmed. The results show that communication only moderates the relationship between NWW and professional isolation. The following section will provide the interpretation of the findings.
First, the results demonstrated a positive direct effect of NWW on job
performance, job satisfaction and work-life balance. Employees performed better, were more satisfied with their job and experienced greater work-life balance because of
NWW. This is in line with previous studies suggesting that NWW boost job performance and satisfaction because individuals experience fewer disruptions (Daniels, et al., 2001; Hunton, 2005), are better able to keep pace at work (Bailey & Kurland, 2002), feel less stress and time pressure (Gajendran &Harrison, 2007), and perceive more autonomy (Bailyn, 1989).
Second, the results also demonstrated an indirect effect of NWW on job
performance. The relationship between NWW and job performance is mediated both by work-life balance and professional isolation. Work-life balance had a positive effect on job performance in a NWW environment. Employees with a better work-life balance have a higher performance. This is in line with Wright et al. (2007), who found that family friendly policies as flex-time and childcare have positive effect on employee’s job performance because of employee’s psychological well-being. Also, professional isolation mediated the relationship between NWW and job performance. Professional isolation had a negative effect on job performance. According to Golden et al. (2008), professionally isolated teleworkers are less likely and able to receive, accurately interpret, or use important information, which affects their job performance. It is noteworthy that the ‘happy productive worker’ theory (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) did not find empirical support. This calls for more examination in future research.
Third, the results demonstrated a positive effect of NWW on professional isolation. Employees felt less professional isolated while working in a NWW
environment. A potential explanation for this result is provided by Cooper and Kurland (2002), who found that the extent to which employee might feel professional isolation depends on the extent to which the activities like inter-personal networking, informal learning and mentoring are valued in the workplace. Another potential explanation may be found in the increased use of advanced communication technologies. Ten
Brummelhuis et al. (2012) found that new media technologies contribute to efficient and effective communication. According to Ten Brummelhuis et al. (2012), efficient and effective communication prevents employees from feeling isolated while telecommuting, and satisfies their basic human need for relatedness. This is in line with the findings presented in this study.
Finally, the results showed no moderation effect of communication on the relationship between NWW and job performance or job satisfaction. Based on prior research, those results are against expectation since multiple authors found evidence for the importance of communication in an organizational context (e.g. Pincus et al. (1990), Golden et al. (2008), Golden (2006)). Communication is only found to play a moderating role on the relationship between NWW and professional isolation. The results showed that openness and trust in communication, information sharing, perceived feelings of having a voice, and being taken seriously lower professional isolation in a NWW environment.
Limitations
One limitation of this study may be the use of one organization as a source of
respondents. The respondents may be biased by organizational context. In order to make the result more generalizable, it is recommended for future research to collect respondents form different organizations operating in different sectors. A next limitation may be the sample size; 268 out of approximately 5,000 employees completed the online survey in a one-week period of time. For future research, it is recommended to expand the period of data collection in order to recruit more respondents. A major limitation of this study is the lack of support for a moderating effect of communication on the relationship between NWW and job performance or job satisfaction. This lack of empirical support may be caused by the choice of communication opportunities scale. It is recommended for
future research to examine whether other communication scales fit better in the NWW context. Finally, performance was measured by employee’s self-ratings. Self-rating may result in socially desirable responding (Paulhus, 1988).
Implications
Despite several limitations, this study provides empirical evidence that NWW facilitate higher job performance, job satisfaction and a better work-life balance. The potential drawback of professional isolation is shown to be non-existing. The findings from the present study have a number of theoretical and practical implications. First, the results of the present study contribute to a better understanding of the concept of NWW and its potential advantages. The results help to establish the research agenda for future studies. It is recommended to examine whether NWW also have beneficial effects on other work-related outcomes. Next, the knowledge gap on the role of communication in the context of NWW still needs more empirical examination. Future research could for example extend communication with other aspects of communication. The results of this study have also practical implications. These findings provide the organizations with empirical evidence that NWW foster job performance, job satisfaction and work-life balance, and therefore it can be used to justify the implementation of more flexible work designs.
This research showed that NWW contribute to organizational effectiveness and therefore it can be concluded that New Ways of Working = Effective Ways of Working.
References
Alastair, D., Coldwell, L., & Callaghan, C.W. (2013). Specific organizational citizenship behaviours and organizational effectiveness: The development of a
conceptual heuristic device. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44 (3), pp. 347-366. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12046
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behaviour on performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), pp. 247-264. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A.G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), pp. 293-315. doi:
10.1177/014920639902500303
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G. & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human relations, 46(3), pp. 1-23
Arnold, J., Cooper, C.L., & Robertson, I.T. (1998). Work psychology: understanding human behaviour in the workplace. 3rd ed. Pearson Education: Prentice Hall.
Baarne, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken
ontrafeld. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum/Stichting Management Studies.
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of applied psychology, 84, pp. 496-513. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.496
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 Behaviour, 23(4), pp. 383-400. doi: 10.1002/job.144
Bailyn, L. (1989). Toward the perfect workplaces? Communications of the ACM, 32(4), pp. 460–471.
Baruch, Y. (2001). The status of research on teleworking and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(2), 113-29. doi: 10.1111/1468- 2370.00058
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. If you read nothing else on change, read thes ebest-selling articles. 15.
Bélanger, F. (1999). Workers ’ propensity to telecommute: An empirical study. Information and Management, 35, pp. 139–153.
Blok, M., Groenesteijn, L., Van den Berg, C., and Vink, P., (2011). New ways of working: A proposed framework and literature review. Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6779, pp. 3-12. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21716-6_1
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects of rate task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), pp. 168-186. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.168
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of
Byars, L. L., & Rue, L. W. (2000). Human resource management. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the army selections and classification project (Project A). Personnel Psychology, 9, pp. 309-32.
Chalofsky, N. and V. Krishna (2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, (2), pp. 189-203
Churchill, G. A., Gilbert, A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, O. C. (1985). The determinants of salesperson performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 103-118.
Clampitt, P.G., & Downs, C.W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between communication and productivity: a field study. Journal of Business Communication, 30(1), pp. 5 – 28. doi: 10.1177/002194369303000101
Clark, S. (2000). Work-family border theory: a new theory of work-life balance. Human Relations, 53 (6), pp. 747-770. doi: 10.1177/0018726700536001
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, pp. 511-532. doi:10.1002/job.145
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization science, 12(3), 346-371.
Danisman, A. (2010). Good intentions and failed implementations:
Understanding culture-based resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19(2), pp. 200-220. doi:
10.1080/13594320902850541
Daly, F., Teague, P., & Kitchen, P. (2003). Exploring the role of internal communication during organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(3), pp. 153-162.
Daniels, K., Lamond, D., & Standen, P. (2001). Teleworking: frameworks for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), pp. 1151-1185. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00276
De Cieri, H., Holmes, B., Abbott, J., & Pettit, T. (2005). Achievements and challenges for work/life balance strategies in Australian organizations. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), pp. 90-103. doi: 10.1080/0958519042000295966
De Menezes, L. M., & Kelliher, C. (2011). Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), pp. 452-474. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00301.x
Dennis, H. (1974). A theoretical and empirical study of managerial
communication climate in complex organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Communication, Purdue University, USA. Retrieved from:
Desanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication processes for virtual organizations. Journal of Computer‐ Mediated Communication, 3(4), 1-23. doi: 0.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00083.x
Diekema, D. A. (1992). Aloneness and social form. Symbolic Interaction, 15, pp. 481-500
Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), pp. 129-138. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280510596943
Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. Journal of managerial psychology, 18(1), pp. 8-21. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310459565
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010). Why teleworkers are more satisfied with their jobs than are office-based workers: when less contact is beneficial, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), pp. 336-361. doi:
10.1080/00909882.2010.513998
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2012). Testing the connectivity paradox: Linking teleworkers’ communication media use to social presence, stress from interruptions, and organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 79(2), pp. 205–231. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2012.673000
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp. 362–377. doi:
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, pp. 1524-1541. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.92.6.1524
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,51(3), 451-495.
Golden, T. D. (2006). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), pp. 319-340. doi:
10.1002/job.369
Golden, T.D. (2007). Coworkers who telework and the impact on those in the office: Understanding the implications of virtual work for co-worker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 60, pp. 1641-1667. doi:
10.1177/0018726707084303
Golden, T.D., & Raghuram, S. (2010). Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological interactions. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31, pp. 1061-1085. doi: 10.1002/job.652
Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F., & Dino, R.N. (2008), The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting fact-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing
technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 1412-21. doi:10.1037/a0012722.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person–organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254-275.
Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D. (2000). Effects of communication direction on job performance and satisfaction: A moderated regression analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 37(4), pp. 348-368. doi:
0.1177/002194360003700402
Gulnar, B. (2007). The relationship between communication satisfaction and job satisfaction: A survey among Selcuk University research assistants. In The Fifth Symposium Between Turkish and American Scholars Conducted at Indiana
University, Indiana, USA.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp. 250-279
Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., Lyness, K. P., & Ziemba, S. J. (2006). Practices of dual earner couples successfully balancing work and family. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(2), pp. 207-234. doi: 10.1007/s10834-006-9014-y
Haddon, L. & Brynin, M. (2005). The character of telework and the
characteristics of teleworkers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, pp. 34-46.
Hansen, M. T. 2002. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, pp. 232–248. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771
Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work-life conflict: finding an extra day or two. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), pp. 349 - 375. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019282
Hilbrecht, M., Shaw, S. M., Johnson, L. C., & Andrey, J. (2008). ‘I'm Home for the Kids’: Contradictory Implications for Work–Life Balance of Teleworking Mothers. Gender, Work & Organization, 15(5), pp. 454-476. doi:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00413.x
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 88–115. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, pp. 251-273. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.251
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (1998). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: 1939-1998. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376.
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63, pp. 83-106. doi: 10.1177/0018726709349199
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), pp. 175-192.
Kurland, N.B., Pelled, L.H. (2000). Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review 25, pp. 428-439. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2000.3312928
Konrad, A. M., & Mangel, R. (2000). Research notes and commentaries the impact of worklife programs on firm productivity. Strategic Management Journal, pp. 1225-1237.
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working across boundaries with technology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 1297-1343.
McCauley, D. P., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management..Public Administration Quarterly, 16(2) pp. 265-284. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40862286
McCloskey, D. W., & Igbaria, M. (2003). Does" out of sight" mean" out of mind"? An empirical investigation of the career advancement prospects of
telecommuters. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(2), pp.19-34. doi: 10.4018/irmj.2003040102
McNall, L.A. , Masuda, A.D. & Nicklin J.M., (201). Flexible Work Arrangements, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-Family Enrichment. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied. 114(1), pp. 61-81. doi: 10.1080/00223980903356073
Nord, W. R., Fox, S., Phoenix, A., & Viano, K. (2002). Real-world reactions to work-life balance programs: Lessons for effective implementation. Organizational Dynamics, 30(3), pp. 223-238. doi:
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome (Vol. 133): Lexington books Lexington, MA.
Pincus, J.D. Knipp, J.E., & Rayfield, R.E. (1990). Internal Communication and Job Satisfaction Revisited: The Impact of Organizational Trust and Influence on Cmmercial Bank Supervisors. Public Relations Research Annual, 2(1), pp. 173-191. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr0201-4_7
Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human communication research, 12(3), pp. 395-419.
Pincus, J. D., & Rayfield, R. E. (1989) “ Organizational communication and job satisfaction: A meta-research perspective”, In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (eds.), Progress in communication sciences, 9, pp. 183-208.
Pinsonneault, A., & Boisvert, M. (1999). The impacts of telecommuting on organizations and individuals: A review of the literature: École des hautes études commerciales, Groupe de recherche en système d'information.
Piskurich G. (1996). Making telecommuting work. Training & Development 50, pp 20-27.
