Resea RRR CH

The impact of one’s attitude towards work and its working environment affects the job quality and
productivity, thus, affecting the organization itself. In an organization, job satisfactiom is an attitude
associated with the degree to which people like or dislike their job. A low-level job satisfaction predicts
negative attitudes and behavior in work, such as absenteeism, external turnover, and reduced
productivity. Among others, the characteristics of the work itself and the employee's job principles
determine the causes that can lead to dissatisfaction and satisfaction (Susanty, Miradipta, & Jie, 2013).
However, due to the growing number of workers, one of the things now considers . being the origin of
this is the disruption of family work (Galinsky, 2001).
The familywork conflict has become a relevant issue for contemporary organizations because both labor
and family life of an employee begins to override and, consequently, distract each other for a weighty
commitment atjwork. The relationship between job satisfaction and work-family conflict is such that an
increasc in work-family conflict reduces the level of satisfaction. Job satisfaction influenced by the
degree of compatibility between the work role and important part of life. Work and family roles are two
of the most important responsibility in life; we can imagine that the individual can also create a negative
attitude towards work. And since the organizational structures, policies, and practices are changing
abruptly; employees are important for employers and organizations. The group asks most of the time
employees, efforts, priorities, and attractions to be useful and beneficial to this ever-changing world
(Loretto, 2018).
The researchers found that the relationship between working remotely and job satisfaction subsided,
and the employees’ job satisfaction levels decreased at higher levels of remote work. In other words,
this finding’s main implication is that employees are able to socially connect in person with their
coworkers and managers, while also having the flexibility of meeting their personal needs when they
work remotely only several days out of the week. Alternatively, when employees work the majority of
their work week remotely, they experience more isolation due to less 8 social interaction with their
colleagues at work, which leads to a decline in their job satisfaction levels. Allen, Golden, and Shockley
(2015) found in a recent meta-analysis that remote work was positively associated with job satisfaction,
however, the correlation was small (r = .09).
Work family conflict

The second conceptual theme concerning telecommuting’s effects on the work–family interface has
been the subject of much scholarly debate. Some scholars view telecommuting as a good thing that
leads to greater integration between the work and family roles (e.g., Duxbury, Higgins, & Neufeld, 1998;
Raghuram & Wiesenfeld, 2004). Others regard telecommuting as a bad thing that may intensify conflict
by increasing the permeability of work and family boundaries (e.g., Igbaria & Guimaraes, 1999; Standen
et al., 1999). Empirical evidence resolving this debate has been inconclusive (Duxbury et al., 1998;
Raghuram & Wiesenfeld, 2004)
As we suggested earlier, debate continues about the work– family consequences of telecommuting. On
one hand, telecommuting increases the permeability of boundaries in life domains, making it easier for
one domain to intrude on the other, potentially leading to work–family conflict (Standen et al., 1999).
Boundary permeability in the context of telecommuting refers to the degree to which either family or
work encroaches on the other because they occupy the same place and, potentially, the same time
(Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996). Such permeability
could also make psychological disengagement from work more difficult, increasing the likelihood of
time-based conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). For example, the information and communication
technologies supporting telecommuting may encourage employees to continue working at home even
after normal work hours (Boswell & OlsonBuchanan, 2004). This may be especially true for individuals
with an integrative boundary management strategy who find it difficult to separate activities between
home and work (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). On the other hand, increased boundary flexibility
from telecommuting can help employees regulate and synchronize demands between work and family
and, potentially, reduce work–family conflict (Duxbury et al., 1998; Kirchmeyer, 1995; Raghuram &
Wiesenfeld, 2004). Boundary flexibility from telecommuting refers to the degree to which the location
(home vs. central location) and timing of work are under the employees’ control (Ashforth et al., 2000).
Accordingly, the prediction forwarded below emphasizes the boundary flexibility or control offered by
most forms of telecommuting (see also L. T. Thomas & Ganster, 1995). This flexibility can also mitigate
the negative effects of permeability by allowing employees to schedule work optimally to minimize
interference from family. Further, employees can introduce greater segmentation at home through the
creation of detached home office spaces that discourage interruptions from family members. Although
this could mean that telecommuters work longer hours than when at a central location, they may be
able to schedule those hours to mesh with the schedules of family members, reducing time-based
conflict. Through the reduction in commuting hours, telecommuting also increases temporal resources
that might be available to family activities (rather than the transition to and from work; Greenhaus &
Beutell, 1985).
Therefore, we expect the following: Hypothesis 2: Telecommuting is negatively related to work– family
conflict.
Communication/social keme
The third conceptual theme deals with concerns about telecommuting’s potential for relational
impoverishment at work. The reduction in face-to-face interactions, the lower frequency and richness of
communication between telecommuters and other organization members (Daft & Lengel, 1986), and,
thus, the diminCONSEQUENCES OF TELECOMMUTING 1525 ished social presence (Short, Williams, &
Christie, 1976) telecommuters have weakens the interpersonal bonds they have with their coworkers or
supervisors (Golden, 2006b; Nardi & Whittaker, 2002). These negative consequences are likely to be
especially severe for individuals who work away from their central work location for the major portion
of their work week.
Autonomy
Telecommuters in general are likely to experience increased feelings of freedom and discretion because
they are spatially and psychologically removed from direct, face-to-face supervision (DuBrin, 1991).
Those employees engaged in part-time telecommuting arrangements are also likely to experience
increased autonomy because of the flexibility they are afforded over the location of their work (Shamir
& Salomon, 1985). An implicit assumption in the telecommuting literature has been that flexibility in
work location is likely to increase self-reliance in scheduling particular tasks and to increase control over
the means of completing them: Flexibility equals control (Duxbury et al., 1998; Raghuram, Garud,
Wiesenfeld, & Gupta, 2001). This increased flexibility in the timing and execution of tasks enhances
employees’ perceptions of autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In addition, performing one’s tasks at
home allows control over breaks, clothing, layout, decoration, lighting, ventilation, music, and other
ambient elements that can contribute to increased feelings of autonomy (Elsbach, 2003; Standen, 2000).
These arguments lead us to propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: Telecommuting is positively related to perceived autonomy
Job satisfaction
Telecommuting provides employees with the choice of working away from a central location. It also
leads to reduced costs of working, via savings in transportation hassles, time, and money for employees,
and (in many cases) formal business dress is not required. By providing the opportunity to telecommute,
such an arrangement could also symbolize an employer’s willingness to alter the work environment in
response to employees’ needs. This might also be perceived by employees as reflecting or allowing a
greater fit between themselves and their job, which is an aspect of positive work role adjustment
(Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, & Neuman, 1999; Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1968). Altogether, these
benefits of telecommuting lead us to assert the following: Hypothesis 4: Telecommuting is positively
related to job satisfaction
Job performance/productivity
Improved productivity is probably the most widely touted benefit associated with telecommuting
(McCloskey & Igbaria, 2003; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). A chief explanation for this proposed
advantage in performance is that doing tasks remotely also means fewer disruptions while working
(Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Telecommuting is also expected to increase productivity through increased
work hours made possible by time saved from not commuting (Apgar, 1998). Finally, telecommuting
provides individuals the opportunity to tailor or modify the work environment to better match how and
when they do their work most effectively. Baltes et al. (1999) made a similar argument for improved
performance in the context of flexible work scheduling. Therefore, we expect the following: Hypothesis
5: Telecommuting is positively related to job performance.
Turn over intent

Another often-cited advantage of telecommuting, especially in the practitioner literature, has been its
presumed capability to help retain employees who might otherwise have quit (if such a work
arrangement had not been offered; Kraut, 1987; Pinsonneault & Boisvert, 2001). Firms are advised to
provide telecommuting to their employees as a form of competitive edge in attracting and keeping the
best talent (AT&T, 2004; Vega, 2003). Moreover, Scandura and Lankau (1997) suggested that work
arrangements such as telecommuting increase the value of the psychological contract employees have
with their organization. These authors proposed that organizations providing employees with the
flexibility to work from home are providing a positive signal, visibly demonstrating their trust and
support for employees’ well-being. This signal from organizations should, in turn, generate greater
psychological commitment and a lowered tendency to quit (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Thus, we
anticipate the following: Hypothesis 6: Telecommuting is negatively related to turnover intent.
Employee role stress

Telecommuting reduces the stress associated with getting ready for and commuting to work; commuting
itself is a potential work role stressor. Further, Pierce and Newstrom (1980) argued that having to arrive
at work, especially at a fixed time every day, causes distress because lateness has negative reputational
consequences at the workplace. Similarly, the flexibility provided by the most common forms of
telecommuting could allow greater participation in recreational social or sports activities that could
mitigate negative physiological consequences of role stress experienced on the job (Konradt et al.,
2003). Hence, we expect the following: Hypothesis 7: Telecommuting is negatively related to employee
role stress.
Kabuuan
Taken together, these themes hint at a “telecommuting paradox” of mutually incompatible

consequences for employees. If telecommuting were to enhance perceived autonomy and lower work–
family conflict, this would, in turn, enhance job-related attitudes, improve performance, and reduce
stress. Simultaneously, if telecommuting also were to damage vital work relationships and hamper
career advancement, this would imply that outcomes in the work and nonwork domains come at the
expense of— or are negatively correlated with— outcomes in the relationship or social domain. The
notion that the first two sets of consequences are incompatible with the third, at least in conventional
work arrangements, comes from previous meta-analytic research. However, relationship quality with
one’s supervisor and coworkers is positively associated with attitudinal outcomes, such as increased job
satisfaction, as well as behavioral and physiological outcomes, such as enhanced effectiveness and
reduced stress (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997; Sousa-Poza & Sousa-Poza, 2000; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, &
Fisher, 1999). In the following sections, we examine whether this paradox is sustained by empirical
evidence through a quantitative summary and cumulative tests of telecommuting findings

Resea RRR CH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Resea RRR CH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The impact of one’s attitude towards work and its working environment affects the job quality and

Work family conflict

Hypothesis 1: Telecommuting is positively related to perceived autonomy

Turn over intent

Employee role stress

Taken together, these themes hint at a “telecommuting paradox” of mutually incompatible

You might also like