Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-12T21:52:21.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - “Good teleworking”: under what conditions does teleworking enhance employees' well-being?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

By
Ellen Ernst Kossek ,
Brenda A. Lautsch  and
Susan C. Eaton
Edited by
Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Yair Amichai-Hamburger
Affiliation:
Sammy Ofer School of Communications, Interdisciplinary Center, Israel
Get access

Summary

Myth: The home is a benign place to work and enables teleworkers to “have it all” – excel at both work and family. Work is portable to home without any downside.

Reality: For many employees, moving the workplace to the home can hurt an employee's home life and create new social dilemmas, especially if employees do not perceive control over the timing, location, and process of work, and believe they are able to create boundaries that allow them to sometimes separate work and family roles.

Given the increasing availability of formal and informal access to teleworking and other flexible work arrangements, in this chapter our goal is to understand the kinds of psychological working conditions under which use of teleworking is more likely to enhance employee well-being. We will show that “good teleworking” or teleworking where use is likely to be related to favorable outcomes for the workers' well-being has several psychological job design characteristics. We draw on survey and interview data from a sample of 316 professional employees in two Fortune 500 firms. Our chapter emphasizes two main features of good teleworking.

First, perceived psychological control over when, where, and how one teleworks matters for well-being. We will show that employees with higher perceived personal control over the location, timing, and process of work experience significantly lower work–family conflict, turnover intentions, and are less likely to want to move to a new career.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Technology and Psychological Well-being , pp. 148 - 173
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Alliance for Work/Life Progress (2001). Telework trendlines. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=21945.
Apgar, M. (1998). The alternative workplace: Changing where and how people work. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 121–136.Google ScholarPubMed
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., and Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, C., and Zabel, D. (2001). The Flexible Workplace: A sourcebook of information and research. Westport, CT: Quorum.Google Scholar
Bailey, D. E., and Kurland, N. B. (2002). Review of telework research, findings: New directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., and Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boroff, K., and Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). National Compensation Survey: Survey of Employee Benefits. Retrieved May 2003, from www.bls.gov.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53(6), 747–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, S. (2003). If you can use them: Flexibility policies, organizational commitment and perceived performance. Industrial Relations, 42, 145–167.Google Scholar
Fedor, D., and Rowland, K. (1989). Investigating supervisor attributions of subordinate performance. Journal of Management, 15, 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Y., and Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, S. D., Christensen, P., and DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum game. Harvard Business Review, Nov.–Dec., 119–129.Google ScholarPubMed
Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them?American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1157–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, B., Kellowy, E., and Barham, E. (1988). Flexible Work Arrangements: Managing the work–family boundary. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Grover, S., and Crooker, K. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., and Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackman, R., and Oldham, G. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hill, E. J., Miller, B. C., Weiner, S. P., and Colihan, J. (1998). Influences of the virtual office on aspects of work and work/life balance. Personnel Psychology, 5, 667–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, L. (2002). Work and home as competing and complementary domains. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and Family in the United States: A critical review and agenda for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kellogg, K. (2001). From telecommuting to timework: Looking back in order to look ahead. Doctoral paper for graduate course credit, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kossek, E. E. (2006). Work and family in America: Growing tensions between employment policy and a changing workforce. A thirty year perspective. Commissioned chapter by SHRM Foundation and University of California Center for Organizational Effectiveness for the 30th anniversary of the State of Work in America. In Lavles, E. and O'Toole, J. (Eds.), America at Work: Choices and challenges (pp. 53–72). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossek, E., Barber, A., and Winters, D. (1999). Managerial use of flexible work schedules: The power of peers. Human Resource Management Journal, 38, 33–46.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossek, E., and Lautsch, B. (2008). CEO of Me: Creating a life that works in the flexible job age. New Jersey: Pearson/Wharton Press.Google Scholar
Kossek, E., Lautsch, B., and Eaton, S. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossek, E., Noe, R., and DeMarr, B. (1999). Work–family role synthesis: Individual, family and organizational determinants. International Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10, 102–129.Google Scholar
Kossek, E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., and DeMarr, B. (1998). Career self-management: A quasi-experimental assessment of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51, 935–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokhtarian, P., Bagley, M., and Saloman, 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, 1115–1134.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Home and Work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlow, L. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family in a high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 328–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. L., Newstorm, J. W., Dunham, R. B., and Barber, A. E. (1989). Alternative Work Schedules. Boston: Allyn Bacon.Google Scholar
Poster, W., and Prasad, S. (2005). Work–family relations in transnational perspective: A view from high-tech firms in India and the United States. Social Problems, 52(1), 122–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J., and Pruitt, B. (2002). Beyond Work–Family Balance: Advancing gender equity and workplace performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rau, B. L., and Hyland, M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehling, P. V., Roehling, M. V., and Moen, P. (2001). The relationship between work–life policies and practices and employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scandura, T., and Lankau, M. (1997). Relationship of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hours to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 377–391.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zedeck, S. (1992). Exploring the domain of work and family concerns. In Zedeck, S. (Ed.), Work, Families, and Organizations (pp. 1–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×